Sex education is about a lot more than the mechanics

The Christian Institute may hope to provoke an outcry about sex education from frightened parents. But there is no cause for alarm

A year 6 sex education class. Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian The report by the Christian Institute, which tries to raise concerns – and headlines – about sex and relationships education (SRE) in primary schools, is particularly worried about "explicit" materials that it says may become more widespread if a campaign for compulsory SRE in schools succeeds.

If I wasn't working in SRE, and if I had a child of primary school age, and if I were to read this report without any critical viewing whatsoever, then I'd probably be a little scared and worried about what my child might be taught.

The report repeatedly refers to sex education rather than sex and relationships education, and it cherrypicks examples from resources that refer to sexual body parts and sexual acts.

What it ignores is that sexual anatomy and descriptions of sexual acts are only a very small part of a broad and comprehensive SRE programme, especially at primary school age.

Children need to know how their bodies work; that touching, for example, the clitoris can feel nice; that some touching is appropriate and some isn't; that adults have sex and what that means; that some people love people of the same sex. A good SRE programme might include this material in primary school (at the appropriate age), but it certainly would not include only this.

Just as sex is about much more than just the mechanics of the sexual experience, so sex education is not just about teaching the mechanics. Take a look at this fantastic online curriculum planner from the (maligned in the report) Sex Education Forum .

You can see that the recommended curriculum for primary school is more about relationships with family and friends, body changes, feelings, emotions, keeping safe, life cycles, gender and asking for help. I think most parents would agree that this is all pretty reasonable.

Age and cultural appropriateness is key in SRE. The work I do is mainly aimed at over-14s and there is no way on earth I would want my materials to be used for primary school kids. No sex educator wants to upset parents, teachers or children. And there is simply no point in teaching stuff that is going over kids' heads.

Teachers know what level of understanding their pupils are at and they are often the best judge of what materials are appropriate. They use their professional judgment now, and, even if SRE does become compulsory, they will do so in the future. The resources recommended by local authorities and the Sex Education Forum are just that, recommendations.

The Christian Institute report advises parents to contact schools to find out what is being taught and what materials are being used. This I agree with wholeheartedly. Schools can and should work with parents around SRE.

Parents should know what is going into a curriculum and should be able to look at the materials used. They could be loaned materials to back up what is being taught in school. They could even be offered training about how to talk to their kids about sex.

Schools Keep the faith: Should Muslim children receive sex education?

A group run by a member of a radical Islamic organisation is opposing plans to give five-year-olds sex education. Pupils at the Islamic school in Kilburn, North London

In an underground hall at the London Central Mosque in Regent Street, a group of parents sitting on plastic chairs is clustered around a power point. A small, neatly dressed man at the front welcomes them, introducing himself as Yusuf Patel. "As Muslims we believe in values," he says, "We believe in haraam and halal, but sex and relationship education (SRE) teaching in this country does not provide this. It is the responsibility of parents to see their children educated, but not at the expense of these values."

Patel's organisation, SREIslamic, was established eight months ago to encourage Muslims to respond to the Government's consultation about whether to make SRE compulsory and extend it to five-year-olds. Since then, the organisation claims, it has held 40 workshops across the country and collected tens of thousands of signatures from Muslims opposed to the measures.

But Patel is not only a concerned parent and campaigner. According to his website, he is also a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamist organisation that Tony Blair considered banning in 2005. Patel's brother, Jalaluddin, is the former UK head of the political party, which is barred in countries including Germany, Russia and Egypt. Should we be concerned that, like other far-right or religious groups in Britain, SREIslamic might be using a sensitive community grievance to pursue a wider political agenda?

Although Hizb ut-Tahrir says it does not advocate violence, it is opposed to Western-style democracy and believes in establishing a global caliphate under sharia law. There is no evidence of its involvement in terrorism, but some of its members have defended terrorist acts abroad, most recently when a member described Pakistani militants as "brothers".

Hizb ut-Tahrir keeps membership figures secret, but it is active in the UK, particularly on student campuses. In terms of education policy, its website states its belief in the segregation of the sexes. The group also supported the case of Shabina Begum, a 16-year-old girl who fought in court for the right to wear her jilbaab to school. The National Union of Students gives it no platform, however, and many British mosques bar the group from campaigning on site.

After the workshop, Patel declined to answer questions about his political beliefs. In a subsequent email, he confirmed his membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir, but denied any formal link between the party and SREIslamic, as did Hizb ut-Tahrir's press officer. In the workshop, it was hard to tell whether Patel is constructively engaging in local democracy or stirring up tension. "As a community, we have a right to express our concerns but we have been labelled," he said. "Parents have concerns within their minds about speaking out. 'How will teachers see us?' and 'What are the repercussions for my child?'."

While talking, he held up examples of classroom materials used to teach students about homosexuality – "King meets King" and "Tango makes three" drew sniggers from the audience. "We believe in the primacy of marriage – that is the only way to create a family. That's the only way to complete half our religion, and it is under attack," he added. "We don't believe homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle choice."

SREIslamic is not manufacturing these concerns. Earlier this year, 30 parents faced disciplinary action after withdrawing children at George Tomlinson School in Leytonstone, East London, from a week of lessons discussing homosexuality. Although most were Muslim, parents of other faiths and cultures were also angry at not being consulted about the school's plans. The charges have since been dropped, but the damage to teacher-parent relations is unlikely to dissipate so easily.

Muslim parents beyond Leytonstone may find it difficult to voice their views. For them, SREIslamic provides a space to discuss their worries where the mainstream does not. Patel's talk provided a clear description of the way SRE works, and informed parents of their right to withdraw children from SRE lessons that go beyond biology (an offer that only 0.04 per cent of parents take up, mostly for religious reasons). Patel also encouraged this under-represented group to become school governors and engage in political consultation. Like other fringe groups in the UK, SREIslamic provides an avenue for Muslims to voice their concerns.

The audience seemed unaware of his connection with Hizb ut-Tahrir, and there was nothing in the workshop to make them think otherwise. They weren't there to pursue a wild political project; they just wanted the best for their children. As one said: "Parents and schools have a responsibility to teach children about these things. I just don't want it to put options on the table that wouldn't have been there otherwise. We can't sacrifice all of our religion to make people happy."

It is not just parents who are concerned. Sabiha Iqbal, of Bradford, is an 18-year-old student with a passion for community activism. Her experience in mainstream schools has led her to believe all sides in the SRE debate are failing. "In our [Muslim] religion, sex is put on a high ground, but in school it is just taught as something to do as safely as possible," she argues. "Teachers don't talk about the sanctity of sexual relationships. They kind of said there was more to it than we thought, but didn't really explain what that was – that can seem really confusing.

