Reason is not enough

A few further thoughts on the modern crisis in our understanding of human sexuality...

Part of the Post-Enlightenment legacy, which is now playing havoc particularly with the upbringing of the young, is a mis-placed trust in reason.

Don't misunderstand me: I am not saying that reason is held in too high regard. Whilst our Faith is characterised by mystery, it does not reject, but rather honours, reason. To give up on reason is not a Catholic approach at all: revelation may take us further but is always reasonable. The Word, the Logos of the Father, is truth incarnate; and theology, the queen of disciplines, is (rightly understood) faith seeking understanding.

No, my point is different. The modern error is to set too much store by our being subject to reason. My current bête noire, the CES gay propaganda masquerading as an anti-bullying resource, is a case in point. One of the many things wrong with it is that it seems to assume that you can argue a child into virtue: that once you have given cogent reasons why bullying is wrong, the child will no longer bully. (There are, of course, many other and more serious things wrong with Made in God's Image, and I have documented many of them elsewhere on this blog).

But Catholic tradition, and everyday experience (including my own, as I look at my own patterns of sinful behaviour) demonstrate that such is not the case.

In fact, we have a disordered relationship with reason: too often, our passions are felt more strongly, and we either ignore or distort our reasoning, to indulge our passions.

This, the Church teaches, is part of the damage to our nature brought about by that original catastrophe, known as the Fall.  

One of the many things I lament in the change from the Traditional to the New Rite of Mass is the loss of the wonderful prayer from Psalm 140 (said at the incensing of the altar): Pone, Dómine, custódiam ori meo, et óstium circumstántiæ lábiis meis: ut non declínet cor meum in verba malítiæ, ad excusándas excusatiónes in peccátis. (Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth: and a door round about my lips.  Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins.)

To make excuses in sins... How those words resonate!

Human sexuality is damaged by Original Sin: we desire that which we should not desire. And reason, which should order our desires to the good, is subjugated to our passions - unless we train ourselves -  discipline ourselves - to submit to grace.

That is why virtues are learned by practice and example, not just by exhortation; and why when the Faith is abandoned, and 'sexual preferences' (ie a particular sub-set of our passions) are made sovereign, reason lags far behind...

For the tragic results, you need only look around.

Child Abuse

One of Anna's friends told her yesterday of a dreadful incident. Her five year old daughter had just had her bath and her husband picked up the towel to dry her. At which point the girl said: "You mustn't touch me!"

It transpired the girl had had a sex education lesson at school...

Anna's friend was furious and told the school so, withdrawing her from all future lessons on the topic: but some harm is already done to this child - and to countless others.

Doubtless there are children whose fathers cannot be trusted: but to plant such ideas of mistrust of their families in the hearts of five year olds is to rob them of their innocence. This particular child is one of those who ask 'why?' about everything - so who knows what she was told.

The school concerned is well known to be a 'good Catholic' school.

Sancta Maria purissima: Ora pro nobis.

Self Harm - A Pastoral Approach

I was delighted to read of a new initiative, the Self Harm Initiative for Teachers, designed to instruct teachers on how to deliver lessons on safe self-cutting.

As its proponents point out, many children will self harm, and Just Saying No doesn't work, so it is important to teach them how to do it in a way that minimises risk.

It is also important, of course, to reach them before they start to cut themselves. It is too late once they have infected themselves by using unsterile blades etc.  We much reach them while they are young.

A judgemental attitude will only serve to drive self-harmers underground, and may cause them to be bullied or stigmatised for their lifestyle choices, which is wholly unacceptable.

Some critics may argue that teaching about safe self-harm in the class room risks putting ideas into their heads.  Such naive people have clearly never looked at the internet, where hashtags like #cutterforlife demonstrate how widespread this issue is. It is ridiculous to imagine that children will not be exposed to this.

Likewise, the distribution of clean blades to all kids has raised questions in some quarters; but as the Select Committee pointed out, there is little point telling children not to use dirty blades unless they are provided with a safe alternative.

So I applaud this worthy initiative, and hope that self-harm lessons will become mainstream, and eventually compulsory, for all children, before too many more children die from infected wounds.

--

UPDATE

I have been told that this post may be misunderstood, so I think it incumbent on me to offer a word of clarification.

I wrote this as a satire on the current approach to Sex Education in this country.

I do not, of course, wish to denigrate those who seek to help children who cut themselves, by teaching them some strategies to reduce risk. Rather my point was two-fold.

Firstly, that strategies for the minority who are taking part in risky and aberrant behaviour should not be imposed on the majority who are not, in the name of prevention.  It normalises the problem behaviour, and if done in a non-judgemental style, teaches that it is in fact acceptable (or pace Brook, praise-worthy). There is thus the likelihood of creating the very problem we are trying to solve.

