News

Image

LONDON, April 29, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “Guidance” on sex education classes from a government-approved campaign group has advised teachers to tell high school students that “not all pornography is bad” and that it can be a “helpful” and “hugely diverse” educational tool. Teachers need to instruct children “how to view porn” in terms of “media literacy and representation, gender, sexual behaviour and body image”.

Children as young as five can benefit from instruction on the uses of porn, the group has said. 11-year-olds should discuss the dangers of “sexting” and those students 14 and over should be told that online porn videos are done by actors, and that “the sex and bodies are mostly unrealistic.”

The guidance, in the form of a “Sex Educational Supplement,” comes from the Sex Education Forum, one of Britain’s “quangos” (quasi-non-governmental organisations), which is a coalition of 90 groups that was founded in 1987 by representatives, among others, of the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council, the Health Education Authority, the National Marriage Guidance Council (RELATE), and the abortionist organisation Family Planning Association. The supplement said providing “sex and relationships education” (SRE) in school and at home “is vital because adults can offer factually correct information and an opportunity for safe discussion that matches the maturity of the child.”

Image

The supplement tells teachers, “Research on the impact of pornography is limited and inconclusive”.

“Some studies have shown a link between problematic sexual attitudes and behaviours (such as seeing women as sex objects) and exposure to sexually explicit material. However the link may not be causal,” it says.

Some young people, the magazine says, find porn by accident and others go looking for it “because they are basically looking for sexual education.”

The supplement offers a suggested script for talking to parents who do not want their children seeing sexually explicit materials in school. Teachers are told they can say to parents that “research” and “training courses” have said that “avoiding topics” is not the best way to protect children because it teaches them that it is “shameful or wrong to talk about sex in any context.”

“It doesn’t give them the space to realise that they can make choices about sex such as choosing to have sex within a marriage.”

“I’m sure you’re teaching those values to your child at home, but I’d hate for her to go down the street and see a billboard and not know how to interpret it… She’ll be making her own choices in the future and I’m sure that she will retain the family values you’ve instilled in her.

“She’s living in a world where not everyone is the same, and where everyone is valued and welcomed, so it would be important for her to hear her classmates talk about their personal and family values as well.”

In the early primary grades, teachers are told to encourage group discussions and “provide a range of visual stimuli” that are “age-appropriate” to help children decide which images look real and which look “made up”. Children can produce collages using this material. These early lessons, the guidance says, can focus on issues of “gender, image manipulation in advertising and body image.”

Norman Wells, from the Family Education Trust, said, “The intention appears to be to steer children and young people away from a belief in moral absolutes and to encourage them to think that there are no rights and wrongs when it comes to sexual expression.”

“Many parents will be horrified at the prospect of their children being taught about pornography within such a framework. To take a no-holds barred approach to sex education has the potential to break down pupils’ natural sense of reserve and to encourage casual attitudes towards sex.”

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.