"A lot of young people I know are scared of asking their family questions because they might get judged. We need to change that even if it feels uncomfortable. The Koran doesn't say you can't think or talk about these things, it just says you can't act on them. I worry that people like Hizb ut-Tahrir don't want kids to talk about these issues at all." Further investigation makes one realise there is no single Islamic position on the issue. Dr Shaaz Mahboob, an NHS manager who is also vice-chairman of British Muslims for Secular Democracy, wants his seven-year-old daughter to be taught sex education. He worries that SREIslamic and groups like it could advocate a whole range of policies in the name of Islam that he does not recognise as legitimate.

"You cannot say there is an 'Islamic perspective' for the Government to take into account because there isn't one – there are usually four or five schools of thought on every issue. That's why you need a secular approach that's based on evidence," he says. "[Hizb ut-Tahrir] are not elected representatives of the Muslim community, they are a lobbying group who want to create a global Islamic state based on their interpretation of Islam. Even if parents are not interested in this agenda, they will listen to their thoughts on sex education. They'll use this consultation to build sympathy with Muslim parents and then, perhaps, move on to religious classes or separating girls and boys. If the Government starts listening to these things, it is difficult to see how it will end."

Abstinence and Sex Education

Introduction

In recent years there has been discussion about what form sex education should take, and the advantages and disadvantages of adopting an abstinence based approach as an alternative to a more comprehensive approach. Despite recent changes in public policy within the United States which has seen a cessation of federal funding for abstinence only programmes of sex education, programmes of this kind continue in both the USA, other parts of the developed world and are even expanding in some of the countries most affected by HIV and AIDS because of funding made available through the PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief) programme.

What is an abstinence based approach to sex education?

Youth abstinence activity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

An abstinence based approach to sex education focuses on teaching young people that abstaining from sex until marriage is the best means of ensuring that they avoid infection with HIV, other sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy. As well as seeing abstinence from sex as the best option for maintaining sexual health, many supporters of abstinence based approaches to sex education also believe that it is morally wrong for people to have sex before they are married. Abstinence approaches are represented in programmes such as Aspire and True Love Waits (both developed in the US), which aim to teach young people that they should commit to abstaining from sex until marriage.

Although not all abstinence education programmes are the same, they share the fundamental purpose of teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realised by abstaining from sexual activity. As such, abstinence education tends to include the following teaching objectives, which are derived from a definition given in Federal Law in the United States:

• Abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage is the expected standard for all school age children
• Abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out of wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems
• A mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity
• Sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects
• Bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society
• How to reject sexual advances and that alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances
• The importance of attaining self sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity

How does this differ from comprehensive sex education?

The main difference between abstinence based and comprehensive approaches to sex education is that comprehensive approaches do not focus either solely or so closely on teaching young people that they should abstain from sex until they are married. Although comprehensive approaches do explain to young people the potential benefits of delaying having sex until they are emotionally and physically ready, they also make sure that they are taught how to protect themselves from infections and pregnancy when they do decide to have sex. In the UK, this approach has been taken by the organisation Apause, which includes the postponement of first intercourse as part of their wider school-based Sex and Relationships Education programme.

Descriptions of what programmes of comprehensive sex education comprise are contained in guidelines produced by SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) and UNESCO.

Can abstinence based and comprehensive approaches to sex education be combined?

Some people have argued that is it possible to combine the main elements of both comprehensive and abstinence based approaches to sex education in one approach. These people point out that supporters of both abstinence based and comprehensive approaches share the view that sex education plays an important role in HIV prevention and both approaches emphasise the potential benefits of delaying having sexual intercourse in terms of helping young people avoid HIV, other STIs and unintended pregnancies. On the basis of this it has been argued that abstinence based and comprehensive approaches can be reconciled into one inclusive approach which is sometimes called abstinence plus.

In abstinence plus sex education, although the main emphasis is on abstaining from sex as the preferred choice of protection, young people are also provided with information about contraception and disease prevention so that they can protect themselves when they do become sexually active. One example of an abstinence plus approach is the US developed Reducing the Risk. The RISK approach comprises of a school based curricula which explicitly emphasise that students should avoid unprotected intercourse, either by not having sex or (for students who choose to have sex) by using contraceptives.

So why is there so much disagreement?

Despite the similarities in some of the things that supporters of abstinence based and comprehensive approaches believe about sex education and what it can achieve in terms of young people's sexual health, it is probably overly optimistic to think that it is possible to build consensus on a single approach. This is because these superficial similarities mask profound differences in the values and attitudes which inform the views of supporters of abstinence based and comprehensive sex education.

Moral and religious views

Billboard promoting abstinence until marriage in Arkansas, USA

Many supporters of abstinence based sex education have a background in or connection to Christian organisations that have strong views about sex and sexuality. Not only do they often believe that sex should only take place in the context of marriage, but some are also opposed to same sex relationships and abortion.
 As a result of the strong faith basis for their beliefs about sex, supporters of abstinence education see the main objective as being to equip (and encourage) young people to refuse or avoid sex altogether, and they may exclude from their programmes any other information that they believe conflicts with this view. This may result in an abstinence only course failing to include basic information about what activities transmit HIV and how such transmission can be avoided.

Even where supporters of abstinence based sex education disavow a strong religious basis for their beliefs about what young people should be taught, they often highlight issues about fidelity to one partner, and reject provision of information about steps young people can take to protect themselves against disease and unintended pregnancy because they argue that to do so sends a mixed message.

In contrast, most supporters of comprehensive sex education regard having sex and issues to do with sexuality as matters of personal choice that should not be dictated by religious or political dogmas. Working from an understanding of human rights, which means that people are entitled to access information about matters that affect them and the decisions that they make, they see sex education as being about providing young people with the means by which they can protect themselves against abuse and exploitation as well as unintended pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS. They argue that without access to information about all aspects of sex and sexuality making these decisions freely is impossible. While they think that it is important that sex education is sensitive to faith issues, they assert that sex education should not be based on any set of specific religious values.

Different ‘problem’, different ‘solution’

These fundamentally different views about sex and sexuality mean that supporters of abstinence based and comprehensive approaches to sex education see the 'problem' of what to do about young people and sex quite differently and therefore reach quite different conclusions about the 'solution'. If, as supporters of comprehensive sex education tend to believe, the underlying premise of sexual health interventions is to meet social and utilitarian ideals then the solutions that are proposed are more likely to include earlier and more comprehensive sex education, more liberal abortion laws and freely available contraception. By contrast if, as supporters of abstinence based approaches feel, the underlying motive has a strong religious dimension then the solutions are more likely to revolve around abstinence campaigns and be characterised by reluctance to promote contraception.

But which method of sex education is best?

One of the ways in which the debate between supporters of abstinence and comprehensive approaches to sex education has been framed is in terms of which is the most effective.

Although at first glance the evidence can seem confusing, with claims coming from both groups about the proven effectiveness of programmes embodying their values, when only the most reliable studies are taken into account the position is clear. There is good evidence, from reviews of studies and studies of programmes implemented in the US, UK and other European countries and countries in Africa and Asia, that comprehensive sex education can reduce behaviours that put young people at risk of HIV, STIs and unintended pregnancy. Studies have repeatedly shown too that this kind of sex education does not lead to the earlier onset of sexual activity among young people and, in some cases, will even lead to it happening later.