Secondly, that self-harm is rightly recognised as 'bad.' That is, a judgement is made of the behaviour (not of the individuals)  - that it is against their own and others' interests if they hurt themselves, even if they want to do so; and the educational and support strategy is predicated on that understanding. I think that the same should be the case with regard to children indulging in sexual activity, as it is clearly bad for them, as countless studies have demonstrated.

Consent

The latest guidance on SRE is going to have children talking about pornography and consent in school from the age of 11 up.

I will pass lightly over the topic of pornography, assuming that anyone who reads this blog will realise how evil it is, and how thoroughly misguided it is to encourage children to discuss it, particularly in mixed-sex classes.

I want to dwell on the issue of consent. Recently, a blog post was written and widely promoted and praised on social media, explaining consent by means of the metaphor of making someone a cup of tea (here).  It is very well done -and it is as fallacious as the lessons to which our children will soon be subjected.

The fundamental error is to assume that sexual intercourse is as trivial as having a cup of tea.  Clearly, that is a nonsense. Some of the immediate differences that spring to mind are:

• the meaning of the act
• the possible consequences of the act, both positive and negative
• the implications of the act with regard to other people
• the strength of the interest of one party in the other party's engaging in the act
• (related to the last) the likelihood of deception in the asking for consent

and so on.

So perhaps a better analogy would be two organisations, or even nations, agreeing to work together on a matter of significance.

In that instance, typically the first thing to do is to establish a memorandum of understanding, or a framework agreement.  Because this is important, there may even be the requirement for some formality, and witnesses.  Then, within that context, specific actions by either or both parties may be agreed.

The point of that process is to minimise the likelihood of misunderstanding, cheating, exploitation, and so on, when the stakes are high and the desires of the various parties coincide in part but not necessarily in whole.

And of course, that is what civilised societies have developed with regard to sexual intercourse.  The memorandum of understanding, or framework agreement, is analogous to marriage. Each party agrees to the overall terms of engagement, with witnesses, so that the risk of being misled, or hurt, or having to deal with the consequences alone, are vastly reduced. Within that framework agreement, of course, consent with regard to individual acts is also necessary: but the chances of meaningful consent are far greater.

Indeed, over the centuries, and enlightened by the teaching of both Natural Law and religious wisdom, we had reached a stage where we knew what the framework agreement needed to cover: a life-long, exclusive commitment to be there for each other, no matter what, and to raise the children of the marriage together.

But the consent envisaged by the blog post I linked to, and the ideology it represents (typified by Brook and other self-appointed experts who dictate education policy in this country) is quite different. It is a spur of the moment consent, easily obtained by false promises, or simply honeyed words and lust, and yet it is taken as the one criterion of morality.

And that is what our kids will soon be being taught: if you fancy it, say yes, and everything will be wonderful. And if you don't say no.

As if that is going to work...

Unsung Heroes (1)

This is the first (and quite possibly the last) in a series of posts on unsung heroes of the modern day.

Professor David Paton is a long-time SPUC supporter. As an academic, his public support of, and frequent appearances for, SPUC, as well as his recently giving evidence at the House of Commons to the Inquiry on PSHE and SRE, in his capacity as a Professor of Economics who has done research in that area, will earn him few professional friends. Academia is a difficult environment for those who risk going against the degenerate consensus on social issues.

I was reminded of him when I saw that he had had a letter published in The Times the other day. It is behind a paywall on their website, but I thought it of particular interest to readers of this blog:

Dear Editor,

The Oxfordshire Serious Case Review is the latest of a series of reports in which it is clear that the provision of contraception to minors by sexual health services has played a significant role in perpetuating child sexual abuse.

The Review calls for all under-16s to have a risk assessment for abuse before being provided with contraception.  Although this is a step forward, it does not go far enough.  The Fraser Guidelines stipulate that minors can be given contraception without parental knowledge as long as they are mature enough to give their true consent.  As the Review points out there is an inherent contradiction in deeming children as being able to “consent to contraception long before they are able legally to have sex”.  A 13 year old should never be considered mature enough to consent to sexual activity and it is time for the Government to make this clear to all health professionals.

Yours faithfully,

David Paton (Professor)

Nottingham University Business School

Succinct and to the point - and very brave.

Oxford Abuse and Brook

No sooner was the Serious Case Review into the appalling abuse of young girls in Oxford published, than campaigners were calling for more, and compulsory, sex education in schools.

I contest that sex education of the type that is being promoted is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I refer to the ethos of Brook, about whose infamous Traffic Lights I have blogged before, here and passim (to re-cap, underage sex is explicitly to be applauded; indeed  'consenting oral and/or penetrative sex with others of the same or opposite gender who are of similar age and developmental ability' is according to Brook normal behaviour for thirteen year olds and worthy of positive feedback). This 'anything (consensual) goes' ethos informs our school's approach to SRE, and thus effectively grooms girls for predatory males.

