Anglican Mainstream

By QC

Part 2: Imaginary conversation between myself & a friend [in italics] Part I here

At the end of our last conversation we agreed that unless parents were prepared to judiciously discuss sex with their children, they would be at the mercy of `sex-educators’, who might well turn them into sexual delinquents.

Yes.

`Sex-educators’ include those teaching sex to children in schools.

Of course.

What line should parents take?

You tell me!

Well, under education law, parents are legally responsible for their children’s education, but parents decide what schools teach.

Including sex education?

Of course.

But not all schools espouse Christian and traditional values.

Hardly.

So, what happens to parents whose values are rejected by their schools, especially regarding sex education?

They could confront the head and key teachers; they could appeal to the school governors; they could organise a pressure group with other concerned parents…

Are you saying permissive sex-education is made possible by the passivity of parents?

Yes. But don’t forget parents are unfamiliar with government guidance on the subject, which is remarkably vague. And they end up feeling personally threatened.

So, you recommend…

Schools should serve parents’ wishes regarding sex-education. Parents should have the right to decide the content; otherwise, they should have the right to see the content in advance, and the right to withdraw their children if the parents find it offensive.

The situation sounds confusing!

Rather a mixed picture, I should say. As far as I am aware, parents do not decide the contents anywhere. Sometimes, they might be consulted if the parents express interest. And, more than likely, I think parents who object to the content of the sex-ed their child is receiving will be told to take their child to a different school. If not already happening, then they will be soon. That is a real risk.

Not a satisfactory situation!

The situation urgently needs clarification at national level. Then, parents would know their rights, and be more ready to act on them.

But why are we in this mess, anyway?

Much is due to the influence of Kinsey.

Kinsey?

American, died in 1956, I think. He claimed that at least 10% of the population was homosexual. He prioritised `freedom’: the freedom to be a `human animal’, free from judgment, laws, moral restrictions and religious doctrine.

Monstrous!

Yes, and Miriam Grossmann also said that both Kinsey and one of his followers, John Money, claimed sex between adults and children could be beneficial. Incest, even. And the world would be a better place if not only farm animals but human males are neutered at birth.

They hated the concept of gender?

Indeed. In fact, they believed infants are born gender-neutral, and that differences in behaviour are due to socialisation.

And these ideas have penetrated sex-education?

Certainly. Organisations centred on SIECUS, like Planned Parenthood and Advocates for Youth in the United States; and, in this country, the fpa, Marie Stopes and the Terrence Higgins Trust.

So, we need clarification at national level. Then, parents would be `crystal clear’ regarding their rights concerning sex-ed, and be in a far stronger position to act on them. And the dubious content of so much ex-ed today is due to the influence of Kinsey, and his followers?

Yes

[to be continued]

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.