“Studies have repeatedly shown that comprehensive sex education does not lead to earlier onset of sexual activity”

In contrast, there is no such robust evidence for the effectiveness of abstinence education. Almost all the studies that have claimed to show any positive outcomes are not well enough designed to sustain these claims so it is not possible to infer whether they work or not from the research reports. Several academic reviews suggest that abstinence only programmes generally have no effects on young people’s sexual behaviour. In just a few cases abstinence only programmes may encourage young people to delay first sexual intercourse in the short-term. Worryingly, some of these studies also suggest that compared to other young people those who do receive abstinence only programmes may be less knowledgeable about STDs and less likely to believe that condoms provide effective protection against them.

What does research show about the effects of abstinence based approaches?

The research that is available currently shows at best mixed outcomes for abstinence based approaches to sex education, benefiting some young people in the short term but placing them at greater risks later.
Two studies suggest that for some young people making pledges to abstain from sexual intercourse until marriage does lead to delay in the timing of their first sexual intercourse. But these young people tend to hold strong religious beliefs and enjoy being an exclusive group among peers who do not take abstinence pledges. This means that pledging abstinence is not appropriate for young people who do not hold strong religious views and, moreover, if lots of young people are involved in making pledges (as using abstinence education as a method of sex education requires) the sense of being special will be dissipated. In addition, the majority of young people who take abstinence pledges still have sex before they are married and when they do they report using condoms less often than 'non-pledgers' and are more likely to substitute anal or oral sex for vaginal sexual intercourse.


In April 2007 the results were published of a Congressionally mandated evaluation of federally funded abstinence based programmes in American schools. The investigation, which looked at four programmes offering a range of settings and strategies, found that rates of abstinence and unprotected sex in students who took part in the programmes were virtually identical to rates among students who had been randomly assigned to not take part. The ages at first sexual intercourse were also nearly identical, as were the numbers of sexual partners. It appears that the programmes had no impact on how the students behaved.

With regards to HIV prevention, a systematic review of all relevant studies concluded, "Evidence does not indicate that abstinence only interventions effectively decrease or exacerbate HIV risk among participants in high-income countries; trials suggest that the programs are ineffective." Nevertheless the authors stressed the lack of robust data and the need for more rigorous trials. They noted that most studies have been conducted among American youth, which may limit the generalisability of their findings.

Assessing the effectiveness of abstinence plus sex education programmes, in comparison to abstinence only programmes, is hampered by the lack of academic reviews. However, one recent and very robust review suggests that neither are very effective and that there are good grounds for believing that failure to provide young people with information about contraception prevents them from knowing about facts which have the greatest potential to protect them against pregnancy and STDs.

What is the difference in the content of abstinence based and comprehensive programmes of sex education?

Another way in which the debate gets framed is in relation to differences in beliefs about what the 'real facts' are that young people should be presented with in the context of sex education. Many supporters of abstinence based sex education say that comprehensive programmes are too positive about the protective potential of contraceptives and understate their failure rate and the risks of contracting HIV or another STI. In addition, they criticise programmes of comprehensive sex education for placing too little emphasis on abstinence and sending young people a mixed message by referring both to abstaining from or delaying when they first have sexual intercourse, and the benefits of using contraception.

Some reviews of abstinence based programmes suggest factual inaccuracies.

For their part critics of abstinence based programmes have said that they are too negative about the effectiveness of contraception and sometimes include inaccurate information about failure rates. Proponents of abstinence based approaches have been accused of overstating condom failure rates, exaggerating the risks of infection with HIV and other STIs, reinforcing gender and sexuality stereotypes, and presenting sex and sexuality in an overly negative way.


The criticisms leveled against comprehensive programmes of sex education are difficult to sustain because research suggests that in practice many sex educators are very concerned not to present sex in too positive a light and tend to avoid coverage of sensitive and potentially embarrassing subjects like homosexuality and abortion. Young people consistently report that the underlying message is that they should not have sex.
Moreover, much of the evidence for the ineffectiveness of condoms and other contraceptives cited by critics of comprehensive programmes is highly suspect, being based on poor quality research or the outcome of a partial reading of its results.

In contrast, those criticisms leveled at abstinence based approaches do seem to have a firmer foundation. Some reviews of programme materials suggest factual inaccuracies - such as massively overestimating the prevalence of HIV and STIs and the failure rates of condoms when properly used - are common. These reviews have also shown that these programmes tend to project stereotypes about gender, repress information about positive aspects of sexual relationships, and overstate the emotional risks and dangers associated with sex.

Is it realistic to encourage abstinence until marriage?

The premise on which abstinence based sex education is founded - that it is reasonable to wait until marriage before having sex for the first time and then be faithful to that one partner for life - may well be unrealistic for many young people because it fails to reflect the nature of modern, industrial societies in which people marry later in life, if at all. And with the high frequency of breakdown in marriage, people are very likely to have several sexual partners over their lifetime.
Across the US, the UK and the rest of Europe data on sexual lifestyles consistently show that the age at which people first marry has risen to around 30 years old and that about a fifth of marriages end in divorce or separation within five years. Yet while the age at which people marry has risen, the age at which they first have sexual intercourse has been falling to around 16 years old, and a diminishing minority of people report that their first sexual partner was also their marriage partner. Data on young people’s sexual lifestyles and behaviour from countries in the developing world where HIV is most prevalent also suggest that advice to abstain from sex until marriage may be wildly out of step with accepted cultural norms.

So can we decide whether one approach is better than the other?

It is very important to note that debates about research into the effectiveness of different types of sex education, and criticisms of the extent to which programmes contain factual inaccuracies and are guilty of stereotyping, do not always represent objective attempts to weigh the evidence that these studies have produced. While the debate between supporters of both approaches has populated these areas of difference it is not in pursuit of a resolution of their differences but rather a definitive answer that suits their moral agenda. There is no doubt that, whatever evidence is assembled, people who hold particular strong moral views are unlikely to give up supporting their preferred approach regardless of whether it works or whether someone else thinks it presents a distorted picture of the facts.

Which view is in the ascendancy?

There is no doubt that abstinence based approaches gathered political and financial support in the United States during the early 2000s when they were strongly associated with the moral and religious inclinations of the Republican Party and the Presidency of George W. Bush. Indeed, more than 80% of the $1.5 billion spent on abstinence education since 1982 was spent under the Bush administration, with the 2007 budget granting approximately $204 million to abstinence only education programmes.

However, the Obama administration has withdrawn Federal support for abstinence only programmes within the United States. The budget plans for 2010 have proposed that over $100 million will be directed to teenage pregnancy programmes which have been shown to be evidentially effective.