Brook of course, is a champion of providing contraception to under-age children, too (as is the Government. Readers may remember the brave campaign by Victoria Gillick which brought this to public attention and, for a brief while, put a stop to it. During that time, when contraceptives were not freely available to under-age children, teenage conceptions went down).

Brook's ethos also has an effect outside the schoolroom.  The Serious Case Review refers to this same ethos as being a major factor in the total failure of the various agencies to think that there was anything wrong when young girls were clearly having sexual relations with older men.

Here are some extracts:

1.3 The law around consent was not properly understood, and the Review finds confusion related to a national culture where children are sexualised at an ever younger age and deemed able to consent to, say, contraception long before they are able legally to have sex. A professional tolerance to knowing young teenagers were having sex with adults seems to have developed.

5.11 The lack of knowledge also, for example, affected the therapeutic care given to the girls as risks were not identified, clues not picked up, and the presenting issue was the focus. “Primary care [and a listed range of sexual health and pregnancy services] failed to recognise that these girls were at ‘high on-going risk’ and failed to protect them from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and failed to work together to safeguard them.”

8.52 The result was that inappropriate or illegal sexual activity by children who were clients, patients or looked after children was subject to a higher tolerance threshold than would be the case than, say, the average parent. This may have been because professionals could not find a way to stop the girls going where they were at risk; it may have been from trying to avoid being too ‘controlling’ and risking more alienation, and from the wide sense that ‘nothing could be done’. However, for some, it may also relate to a reluctance to take a moral stance on right and wrong, and seeing being non-judgemental as the overriding principle. What is right and wrong about youthful sexuality is anyway a rather blurred issue. Paragraph 5.43 referred to health guidance which determines a child’s ability to consent to sexual health advice and get contraception for an act which the child might be legally unable to consent to. The law regards underage sex between peers over 13 as not something that should have any intervention, and it is not much more of a step to see sex between say a 14-year-old and a young adult as ‘one of those things’. And, in this Review, sex with older adults did not always lead to what might colloquially be called bringing in the cavalry to intervene come what may. The benign word ‘boyfriend’ disguised age-inappropriate relationships.

A key recommendation is to “Seek assurance from all member agencies that staff are aware of the guidance around consent to sexual activity, and relationships”.  And here's the crunch: the report reveals that a pro-forma developed by Brook is in place with some agencies: this refers directly to the notorious Brook Traffic Light Tool to which I referred above.

And the solution of the politicians: give Brook and their ideological allies more leverage with our children!

We live in very depraved and dangerous times.

Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix.
Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris,
sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper,
Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.

The Imitation Game

I blogged recently about Sexuality and Suicide.

I have been continuing to think about this, as I find suicide very troubling.

Of course, the accepted wisdom is that the reason for the very high rates of suicide and attempted suicide among people who self-identify as transgendered is the discrimination they face.

However, reading some of the research that highlights this as a factor, one also finds that whilst such experiences increase the risk of suicide (as one would expect) that increase is from a very high base level.

That of course raises the question about a direct link between self-identifying as transgendered and increased likelihood of attempting suicide. Given the established link between psychological disorder and suicide, that again raises the question whether being transgendered is a psychological disorder.

If it is, if thinking oneself to be 'in the wrong body' is delusional, that raises serious questions about the best help and support: I think it is unlikely to be affirming the delusion. It is certainly not likely to be any kind of persecution, either. But when LGBTQetc groups and their sympathisers teach people that any refusal to affirm is ipso facto persecution, things get very difficult.

There is of course at least one other very obvious possibility. The phenomenon of suicide epidemics within particular groups is well-documented.

So it could be that it is associating with other LGBTQetc people that is (at least in part) an explanation for the high suicide rate.

Of course, if people are prepared to imitate others in something as serious as suicide, as it seems they are, there is also the possibility that they imitate others in defining their sexuality.

One way or the other, young impressionable people associating with LGBTQetc people could well be a high-risk activity.

What is troubling is that none of this is being debated, or researched, because of the political position that we must 'accept' such abnormalities as positive.

Indeed, the research landscape is particularly interesting: guess who is most likely to dedicate their career to researching LGBTQetc issues?...

Sexuality and suicide

Suicide is a terrible thing. 

I have known a few people who have taken their own lives, and it is always unbelievably distressing for all involved, and indicative of extreme distress.

Whilst I fully understand, and indeed agree with, the Church's condemnation of suicide, I am also strongly of the view that in many cases, the notion that someone took his or her life 'while of unsound mind' is the most accurate description; and that of course reduces the moral culpability of the person concerned, so that I hope that we may hope for his or her eternal salvation.

All of which is by way of preamble to what I really want to write about. A young man who identified himself as a woman, and therefore as transgendered, recently committed suicide. He left a note, blaming, inter alia, the fact that his parents could not accept that he was a woman.

