Sex Education: Silence In Class

95% of all people aged 16-24 who took part in a THT survey on sex education who did not learn about LGBT sex and relationships.

97% thought sex and relationships education should be LGBT inclusive.

You can read the full report, 'SRE: Shh... No Talking' here.

Apology Of The Week: Norman Fowler

Margaret Thatcher's health minister today apologised for the controversial Section 28 of the Local Government Act as he backed a campaign to make sex education — including lessons on gay relationships — compulsory in schools.

Lord Fowler told the Evening Standard: “We have come a long way. It [Section 28] was a great mistake and I think it’s now recognised as a great mistake and I would apologise for it. It was totally misjudged.”

Lord Fowler was part of the Eighties Government that brought in the ban on schools from promoting homosexuality as a “normal family relationship”. The law was repealed in 2003.

He has signed a letter calling for sex education to be made statutory and suitable for both heterosexual and homosexual students.

The letter, written by gay rights campaigners, warned that children will get their sex education from internet pornography unless they are taught it by qualified teachers.

Lord Fowler, who was behind the Don’t Die Of Ignorance Aids information campaign in the Eighties, said properly taught school lessons could “torpedo inaccurate and sensationalised information” children come across online...Evening Standard.

And it only took a quarter of a century to realise this...

That same-sex SRE open letter in full.

And finally... Norman Fowler's recent book, Aids: Don't Die Of Prejudice.

Section 28: Get Back To Russia!

Yesterday's i front page.
Here's the editor's letter.
It's thought that more than 40 schools - about half academies - have Section 28-inspired SRE guidelines that forbid teachers from "promoting homosexuality", or say something hopelessly vague.
This comes from research conducted by the British Humanist Association.
What a bloody country - think I'll defect to Russia.

PS Today The Independent reports several of these schools have said they're dropping their policy; "Responses follow The Independent's disclosure" [sic].

Sex Education: True Faith

Christina Patterston offers a warning in The Independent today about the increasing encroachment of religion into British politics.
And how the relationship between Cameron's Conservative Coalition government and "faith groups" is becoming ever closer and cosier.
Patterson notes that eight of the 24 flagship "free schools" opening this week have a "faith ethos".
And of course how: "Nadine Dorries, the MP for Mid-Bedfordshire, is proposing an amendment to the Health Bill which will ensure that women planning abortions will get 'independent counselling. Since the Bill is designed to cut the abortion rate by a third, many people wonder just how "independent" that can be."
Perhaps most worrying of all, all seven of the "sex and education providers" asked to join the Sex And Relationships Council - a new government advisory group - are faith groups.
(Note to older readers "Sex And Relationships" is now the proper name for what we knew as "Sex Education lessons").
So this council advises the government on how sex and relationships is/are taught in schools.
Got that?
Shall we have a look who's on it?
Here are the seven founding members and what they stand for:
[All quotes taken direct from their websites]

Challenge Team UK - Legz Akimbo Theatre Company-types who tour schools promoting sexual abstinence before marriage through embarrassing plays. Covertly Christian. "Saving sex gives adolescents who may be confused about their sexuality time to mature before deciding whether they are 'gay' or 'straight'."

Evaluate - the educational outreach wing of CARE - "a well-established Christian charity providing resources and helping to bring Christian insight and experience to matters of public policy."
Pro-abstinence - Slightly obsessed with STDs.
Care evolved out of Mary Whitehouse's Festival Of Light who protested "the permissive society" eg TV filth and The Gays.

Family Education Trust - "supports the traditional family... It has no political or religious affiliations..."
Eh? They're a Conservative Christian fundamentalist group. Previously known as Family & Youth Concern; the FYC were a right-wing pressure group that played a key role in the homophobic scaremongering about schools that led to Section 28.

LIFE - the anti-abortion (and pro-abstinence) charity. Claims to be non-religious - actually Catholic.

Lovewise - "a charity which seeks to help schools and youth groups by providing presentations on the subjects of marriage, sex and relationships from a Christian perspective." "Wanting to warn young people to avoid the important medical consequences of sex outside marriage, they developed presentations that encourage them to consider the God-given design of marriage."

Right to Life - anti-abortion lobby group, also big on "defending the child’s right to a father." Catholic? Does the pope shit in the woods?