The effect that the change in policy in the USA will have on sex education in countries severely effected by HIV and AIDS which receive funding via PEPFAR is not yet clear. When PEPFAR was reauthorised in 2008, the requirement that a third of funds allocated to HIV prevention be spent on abstinence only programmes was replaced with the requirement of a written report to Congress if less than a half of HIV prevention funds are spent on abstinence only sex education. Although the effects of this change in legislation remain to be seen, HIV and AIDS organisations have argued that it sustains a bias towards abstinence only programmes in countries which receive PEPFAR funding.

In the UK, abstinence education has no support in public policy and receives no funding from government, although there is an expectation that sex educators in schools will emphasise the potential benefits of delaying or abstaining from sexual activity alongside providing information about contraception, sexual health services, sexuality and gender issues.

What is the current situation with abstinence based sex education in the US?

The impact of the radical shift in public policy in the United States away from abstinence based sex education is yet to be determined. However, the current position seems to be one in which abstinence education has become somewhat entrenched in some states.

A survey in 2009 found that while 21 states and the District of Columbia mandate that public schools teach sex education, many more spell out requirements on how the topics of abstinence and contraception should be dealt with in the context of any teaching. The survey found that in general there was a greater tendency to require that abstinence be stressed than that programmes cover contraception.

In contrast to this trend, some states seem to have been actively engaged in consolidating comprehensive provision and an increasing number have chosen not to receive federal funding for abstinence based sex education.

Is abstinence education supported by young people, parents and schools?

Surveys of teachers, parents and young people consistently show that abstinence based sex education has little widespread public support. State based studies, such as a survey of parents in North Carolina and another in Minnesota conducted in 2005 and 2006-7 respectively, show an overwhelming majority supporting the provision of sex education via schools and that it be comprehensive. These results support evidence gleaned in previous studies which have found overwhelming support for sex education in school and little local controversy about its provision and organisation within schools.

In the UK an even greater proportion of parents and young people support comprehensive approaches to sex education. Young people want AIDS education in school and want to be informed of the facts that will enable them to make their own informed decisions.

Why is the debate about abstinence education important in terms of HIV/AIDS prevention?

Globally, the greatest HIV and AIDS burden falls on young people. Sex education is recognised as a major component of HIV prevention targeting young people; what form it takes and whether or not it works impacts directly on the HIV risk to which they are exposed. AIDS education for young people is a crucial factor in determining the extent to which they are at risk of HIV infection.

Billboard promoting abstinence for HIV preventionin Ghana

With considerable amounts of money continuing to be dedicated to abstinence only programmes under the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief, abstinence education is being promoted in some of the countries worst affected by HIV and AIDS. This raises a number of concerns about whether this is an appropriate approach in contexts where HIV is very prevalent and sexual intercourse before marriage is widespread, and, particularly, whether such programmes will withhold accurate information about condoms.

All the evidence clearly shows that the best way to progress HIV prevention through sex education is through comprehensive programmes. Despite generating considerable debate and political support, particularly in the United States, abstinence education represents, primarily, a minority moral movement rather than an effective response to the sexual health needs and behaviour of young people.

As the experiences around the world demonstrate - a good example of which can be found in Uganda - what works in terms of sex education for HIV prevention is a comprehensive approach that is sensitive to the needs and experiences of particular groups. For unmarried, sexually active young people abstinence messages are not effective, whereas promoting faithfulness to one partner, condom use and abstinence is effective. Abstinence messages work to some extent for younger sexually inactive people, but they need to have information about contraception and risk-reduction behaviour for when they do decide to have sex. Everyone has the right to the information that can enable them to protect themselves against HIV infection - it is neither Christian nor moral to refuse them.

Does Sex Ed Undermine Parental Rights?

IMAGINE you have a 10- or 11-year-old child, just entering a public middle school. How would you feel if, as part of a class ostensibly about the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, he and his classmates were given “risk cards” that graphically named a variety of solitary and mutual sex acts? Or if, in another lesson, he was encouraged to disregard what you told him about sex, and to rely instead on teachers and health clinic staff members?

That prospect would horrify most parents. But such lessons are part of a middle-school curriculum that Dennis M. Walcott, the New York City schools chancellor, has recommended for his system’s newly mandated sex-education classes. There is a parental “opt out,” but it is very limited, covering classes on contraception and birth control.

Observers can quarrel about the extent to which what is being mandated is an effect, or a contributing cause, of the sexualization of children in our society at younger ages. But no one can plausibly claim that teaching middle-schoolers about mutual masturbation is “neutral” between competing views of morality; the idea of “value free” sex education was exploded as a myth long ago. The effect of such lessons is as much to promote a certain sexual ideology among the young as it is to protect their health.

But beyond rival moral visions, the new policy raises a deeper issue: Should the government force parents — at least those not rich enough to afford private schooling — to send their children to classes that may contradict their moral and religious values on matters of intimacy and personal conduct?

Liberals and conservatives alike should say no. Such policies violate parents’ rights, whether they are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or of no religion at all. To see why, we need to think carefully about the parent-child relationship that gives rise to the duties that parental rights serve and protect.

Parents are responsible for bringing new people into the world, bound to them by blood and, ordinarily, deep feeling. These people are incapable of developing their uniquely human capacities on their own, giving parents an obligation to their children and to society to help them reach maturity — one that requires attending not only to children’s physical and emotional needs, but their intellectual and moral growth as well.
Parenting, especially in moral and religious matters, is very important and highly personal: while parents enlist others’ help in this task, the task is theirs. They are ultimately responsible for their children’s intellectual and moral maturity, so within broad limits they must be free to educate their children, especially on the deepest matters, as they judge best. This is why parental rights are so important: they provide a zone of sovereignty, a moral space to fulfill their obligations according to their consciences.

The right to parent is rather like the right to exercise one’s religion. Like parental duties, religious duties are serious and highly personal. This is why, absent the most serious reasons, it would be a grave violation of individual rights if the state prevented people from honoring what they regarded as their religious obligations. To subject children to indoctrination in deeply personal matters against their parents’ consciences is no less a violation than forcing Muslim parents to send their children to a Catholic Mass.

True, the state needs to protect children from abuse and neglect. It is also true that the state has a legitimate interest in reducing teenage pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. But it is not abuse or neglect to protect the innocence of preteenage children or to teach one’s children more conservative, as opposed to more liberal, moral values. Nor is it wrong or unreasonable to limit the state’s control over what one’s children learn and think about sensitive issues of morality. On the contrary, that is just what is required if parents are to fulfill their duties and exercise their legitimate rights.

Unless a broader parental opt out is added, New York City’s new policies will continue to usurp parents’ just (and constitutionally recognized) authority. Turning a classroom into a mandatory catechism lesson for a contested ideology is a serious violation of parental rights, and citizens of every ideological hue should stand up and oppose it.

Robert P. George is a professor of politics at Princeton and the founder of the American Principles Project. Melissa Moschella is a doctoral candidate in political theory at Princeton.

The Right Is Wrong About Sex Education

It is back to school time, and at far too many public secondary schools, that means it is also back to the dark ages of promoting ignorance and religious rhetoric instead of factual information about human sexuality. In many pockets of Pennsylvania, as in the nation, schools are failing our teens. Failing to provide accurate information about life. Failing to keep them safe from AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Failing to teach comprehensive sexuality education.