The LGBTQetc activists, their ideological allies, and many of sympathetic mind, all hurried to seize and control the narrative. Twitter and other media have been awash with comments to the effect that his parents effectively killed him.  They point to the high incidence of suicides among transgendered people, and some are calling for the prosecution of his parents for referring him to Christian counsellors who tried to help him reconcile with the fact that he was a boy, not a girl.

There are, of course, conflicting views of reality here. On the one hand, his parents subscribe to the view that if you are born a boy and believe yourself to be 'really' a girl, the problem is a psychological (or even spiritual) one.

On the other hand, the LGBTQetc lobby and their allies believe that one's natural sex is irrelevant, a social construct based on the flimsy evidence of biological difference, and that what really counts is how one self-identifies.

What is apparent to me is that neither view is provable empirically, from evidence. Each rests on certain anthropological and philosophical assumptions.

According to the first theory, the high level of suicides amongst people who identify as transgender is most likely to be because such people are psychologically disturbed, and are living with an irreconcilable contradiction about their very identity.

According to the second theory (whose advocates will certainly see me as 'part of the problem' because I have used masculine pronouns about someone who identified himself as a woman) the suicide rate is most likely to be attributable to the persecution transgendered people suffer in a society that systematically oppresses them.

Thus those in the second camp are clear that the parents of the poor young man who killed himself are responsible for his death as they did not affirm his chosen identity, but rather persecuted him, as they sought to solve what they saw as his psychological problem.

But from the other perspective, one could as well say that it is precisely the LGBTQetc lobby who bear some moral responsibility for this young man's death. By affirming that he was right (and had a right) to identify as a woman, and further that the appropriate way to interpret his parents' concern was that they were hateful and oppressive, they could equally be said to have contributed to the dreadful despair that led to his suicide.

Of course, those who accept the whole intellectual framework of victimhood which is an integral part of the LGBTQetc movement will point to my privilege and my lack of personal experience of the issues involved here, and conclude not only that my arguments are invalid, but also that I have no right to comment.

I reject that approach to thinking and discourse. Indeed, there is a strong case to be made for the fact that we are not alway the best judges in our own cases; that someone disinterested may often have a valuable perspective to bring to bear.  The fact that this poor young person genuinely felt oppressed by his parents' behaviour does not mean that such behaviour was necessarily oppressive (it may have been of course: I am talking about the logic of the argument, not the facts of this case - not least because I mistrust all the reporting I have seen from both sides of the argument).  By the same token, my arguments may be valid or invalid: but that should be proven by addressing them, not by writing them off a priori.

I will also, doubtless, be branded as transphobic, and probably as a hater, for writing this; though in fact I have no ill-will towards people who identify as transgendered. I simply think that they are acting on a false set of assumptions and beliefs.

But the problem remains: how can one decide which account of the variations in human sexuality is correct? One can't appeal to the evidence, as all evidence is subject to interpretation according to one's philosophy. So the argument is a philosophical one; but that is glossed over in the media, and the cumulative effect of repeated assertions about 'equality' and 'inclusiveness' and 'acceptance' have so deadened the intellectual attentiveness of so many that most do not realise that there is an argument to be had.

Which is why I wrote this.

--

As ever, I am open to correction and discussion if I have misunderstood or misrepresented anything in this post.

--

Please remember to pray for all those suffering from disordered sexuality - which, let's face it, is all of us -  and particularly for parents and children who are struggling to understand and respond to such difficult issues; and for the repose of the souls of all who have taken their lives while of unsound mind.

Still banging on about Brook

I continue to ponder the iniquitous Brook, about the evils of which (or should it be of whom?) I have recently blogged here and here.

In their statement in defence of their perverse Traffic Lights Tool, they say both that: 'Most young people under the age of 16 do not have sex' and also that 'The tool includes sexual activity as ... a green activity in the 13-17 age category, ... because there is a spectrum of normal behaviour.'

Maybe I am over-literal, but if most young people are not having sex, in what sense is it a normal behaviour? It can only mean, it seems to me, that Brook regard it as normal, in the face of the statistical evidence to the contrary. And by normal, they mean acceptable, and probably desirable (see their wwwsite for details of their Sex+Positive Campaign).

And whilst Simon Blake, the Chief Executive, seems at the Select Committee to suggest that Brook in no way encourages under-age sex, that claim also rings false. 'Most young people under the age of 16 do not have sex. Those that do need appropriate help, advice and support from well trained professionals.' But it is quite clear that such 'appropriate help, advice and support' is in fact the provision of condoms, the reassurance that their behaviour is normal, and the facilitation of abortions when the contraception fails - from which Brook, of course, makes substantial profits. And consider this, from their advice pages on their website: 'If you are under 16 and you are having sex, it is less likely that you will get into trouble if there is not a large age difference between you and your partner, you both consent (i.e are happy to have sex) and there’s no evidence of any exploitation.'