Silver Ring Thing - Ghastly American evangelical group that "promotes the message of abstinence until marriage centered in a relationship with Jesus Christ." Praise be!

So all are Christian "faith groups" (Explicit or not).
And all eight are pro-abstinence, anti-abortion and/or anti-gay.
Most claim to be politically unaffiliated, none are progressive, several belong on the right-wing lunatic fringe.
Must we fling this filth at our kids?

As Christine Patterson concludes; "Women have fought hard for the right not to have their bodies controlled by somebody else's God, and so have lesbians and gay men. It's beginning to look as though we might need to start fighting again."

Parliamentary News: Tory MP Introduces Stupid Anti-Sex Bill

Yesterday Tory MP Nadine Dorries introduced a Ten Minute Rule Bill into parliament - the Sex Education (Required Content) Bill 2010-11

"A Bill to require schools to provide certain additional sex education to girls aged between 13 and 16; to provide that such education must include information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity; and for connected purposes." [Hansard]

So far, so daft - so what?
It's a Private Member's Bill that doesn't stand a chance in hell of becoming law - these things are more of a way for MPs to get themselves in the papers to show they really, really care about something or other.
What's interesting - and worrying - is that when introducing her bill yesterday, Dorries' brought together several current moral panics. [Full debate here]
Not just teaching sexual abstinence to girls' (and only girls, oddly), but also "the sexualisation of young girls and the prevalence of pornography".
She quoted Joan Bakewell; "Why else sexualise the clothes of little girls, run TV channels full of naked wives, have sex magazines edging out the serious stuff?”
Dorries declared solemnly; "In fact, in some newsagents now there are more sex magazines available than any other kind of magazine."
The Labour MP Chris Bryant, (yes, the Gaydar one), replied rather brilliantly; "Well, stop going to those shops then."
She was not amused. Note how she didn't say "pornographic magazines", but "sex magazines" - presumably allying herself with the campaigns to get lads' mags and gay mags off the shelves.
She also omitted the warning from Joan Bakewell's article which contradicts her;
"Yet there is still resistance in some quarters to explicit sex education for cildren. No wonder young girls get mixed messages and grow up to make bad decisions. Sex as glamour – good. Sex as normal behaviour – dodgy."
Dorries but of course swiftly moved on to this month's hot topic; sexual content on TV pre-watershed.
"Our society is saturated in sex: a typical prime-time hour on TV contains 2.6 references to intercourse, 1.2 references to prostitution and rape, and 4.7 sexual innuendoes."
Bryant - who has done much research on sex education - went on to demolish "the daftest piece of legislation I have seen". [Read his reply in full here] concluding;
"Finally, the only thing that I would add is that, sadly, many youngsters get only 10 minutes of sex education in their whole lives. They do not get proper sex and relationship education; they spend less time on it than we have had to debate the issue today."
Hear hear!
The National Children’s Bureau’s sex education forum said in a statement; "There is strong evidence that young people who have sex education that starts early and covers a broad range of topics are less likely to have sex at a young age, have fewer partners and are more likely to use contraception or condoms.
"There is also extensive evidence that a ‘just say no’ or ‘abstinence only’ approach combined with no information (or incorrect information) about contraception is not effective."
Simon Blake, chief executive of sex education charity Brook, said; "Any debate that polarises views about sex and relationships education is unhelpful. It’s time to recognise that abstinence has been so discredited by the evidence that it’s hardly worthy of debate."
The bill just passed its first reading in a thinly attended House - its second reading won't be until early next year.
As before, it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but sometimes private member's bills can snowball and be adopted and/or incorporated into actual government legislation.
Particularly if they chime in with current press prejudices and obsessions - and Nadine Dorries' speech namechecked at least three.
Be warned, it was bonkers backbench bigoted MPs reactionary mumblings in the 80s that led to Section 28.

• Quite awful piece of journalism in The Daily Mail on a small survey by a commercial website, BabyChild.org.uk, of parental attitudes to sex education.
Headline: "Sex education should not be taught in schools, say more than half of parents"
Their survey actually said: "Almost half (48 per cent) of those questioned said children should be at least 13 years old before it is appropriate to teach them about sex, the survey found."