Concerned teachers and parents whisper horror stories — always on conditions of anonymity. A teacher from Philadelphia where middle school students are overwhelmingly poor, African American, and reading below grade level, spoke about girls offering oral sex for a dollar, at the movies and even on the playground. Affluent kids reading at or above grade level may be just as likely to fall victim to ignorance and peer pressure. One suburban mother told of her 13-year-old son confiding of bar mitzvah party "gifts" of oral sex, and relaying his own personal misconceptions, such as "taking daily showers will keep me safe from STDs."

Governmental Sanctions

Is it any wonder adolescents lack the information they need to make wise decisions about their lives? More than one billion dollars in federal funding -- $176 million in 2006 alone -- have been doled out for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. In contrast, there has never been any federal funding stream at all for comprehensive sex education.

President Bush and a minority from the extreme religious right are staunch defenders of abstinence as the only acceptable form of behavior outside of marriage -- for people of any age. The programs they support promote ignorance over science and prohibit teachers from providing any information about contraception, except for discussing failure rates. American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been fed fallacies galore, such as:

• "Abortion can lead to suicide."
• "10 percent of women become sterile after an abortion."
• "Touching a person’s genitals can result in pregnancy."
• "Condoms do not help stop the spread of STDs."
• "Half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus."

Practically ignored by such programs are the needs of kids who are or have been sexually active; one teacher advised such a student to "renew their virginity." Ignored are the needs of students who are or have been the victims of sexual violence. Ignored are the needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered students, and those questioning their sexual identities.

Religious Rhetoric

For any progressive outraged about the intrusion and imposition of one set of religious beliefs in public schools, the picture is even worse. Many abstinence-only-until-marriage programs currently funded by the federal government and taught in public schools use messages about abstinence that are couched in religious beliefs, including assumptions of when life begins. The Silver Ring Thing, which has received more than $1 million from the government over the last few years, conducts a nationwide touring program that features a 3-hour "abstinence-only" presentation with prominent religious themes and rhetoric, including the following passage from the New Testament.

For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor... (1 Thess. 4:3-4.)

Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are not only dispensing medical inaccuracies, they have also been shown to be ineffective – and even dangerous. All the major medical, public health research groups and institutions – the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Nurses Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Psychological Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Institutes of Health, and the Institute of Medicine – support comprehensive sexuality education.
Who does not remember when Senator Bill Frist, a former medical doctor serving as Majority Leader of the Senate, was unwilling to dispute the notion that AIDS can be spread via sweat and tears. On the other side of the Capitol, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has actively exposed the flaws and dangers of abstinence-only curricula. Reports issued in 2004 from his office found that 80 percent of the programs studied included distorted information. Waxman has repeatedly warned that, "Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."

NGOs Say No to Abstinence Only

Leading the Jewish community in the fight for age appropriate, medically accurate sex education is the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW). It has launched Plan A: NCJW’s Campaign for Contraceptive Access. As a volunteer organization inspired by Jewish values, NCJW defends religious freedom and the wall separating religion and state. NCJW President Phyllis Snyder speaks out against "small but powerful minority that is attempting to impose a single religious belief on us all…(in) a climate where -- time and again -- ideology and politics trump sound science and medicine." Plan A details the impact that can be felt in homes, pharmacies, and doctors' offices, as well as public schools.

NCJW members often work in coalition with other organizations with national scope and grass roots activists. The ACLU, People for the American Way, SIECUS-- the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, and Planned Parenthood are all advocating for comprehensive sex education. Here in Pennsylvania, NCJW and other progressive organizations work together through PARSE: Pennsylvanians for Responsible Sex Education.

Good News Ahead?

In one of the last votes in the House before the August recess, the U.S. House of Representatives attached some conditions to Title V of the Social Security Act that would require that any funded program be proven effective at decreasing teen pregnancy, STD, and HIV/AIDS rates. This was part of the reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), set to expire on September 30. Should the Senate approve this bill, and the President sign it into law, much of the decision-making will be given over to the state legislatures.

Clearly, we all need to go back to school. Parents of school age children need to find out what is being taught to their children. Does the program provide age-appropriate, medically accurate information? Is the teacher certified and qualified to teach sex education without mixing personal "pro-choice" or "pro-life" ideology or religious rhetoric? Does the teacher also encourage family communication about sexuality, and help young people with their negotiation skills? Principals need to think long and hard before relegating sex education to whatever gym teachers happen to be available. Federal legislators need to become educated about the Responsible Education About Life, or REAL Act, which would provide federal funds for comprehensive sex education. State legislators need to devote funding to accredited programs, certification standards and curriculum oversight. It all comes down to getting young people the information they need and have a right to, information to help them make wise decisions. In today’s world, teenagers cannot afford a failing grade for sex education.

Eliminate Religious Control of Sex Education in Public Schools

In May 2009, using federal “abstinence-only-until-marriage” funds, the State of Mississippi held a teen abstinence summit. According to the ACLU:

“The 2009 summit featured religious themes and overtly Christian messages, including a lengthy presentation about the Ten Commandments by Judge John N. Hudson. Judge Hudson told the audience, ‘Abstain, God says, from promiscuous sex – thou shall not commit adultery. …Why would He tell us not to do it? He's not. He's telling us that He created this great and wonderful gift for a special and unique committed relationship that is to last forever.’ The program also included several prayers and a performance to gospel songs by the Pilgrim Rest Mime Ministry.”

Religious ideology, not medical science, is being taught to many public school children across the country.

• The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices... Programs that offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control."
•  Since 1997, the federal government has allocated more than $1 billion for abstinence-only-until marriage programs. Educational programs on sexuality for teens should protect the health and safety of children -- not promote a particular religious perspective.
• By law, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are prohibited from providing lifesaving information about the health benefits of contraception and condoms for the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS, and unintended pregnancies.
• Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs contain false and misleading "medical" statements and teach religious propaganda and theologically driven gender stereotypes.
• Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs promote a conservative religious perspective over a secular science-based approach to sex education.
• Researchers studied the National Survey of Family Growth to determine the impact of sexuality education on youth sexual risk-taking for young people ages 15-19, and found that teens who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to experience pregnancy than those who received abstinence-only education.
• The following sampling of organizations is in support of medically accurate, secular sex education programs: the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the Institute of Medicine.

The Secular Coalition for America believes that government-funded sex education in public schools must teach sound science. Our first priority when crafting educational programs on sexuality for teens should be protecting the health and safety of our nation's children -- not promoting and endorsing a religious perspective. Moreover, the curricula of our sex education programs must be directed by medical and education professionals, not religious leaders.