Likewise, Joe Hayman, chief executive of the PSHE Association, said: 'What I was saying was that it's really, really important that a dictatorial-from-the-front lesson on what one should and shouldn't do is less likely to have an impact and I think we've got to start from where children are, their reality.'

That is almost the battle-cry of those who are trying to sexualise our children. It has a surface plausibility - until you consider whether they would apply it to behaviour of which they really disapprove. I would wager my mortgage that neither Hayman nor Blake would say of, say racism, or homophobic bullying: Those that do need appropriate help, advice and support from well trained professionals, or still less: it's really, really important that a dictatorial-from-the-front lesson on what one should and shouldn't do is less likely to have an impact and I think we've got to start from where children are, their reality.

We are only non-judgemental (in that sense) when we think no judgement is necessary.

Frankly, these people are unknowingly the stooges of the Evil One: they need our prayers, our pity, and our strongest possible opposition.

Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix.
Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris,
sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper,
Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.

Further ruminations on Brook

I posted recently about the evil that is Brook.

I have a few further thoughts to offer.

One is the disingenuousness, if not downright duplicity, of Simon Blake, the Chief Executive, in the select committee hearing to which I referred.

Frequently, the assumption was made in the conversation that delaying the onset of sexual relations was one of the goals of SRE. Simon Blake behaved as though he agreed with that; but it is in fact no part of Brook's agenda or intention, as their own material makes quite clear. But making that equally clear in that company on that occasion did not suit Blake's political intentions for that meeting, so he remained silent and nodded along, as though he agreed. That struck me as dishonest.

Secondly, I was pleased to see that Sarah Carter of the Family Education Trust had been invited to the Select Committee to give oral evidence; she raised the issue of the Traffic Light Toolkit to which I had referred, and that was subsequently reported by the BBC, the Daily Telegraph, the Independent, the Daily Mail, and the Mirror.

Her comments prompted a very defensive response in the Select Committee from Joe Hayman, chief executive of the PSHE Association. He said, inter alia:

There's no one in our community who feels we should be trying to sexualise children, or any of those kinds of things.
What we want is children to develop healthy and safe relationships and it's really important that teachers are provided with the necessary training in order to do that.

However, it strikes me (and not only me) that the second part of that statement negates the first: because the philosophy and approach used to develop what he and his ideological allies believe to be healthy and safe behaviours involves sexualising children; not least because they think that 'consenting oral and/or penetrative sex with others of the same or opposite gender who are of similar age and developmental ability' is normal behaviour for thirteen year olds.

I think he realised he was on a sticky wicket, as he then tried to distance himself and his organisation from Brook's traffic lights, saying that it was difficult for him to be accountable for every piece of information linked to in the PSHE Association's supplementary guidance, which has many links within it. 

Brook themselves are also on the defensive over this, releasing a statement saying that the tool was not meant for SRE. But that does not explain why it is linked to on the website as a resource for teachers of SRE... Nor does it explain why behaviour that is 'red' for 9-13 year olds is 'green' (rather than at least amber) for 13- 17 year olds.

Of course, Brook have an agenda, and even if the traffic light tool is not used in schools, it is part of a process of shaping expectations and understandings to make underage sex accepted; and will doubtless be followed by a call to 'de-criminalise' it - a call that is to reduce the age of consent, which of course exists precisely to protect children from abuse and the very sexualisation which this lobby claims not to want, but behaves as though it wants very much indeed.

Now is a good time to keep the pressure on Brook: Write to your MP, letting him or her know about this. Write to your schools, expressing your concern and asking about their programmes, and specifically whether the Brook Traffic Light approach to safeguarding is used. If your children are in a Catholic school, don't assume it is any better. Write to your bishop and the CES and ask for concrete assurances.

Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix.
Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris,
sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper,
Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.

The Evil that Is Brook

I could scarcely credit it.  Brook run training courses, to instruct teachers and others that:

• solitary masturbation
• sexually explicit conversations with peers
• obscenities and jokes within the current cultural norm
• interest in erotica/pornography
• use of internet/e-media to chat online
• having sexual or non-sexual relationships
• sexual activity including hugging, kissing, holding hands
• consenting oral and/or penetrative sex with others of the same or opposite gender who are of similar age and developmental ability
• choosing not to be sexually active

 all 'reflect safe and healthy sexual development. They are:

• displayed between children or young people of similar age or developmental ability;
• reflective of natural curiosity, experimentation, consensual activities and positive choices.' (source)

From a Catholic point of view, of course, there are problems with many of these. But even leaving to one side a morality informed by Faith, or by the whole of Western Civilisation for centuries, there are severe problems.

There seems to be a strong consensus in the academic literature that early sexual activity is harmful, physically, emotionally and psychologically. Brook, in pursuing its ideology of 'consent is the only morality,' completely ignores that. It is children (and they are explicit about that - children as young as 13!) we are talking about. So it is children who will pay the price: physically, emotionally and psychologically.

This is evil.

Consent as the only moral criterion doesn't work, even in purely secular terms. Increasingly, reality -the dreadful reality that provokes Serious Case Reviews - has displayed the links between consensual underage sexual behaviour and child sex exploitation/abuse.  For example the 2013 Torbay Serious Case Review states in section 5.12:

“Underage sexual activity by young people between thirteen and sixteen years old is judged on the perception that if it takes place with partners of a similar age, it is by mutual consent. This perception has to be reconsidered in light of the growing evidence in this case that the abusers were not much older than the girls and also that the girls, who often did not consider that they were being abused, lied about the age of their partners as they were aware of the potential professional response.”

The Torbay Review also recommends that:

 “There appears to be a need to review current national guidelines to examine if they are sufficiently robust to account fully for the growing evidence around sexual activity and its links to sexual exploitation.”  

But Brook pays no heed to any of this, apparently. Indeed, their guidelines suggest that all of these:

• solitary masturbation
• sexually explicit conversations with peers
• obscenities and jokes within the current cultural norm
• interest in erotica/pornography
• use of internet/e-media to chat online
• having sexual or non-sexual relationships
• sexual activity including hugging, kissing, holding hands
• consenting oral and/or penetrative sex with others of the same or opposite gender who are of similar age and developmental ability
• choosing not to be sexually active

'provide opportunities to give positive feedback and additional information.'

I should not, I suppose, be surprised. But note that it is Brook and their ideological allies who are among the key experts consulted by government in formulating policy - not least with regard to Sex Education.

In fact, in front of the Select Committee, Simon Blake CE of Brook, when facing the evidence, that the best quality of research on this topic (including randomised control trials), published in the prestigious BMJ, shows some programmes have adverse consequences, suggests that his intuition is more important than the research data. (see here for the Select Committee hearing. The remarks I refer to are c. 9.41).

There's also something else: the shamelessness of Brook in suggesting that such intimate things should be 'opportunities for positive feedback.' Just think what that means in practice. 'Oh James, I hear that you were reading pornography at break. Well done! And Maciej and Sundeep: I gather you had protected oral and penetrative sex in a very consensual way! Congratulations, keep it up. Freddy, it's wonderful that you masturbate alone in the toilets at lunch time!' And if not that, what? 

If you think that 13 year old children should not be given 'positive feedback' about 'consenting oral and/or penetrative sex with others of the same or opposite gender who are of similar age and developmental ability' by teachers, social workers or indeed anyone else, make your voice heard.

Write to your MP, letting him or her know about this. Write to your schools, expressing your concern and asking about their programmes, and specifically whether the Brook Traffic Light approach to safeguarding is used. If your children are in a Catholic school, don't assume it is any better. Write to your bishop and the CES and ask for concrete assurances.

Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, Sancta Dei Genetrix.
Nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris,
sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper,
Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.

SRE Consultation

I have just been working on my response to the Inquiry on Sex Education (with thanks to James Preece for the reminder, and to SPUC for their guidance notes. 

I note that once submitted, they may not be used for any other purpose - including, presumably, as matter for a blog post.  However, I can see no reason why I should not publish my draft notes, and invite others interested to comment and help me clarify and correct any points.

And, of course, if anyone wishes to contribute to the inquiry himself or herself, my draft notes might help provide a stimulus to his or her thinking.

So without further ado (except a request to put me right if I have got anything wrong)...

1            Executive Summary

1.1  It is troubling that this inquiry is being held so soon after the last: it gives the impression that parents gave the ‘wrong’ answer and the powers that be will not rest until the 'right' answer is given.

1.2  At the heart of this issue are two opposed ideologies: one which sees young people as active consumers of sex, and one which sees sex as properly reserved for married life.

1.3 PSHE ought not be made compulsory.

1.4 Schools should be accountable primarily to parents (and those acting in loco parentis) in the provision of PSHE.

1.5 Provision should be developed in the context of parental wishes and the overall aims of promoting stable family life, which is the bedrock of society, rather than the promotion of hedonism. It should be based on research into what supports stable family life, not a permissive ideology.

1.6 The involvement of Brook  et al in the development of  Supplementary Advice demonstrates which ideology (see 1.2 above and 3 below) is dominant. That is unacceptable to many parents, who believe their approach inimical to civilised society.

1.7 In order for the effectiveness of SRE to be measured, the goals should be clear. I propose the goal should be the reduction of early sexual activity, and the reduction in the numbers of those engaging with multiple sexual partners; measures would then be the associated reduction in STIs, teenage pregnancies and abortions.  All of which would be measurable and all contribute to the Common Good.

2            The present inquiry

            2.1    There has been a very recent consultation by the Department for Education, with a report published in March 2013 http://bit.ly/1n81eEx

Many parents responded (more than any other category of respondent) and the messages were clear: many parents are concerned about SRE, they believe it is primarily the responsibility of parents, they do not wish schools to be able to push material or views they deem inappropriate on their young children, and they reject the idea of compulsion.