Religious Resources in Support of Sex Education, Reproductive Rights, and the Rights of GLBTQ youth

Research shows that the majority of people of faith and religious organizations support comprehensive sex education that includes messages about delaying sexual initiation and medically-accurate, age-appropriate information about contraception. The Religious Right has monopolized the conversation regarding faith and sexuality for many years, and progressive religious individuals and organizations provide a necessary perspective to strengthen and diversify advocacy work in support of sex education. It is critical to include them as allies when doing advocacy work.

The organizations listed below provide a starting point for identifying religious allies of comprehensive sex education, reproductive health, and LGBT rights. Many of these organizations provide resources on incorporating a religious perspective into sex education advocacy and/or provide opportunities for partnership. They also provide resources to people of faith who want to bring healthy conversations about sexuality into their own congregations. Additionally, the list of online communities provides information and support to anyone who is unsure about reconciling their progressive views about sex education with their religious beliefs.

Yes, Sex Education for Kindergarteners

Sex education has made it into the national campaign, but not in the way I would hope.

Last year, you may remember that I had the opportunity to debate Bill O'Reilly on whether sex education should begin in kindergarten.

I said then, and I'll repeat now, that I believe in K - 12 sex education. So do more than 150 national health, medical, religious, and youth-serving organizations.

Sex education in the early primary years sets a foundation for later, more in-depth education. It includes lessons on taking good care of your body, family roles, treating people with respect, the names of body parts, and sex abuse prevention. It helps children feel good about their bodies, their gender, their families, and gives them age-appropriate information. It teaches them "no, go, tell" about sexual abuse -- say no, get away, and tell an adult you trust what happened. It supports parent/child communication about these issues.

The Unitarian Universalist Association and United Church of Christ sex education program "Our Whole Lives" includes a model K-12 program. I wish all children received such basic, supportive programs.

The curriculum DOES NOT include discussions of sexual behaviors or contraceptive methods or other information that would not be age-appropriate for five- or six-year-olds. The ad referenced in the article is supposed to scare viewers by conjuring up images of sexually explicit material being presented to five-year-olds -- nothing could be further from the truth.

And Mr. O'Reilly, I still think that five-year-olds can be taught that babies grow in a special place inside their mother called a uterus.

Unbiased sex education is a child's right

Allowing faith schools to skew the curriculum in order to argue against homosexuality and sex before marriage is a mistake.

"No parent or school should be able to prevent a young person receiving good, high-quality sex and relationship education." Typical, some would say, of the view of humanists and others who believe that sex and relationships education should be an entitlement for all our children, and are often accused as a consequence of riding roughshod over the rights of some religious parents and the "rights" of religious schools.

But this is not the voice of your stock strident secularist, but a 16-year-old, speaking as a representative of the Youth Parliament today. Young people themselves are some of the strongest supporters  of sex and relationships education, and recognise that it will improve their ability to deal with the emotional, moral and practical difficulties of adolescent and adult life. The Youth Parliament has been a key leader in the drive for compulsory sex and relationships education, and has called not just for all state schools – including religious schools – to be legally obliged to teach it, but for parents not to be able to opt their children out of it.

It's not a surprise that young people want this education. We know that the sexual health and wellbeing of young people is improved  by sex and relationships education. We also know that teaching only abstinence in schools has no effect on the likelihood of teenagers to have sex (they are just as likely to do so – it simply means they are less able to take the proper precautions and negotiate complex relationships). Young people have a right to expect that we as a community will provide it for them – and when we say that young people have a right to such education this is in fact literally true. As Article 13 of the convention on the rights of the child says, "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers … "

In the face of overwhelming evidence that sex and relationships education improves the lives of young people, what right do we have to deny them it? If we know that sex and relationships education of an objective sort improves young people's health and wellbeing (and we do) and if we accept that it is the right of the child to receive information of all sorts (which it is) and if we go on to conclude that the responsibility of society is therefore to ensure that all our children receive this entitlement, then why allow state-funded religious schools to do something different? Why in particular, as has been announced today, should the religious character of a school (which may or may not be shared by the school's pupils or their parents) be allowed to skew the sex and relationships education that children receive?

In PSHE, as in RE, pupils should have the opportunity to learn about and engage with a range of different perspectives on relationships. Many different views do exist in society and sex and relationships education should engage them – as it does. But above all else, we need to be honest with young people, not withhold from them knowledge of the full range of human sexuality that does exist in reality, which they will encounter and engage with in the world outside school and which they need to be prepared for.

In sex and relationships education, more than in any other area, we must place the child – not our own prejudices – firmly at the centre of our thinking. Young people want this education, they need it, it is their right to have it, and if we withhold it from them on grounds of our own ideologies, we will only be doing harm.

Taking sex education to young people who are not in schools

Simply talking about sex helps break a lot of barriers – it's often the best approach to inform vulnerable teenagers why contraception is necessary 

 A child reads a leaflet on contraception during sex education lessons. But how can services reach those young people who aren't in school?

From the developing world to the UK, the statistics are clear: teenagers who miss out on education are more likely to have sex younger, less likely to use contraception, and more likely to get pregnant.

A survey carried out as part of the 2001 census in the UK showed that fewer than half of teenage mothers were going to school when they got pregnant. About a quarter of boys and a third of girls who left school at 16 with no qualifications did not use contraception when they first had sex, compared to only 6% of boys and 8% girls who stayed on till 17 or over and got qualifications.

A 2008 study of 38 mostly poor, developing countries found that 15- to 17-year-old girls who were enrolled in school were less likely to have had sex than girls who weren't in education. Nearly 13 million adolescent girls give birth each year in developing countries; a girl growing up in Chad is more likely to die in childbirth than she is to attend secondary school, according to the IPPF. But if a girl in the developing world receives seven or more years of education, on average she marries four years later and has 2.2 fewer children.

Leaving school also affects chances of picking up STIs: studies of HIV in Africa and Latin America have found that education lowers women's risk of infection and the prevalance of risky behaviour.

Without the natural hub for young people that is created by school to rely on, how do sexual health professionals ensure the most vulnerable teenagers get much needed education and access to services?

In Bolivia, where 20% of pregnancies are in the 15- to 19-year-old age group, peer educators are at the heart of a successful programme run by sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services provider CIES targeting children and teenagers living on the streets. More than 2,000 youth volunteers aged between 10 and 18 who come from a similar background, or have grown up in other difficult circumstances, give talks, hand out condoms and encourage young people to access services — while, crucially, gaining their trust.

Since the "Tu Decides" (You Decide) programme began 20 years ago, the number of young people becoming leaders, normally after using one of CIES' services themselves, has increased by 25% each year.

CIES runs 14 health centres and three mobile facilities serving rural areas. Each centre has as dedicated "youth corner", designed and run by young people to attract others, and offering free internet access, books and games, as well as opportunities to take part in sports, music, and job skills training. Services are free for the poorest young people and doctors are trained in a "bio-psycho-socio-cultural" approach that sees them consider and discuss all aspects of a patient's life, not just the problem they're seeking treatment for.

"They have a lot of issues and most of the time it's not only health problems," says Martin Gutierrez, CIES' communications manager. "They need to talk, they need to have human contact. A key part in all this is our doctors creating a bond with them."