            2.2 Given that context, and allied with the strong lobbying by interest groups such as Brook, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this inquiry is an attempt to overturn the findings of the previous one. According to those who deem themselves ‘experts,’ the parents got it wrong.  However, many parents trust their own judgement, particularly when based on traditional wisdom (ie the collective learning of the generations which preceded us) or religious or philosophical systems which reject the implicit hedonism of the ‘experts’ preferred approach.

3            Opposing ideologies

            3.1 At the heart of this inquiry are two opposing ideologies.  On one side there are those like me who believe that we should be educating our children for life-long monogamous marriages; on the other, those who want to see children as informed, active, consumers of sex. Lest anyone think I am over-stating the position, visit the www sites for fpa and Brook, where they make their position, including condoning under-age sex, very explicit. They are advocates of children’s right to enjoy their sexuality, and are among the country’s leading campaigners for and providers of abortion.

It is evident that Brook and fpa talk the language of ‘relationships’ to get their material past parents: there is none of that concern in their www sites. But of course any teenager can convince himself or herself that the current infatuation is ‘a meaningful loving relationship.’ That kind of thinking provides no protection against promiscuity - but then it is not intended to.

The middle ground is made up of those who would prefer children to delay having sex and not be too promiscuous, but believe that they can’t be stopped. That risks being a self-fulfilling prophecy, transforming the historical pattern of a very small number of children being sexually active into a much larger number being so.

The evidence on early sexual activity and multiple partners seems pretty clear: the two go together, and are an unhealthy combination, physically, emotionally and psychologically. Oddly, Brook and fpa, who are so keen to deal in fact, ignore these facts absolutely - as they ignore the research which shows that 70% of girls who engage in sex early (pre-16) regret it later on and wish they had waited.

These different ideologies naturally lead to radically different approaches to sex education. Those who think as I do, believe that sex is private (indeed sacred), and that taboos (and even some things labelled by the ‘experts’ as prejudices) are often helpful in protecting children from premature exposure to adult issues and from aberrant thoughts and behaviours. The other side believes that anything goes (as long as it is consensual), and that openness and choice are the primary virtues.

3.2            Given that ideological division, it is clear that large numbers of parents are rightly suspicious of any approach that is informed by the thinking of Brook and its ideological allies.

4            Consultation Point One: Compulsion?

4.1            Compulsion is a significant decision in any democratic society. It should only be used on those occasions where it is just, proportionate and necessary for the good of society and individual members of society. Such a case pertains in both negative compulsions (laws which restrain behaviours which would be harmful to others, such as driving at excessive speeds) and positive compulsions (laws which compel behaviours for the good both of society and of the individual, such as the education of children).

4.2            In this case, it is not clear that compulsion would be just, proportionate or necessary. Indeed, in the view of many parents it would be unjust, disproportionate and harmful.

4.3             It is a serious business to bring the law and the legitimate authorities of the country into disrepute: introducing compulsion against the wishes of parents in pursuit of a contested agenda pushed by partisan experts would undoubtedly do that.

4.4            Compulsion would be a derogation to the state and the education system of responsibilities which rightly rest, in the first instance, with parents.  The fact that some parents are unable or unwilling to meet their responsibilities is no just reason to strip all parents of their rights. In terms of the Common Good, parents should be encouraged to undertake their responsibilities, not prevented from doing so.

4.5            Compulsion would also absolve schools of the practical need to work in partnership with parents. A compulsory system would mean simply that the programme recommended by ‘experts’ drawn from one side of the ideological division over this issue, could be imposed with no right for parents to withdraw their children from it.  Given that some of the materials promoted by such ‘experts’ are deemed not only inappropriate but actually damaging by many parents, that would be grave indeed (for example, Living and Growing is an assault on the sensibilities of those who wish their children to grow up chaste – indeed it works directly against such parents’ intentions for their children’s formation).

4.6            For all of these reasons, compulsion should not be introduced.

5            Consultation Point Two: Accountability?

5.1            The family is the place where children naturally learn civilised behaviour, ranging from courtesy, to making sensible decisions and acquiring good habits (for example) about diet and exercise; and also refraining from harmful activities such as taking drugs.

5.2            As before, the fact that some parents are unable or unwilling to meet their responsibilities is no just reason to strip all parents of their rights. In terms of the Common Good, parents should be encouraged to undertake their responsibilities, not prevented from doing so.

5.3            Moreover, many of the issues covered in PSHE are morally contested; parents from different cultures and belief systems will have different views as to what is most appropriate for their children. They should not find themselves in a position where the school is working against their programme for their children. There may, necessarily, be exceptions in extreme cases (such as cultures that support FGM).  Teaching children chastity is clearly not such a case.