Drug use is common among clients who live on the streets, as is involvement in sex work and crime. Many have suffered sexual violence.

"When they come here they find not only doctors who can talk with them but also other people who are just like them," Gutierrez says. In 2011 CIES worked with 12,000 young vulnerable people, that number increases by 10% every year.

An important part of the education work in the clinics is explaining to young people what their rights are. It's not unusual, for instance, for other medical professionals or pharmacists to refuse to give out contraception, even when teenagers want to pay for it, telling them they're too young to have sex. CIES lets them know they have the right to demand those services.

In the UK, creating bonds with the young people being educated is no less important. Around half of the teenagers Jennifer Lawson works with as part of the FPA's Sexability project in Glasgow are out of mainstream education, and it helps when delivering sessions through alternative provision that she's not a teacher, she says.

For pupils who often have short attention spans and behavioural problems, her approach is as hands-on and discussion-based as possible – chatting works much better in a setting where worksheets and presentations from the front would be far too much like English or maths. Instead she gets pupils thinking about issues like the effect of alcohol by asking them to put condoms on a fake penis while wearing "beer goggles" — glasses used in anti drink-driving campaigns to show how being drunk distorts vision.

Groups also take turns to pick different types of contraception out of a box Lawson has covered in fake fur and then discuss their use. The innuendo-laden "furry box" is an excellent ice-breaker and keeps pupils engaged, she says. "It sounds daft but it's a great hit. It means they get to physically touch stuff like coils, rings and implants, rather than just looking at pictures."

To succeed with these kinds of groups educators need to make clear to young people that they are not there to criticise or judge them, says Helen Corteen, the centre director at Brook in Wirral, which works closely with the local youth offending service and offers courses that include work on self esteem and risky behaviour such as recording pornographic images on mobile phones.

"It's about starting where they are, rather than saying 'you've been sent on this course because you've done something wrong and we're going to fix it'," Corteen says.

And getting sex education in this kind of setting means it's sometimes actually much wider ranging, according to Lawson: "We do a lot of work on values. A lot of mainstream schools won't let you go into that much detail." Despite the occasional problem with behaviour, she finds these young people tend to be more willing than others to get talking about sex — and really engage with the sessions. "They'll just tell you what they think," she says. "They're happy to have a laugh, which is great when you're tackling this sort of thing.

"They love telling you their opinion, because a lot of the time they're not asked. They're really keen to get their voices heard."

Sex Education For Muslim Youths And Their Parents

Abstract

Sex Education of children and youth is a sensitive but important aspect of their learning. At present Muslim children are getting secular sex education at schools and getting, the wrong messages from the media. In this article pro and con of American sex education and Islamic concept of sexuality and marriage are discussed. Finally a curriculum is proposed for Islamic sex education to be given at home or Sunday Islamic school.

Key Words: Sex Education, Teenage Pregnancy, Sex in Islam and Marriage.

In The Name of Allah, Most Kind, Most Merciful Allah says in Quran:

"Say: Are they equal to those who know, and those who do not know?"

Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has said:

"Blessed are the women of the Ansar (citizens of Medina). Shyness did not stand in their way seeking knowledge about their religion"

Although Quran has given so much emphasis on acquiring, knowledge, and in the days of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) Muslim men, and women were never too shy to ask him questions including those relating to private affairs such as sexual life, for Muslim parents of today sex is a dirty word, they feel uncomfortable in discussing sex education with their children, but do not mind the same being taught at their school, by secular or non-Muslim teachers (of even opposite sex), by their peers of either sex, and by the media and television, (an average child is exposed to 9,000 sexual scenes per year). These parents should know that sex is not always a dirty word. It is an important aspect of our life. Allah who cares for all the aspects of our life, and not just the way of worshipping Him, discusses in Quran, reproduction, creation, family life, menstruation and even ejaculation. And Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) who was sent to us as an example, discussed with his companions many aspects of their sexual life including sexual positions. The main reason Muslim parents do not or cannot discuss sex education with their children is because the way they have ben brought up, ignorant and maybe they are not comfortable with their own sexuality or its expression. They leave Islamic Education to the Sunday school, and sex education to the American schools and the media.

What Is Sex Education And Who Should Give It?
Is sex education about knowing the anatomy and physiology of human body, or about the act of sex, or about reproduction and family life, or about prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy? Is giving sex education equal to giving permission of engaging in sex? One sex educator at my son's school told the parents "I am not planning to tell your children whether or not they should not engage in sex, or how to do it but in case they decide to do it they should know how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy". At present the sex education is incomplete as it does not cover the morality associated with sex, sexual dysfunctions and deviations and the institution of marriage.

One of the basic questions is , do children need sex education? Do you teach a duck how to swim or just put it in water and let it swim. After all, for thousands of years men and women are having sex without any formal education. In may traditional civilizations, sex education starts after the marriage with trial and error. Some couples learn it faster than others and do it better than others, due to difference in sexual perception and expression of one partner. In my opinion having dozen children is not necessarily a proof of love. An appropriate and healthy sex education is crucial to the fulfillment of a happy marriage.

With regards to the questions who should impart sex education, I believe everyone has to play his or her role. The parent as a whole have to assume a more responsible role; especially the father has a duty to be able to answer his son's questions and the mother to her daughter's. We can hardly influence the sex education at school or by the media which I call "VD- AIDS And Teenage Pregnancy Education", but we can supplement that with some ethical and moral dimension and add family love and responsibility. Apart from these sources, some role can be played by Sunday school teachers, the family physician, the pediatrician and the clergy. Within a family the elder sister has a duty towards the younger one and the elder brother has for the younger one.

Sex Education In American Schools
In every American school, public or private, sex education is being given from grade 2 to 12. The projected 1990 cost to the nation will be $2 Billion per year. Teachers are told to give the technical aspects of sex education without telling the students about moral values or how to make the right decisions. After describing the male and female anatomy, and reproduction, the main emphasis is on the prevention of venereal diseases and teenage pregnancy. With the rise of AIDS, the focus is on "Safe Sex" which means having condoms available each time you decide to have sex with someone you don't know. With the help of our tax dollars, about 76 schools in the country have started dispensing free condoms and contraceptives to those who go to school health clinics. Very soon, I can foresee there will be vending machine in the school hallways and "children" could get one condom each time they need to engage in sex. The role of parents is minimized by American sex educators and sometimes ridiculed. In one of the sex education movies I was made to watch as a parent at my son's school "Am I Normal?", the young boy whenever he asks a question about sex to his father, the father (is shown as a bum and a slob) shuns him away and diverts the topic. Finally the boy learns it from a stranger, and then is shown going into a movie theater with his girlfriend.