5.4            For these reasons, and in recognition of the importance of the parents as the primary educators of their children, schools should be accountable, in the first instance, to the parents of the children who attend the schools. In that way, teaching is not driven by experts’ ideology, but rather is sensitive to the variety of values and cultural norms that local families may adhere to.

6            Consultation Point Three: Provision?

6.1            The provision at present is subject to several criticisms:  it is hedonistic, frequently pornographic, assumes promiscuity as inevitable, and is not based on sound and appropriate research. Further schools are often poor in communicating with parents either about the content or the underlying research and philosophy of the provision.

6.2            It is based on a hedonistic philosophy that many parents find abhorrent, and believe to be damaging of individuals and families and therefore of society. That philosophy equates moral good with only two considerations: pleasure and consent.

6.3            It frequently involves the use of pornographic material: that is, material showing intimate sexual behaviour. Indeed, if anyone other than a teacher were to show such material (eg some parts of Living and Growing) to a minor, he or she would probably be prosecuted.

6.4            It is based on an assumption that young people are going to be promiscuous, that risks being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

6.5            It is not based on research into what will help children to grow up into responsible adults capable of forming stable loving relationships; despite plenty of research demonstrating that such relationships are the best environment to raise the next generation to be happy and healthy.

6.6            There is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that my experience is not atypical.  I was told that my children would be learning about growing up and puberty, and a meeting was arranged for parents interested.  I had to book time off work to be able to get to the meeting, which was at the end of the school day (and thus before the end of the working day). I found that the material about growing up and puberty included information on masturbation, animated cartoons of a couple having sex, and so on. And this at junior school! Most parents will have been wholly unaware what their children were being taught, until after the event.  The Headmaster gave us a handout (provided by Brook) telling us research backed up this approach. He was unable to cite any such research. I withdrew my children from the programme (but if the experts have their way, that will be outlawed).

7            Consultation Point Four: Adequacy of recent steps?

7.1            As far as I can see, this refers to the supplementary advice drafted by the PSHE Association, Brook and the Sex Education Forum. Given that these are all very clearly on one side of the ideological division to which I referred earlier, it is not surprising that they seem not only inadequate, but positively harmful to me.

7.2            Parents are excluded from any consideration at all. The student-centred approach is taken to an extreme that would not be tolerated in any other subject. It is inconceivable that one would teach maths simply by asking children what they want to learn.

7.3            The requirement for SRE to be taught by people who are trained to talk about ‘healthy and unhealthy relationships, equality, pleasure, respect, abuse, sexuality, gender identity, sex and consent,’ raises the worry of Brook-trained ideologues being given licence to teach children according to their own values and beliefs, which may be a long way from those of the parents.

7.4            This is made explicit in the guidance that teachers should “treat sex as a normal and pleasurable fact of life.” For Christians, Jews, Muslims and many others, that is a completely inadequate philosophy. Sex is seen as sacred, relating as it does to the work of the Creator.  It is not simply another recreational activity. We do not expect that view to be accepted by schools, but we do not expect it to be systematically undermined, either.

7.5            It is therefore the opinion of many in this country that the philosophical underpinnings of the approach advocated by Brook et al is inimical to society, tending to raise promiscuous children, disconnected from their cultural roots, and severely damaged in their ability to form stable families.

8            Consultation Point Five: Measuring the Effectiveness of SRE?

8.1            In order to measure the effectiveness of SRE, it is important to be clear about the goal. Effectiveness is then measured by progress towards that goal.

8.2            According to my analysis at 3 above, there are two quite different sets of goals that could be considered: on the one hand the goal of making children into competent consumers of recreational sex in pursuit of pleasure; and on the other, raising children to grow into adults capable of forming stable monogamous relationships for the good of their families and society as a whole.

8.3            Given that the role of the civil authorities is to pursue the Common Good and the well-being of individuals, I believe that the second type of goal is legitimate for the education system, whilst the first is not.

8.4            Therefore I propose that the immediate goal of SRE should be the reduction of early sexual activity, and the reduction of those engaging with multiple sexual partners; measures would then be the associated reduction in STIs, teenage pregnancies and abortions.  All of which would be measurable and all contribute to the Common Good.

9            Conclusions

9.1  This inquiry should not be used as an excuse to disregard the clear messages sent by parents in response to the last consultation.

9.2  The education system should not adopt the hedonistic philosophy of Brook and its ideological allies.

9.3 Schools should not be required to make teaching in this area compulsory.

9.4 Schools should teach in the context of their children’s families’ values and beliefs, not an ideology.

9.5  Provision should be focussed on raising the next, and subsequent, generations in ways compatible with a civilised society and the Common Good.

9.6 Reliance on experts from one side of an ideological division is deeply damaging.

9.7 The true educational goal of SRE should be to develop emotionally mature adults, capable of forming monogamous relationships and raise the next generation of society. The interim goals should therefore be to work against the culture of promiscuity and early sexual experience; and the effectiveness of SRE should be measured against those goals.