The secular sex education devoid of morality promoted by educators like Dr. Sol Gordon is in many ways unacceptable to our value system. The examples of Dr. Gordon's beliefs are:

a. Nudity in homes (in shower or bedroom) is good and a healthy way to introduce sexuality to smaller (under 5) children, giving them opportunity to ask questions. In the same book he also states that 75% of all child molestations and incests (500,000 per year) occur by a close relative (parent, step parent or another family member) in a familiar surrounding.

b. A child's playing with genitals of another child is a "naive exploration", is permissible and not a reason for scolding or punishment. He is also aware that boys as young as 12 have raped girls as young as 8. He does not tell us when this "naive exploration" becomes a sex act.

c. "Children caught reading 'dirty' magazines should not be made to feel quilty, but parents should use it as a chance to get some useful points across him or her about sexual attitudes, values and sex exploitation." Like charity, pornography, should start at home !!

d. " If your daughter or son is already sexually active, instead of telling them to stop it, the parents moral duty is to protect their health and career by providing them information and means for contraception and avoiding VD". Educators like Dr. Gordon do not believe that giving sexual information means giving the go ahead signal for sex. I just wonder as to why some folks after being, told the shape, color, smell and taste of a new fruit, and pleasure derived form eating it, would not like to try it? These educators say that even if your child does not ask any questions about sex, parents should initiate the discussion using i.e. a neighbor's pregnancy, a pet's behavior, advertisements, popular music or a TV show. I wonder why these educators are obsessed with loading children with sexual information whether they want it or not.

The More They Know It - The More They Do It
The sex education in American schools has not helped decrease in the teenager the incidence of VD or teenage pregnancy. This is because it has not changed their sex habits. According to Marion Wright Elderman President of Childrens Defense Fund in a recent report, "out of every 20 teens, 10 are sexually active but only 4 use contraception, 2 get pregnant and one gives birth. In 1982, John Hokins study found one out of every five 15 year olds, and three 16 year olds are sexually active . The incidence increased to 43% in 17 year olds, 46% of 16 year olds, 29% of 15 year olds were sexually active . Now it is estimated that about 80% girls entering college had sexual intercourse at least once. Going to church does not help either. Some 1400 teenagers, mostly white, attending conservative Evangelical Church were sent questions about their sex life. 26% of 16 year olds, 35% of 17 year olds, and 43% of 18 year olds said they had sexual intercourse at least once. 33% that responded also said sex outside of marriage was morally acceptable.

Hazards of Early Sex
The health hazards of early sex include sexual trauma, increase in incidence of cervical cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy.

A variety of injuries are possible and do happen when sex organs are not ready for sex in terms of full maturation. Some of these injuries have a long lasting effect." Cervical cancer has been thought to be related to sex at an early age and with multiple partners. Dr. Nelson and his associates in his article of epidemiology of cervical cancer calls it a sexual transmitted disease."

Teenage Pregnancy
About one million or more teenage girls become pregnant every year, 80% of them are unmarried. Out of this I million, about 500,000 decide to keep their baby, and 450,000 are aborted (or ? murdered), 100,000 decide to deliver and give the baby for adoption. In 1950 the incidence of birth from unmarried teenagers was only 13.98%, but in 1985 it increased to 59%. It is a myth that teenage pregnancy is a problem of black and poor. To the contrary 2 out of 3 teens getting pregnant now are white, suburban and above the poverty income level. The pregnancy rate (without marriage) in 54,000 listed Navy women is 40% compared to 17% to general population. What is the life of those who have teenage pregnancy? Only 50% complete high school, more than 50% of them are on welfare. They themselves become child abusers, and their children when grown up have 82% incidence of teenage pregnancy. 8.6 billion dollars are spent every year for the financial support and health care of teenage mothers.

The sexual revolution of 60's has affected another dimension of health care. In 1985 alone , 10 million cases of chlamydia, 2 million gonorrhea, 1 million venereal warts, 0.5 million genital herpes and 90,000 syphilis cases were diagnosed." The plague of AIDS" is adding a new twist to our fears. About 52,000 cases have been diagnosed in the USA alone and 50% of them have already died. The disease is growing at a rate of one case every 14 minutes," and so far there is no good treatment. Father Bruce Ritter of New York, who operates shelters for runaway children, says the biggest threat to the Nation's 1 million runaway is the threat of AIDS now.

There are many reasons children get involved in sex". Most common being the peer pressure. Their common response is "since everybody is doing it". One of the reasons is their desire for sexual competence with adults and a way to get ahead. Another common reason is their lack of self esteem which they want to acquire and improve by becoming a father or mother. Sometimes it is due to lack of other alternatives to divert their sexual energies. It could also be due to lack of love and appreciation at home. Detacthment from home can lead to attachment elsewhere. The sexual pressure on them is everywhere, at school from their peers, from the TV where about 20,000 sexual scenes are broadcasted annually in advertisement, soap operas, prime time shows and MTV. The hard core rock music nowadays fanned the flames of sexual desires. Most of the parents do not know what kind of music their children are listening. If they care, and listen to hard rock songs, they will know what they are singing some of these songs that have pornographic words and sentences which made Kandy Stroud, a former rock fan, beg parents to stop their children from listening to what she calls "Pornographic Rock". Music affects our mood by activating Melantonin, the hormone from the pineal gland in the brain which is turned on by darkness, turned off by flashing light. It is the same gland which has been thought to trigger puberty, and affects reproductive cycle, and sex mood.

What Is The True Role Of Parents?
For their failures (i.e. teenage pregnancy), the American educators are putting the blame, as usual, on the parents. In fact in Wisconsin and many other states the grandparents of a baby born to a teenager are responsible for the financial support of the child. Remember parents are not needed if their teenage daughter needs contraceptives or abortion. Faced with such hypocrisy, the parents job is to instil in their teenagers mind what is not taught in sex education classes i.e. reason not to engage in sex, reason not to get pregnant etc. At the same time, they should divert their energies to some productive activities like community work, sports, character growth, or Sunday schools. Another role of parents is to help their children make the right decisions. In Islam anything which leads to wrong is also wrong. Therefore parents should control the music children are listening, the TV program they are watching, the magazines they are reading, and the dress (which may provoke the desire in the opposite sex) they are wearing. While group social activity should be permitted within supervision, dating should not be allowed. When American teenagers start dating, sex is on their mind.

In fact 25% of college freshman boys during a survey responded by saying that if they have paid for the food, and the girl does not go all the way, they have a right to force her to have sex. Many of the rapes occur at the end of the date and are not reported. Anything which breaks down sexual inhibition and loss of self control i.e. alcohol, drug, petting or just being together for two members of the opposite sex in a secluded place should not be allowed for Muslim teenagers. Kissing and petting is preparing the body for sex. The body can be brought to a point of no return.

In summary, the Muslim parents should teach their children that they are different from non-Muslims in their value system and way of life. Having a feeling and love in your heart for someone else of the opposite sex is different and beyond check, while expression of the same through sex is entirely different and should be under control. Muslim children should be told that they don't drink alcohol, eat pork, take drugs, and they don't have to engage in pre-marital sex either.

Islamic Concept Of Sexuality
Islam recognizes the power of sexual need, and the subject is discussed in Quran and the saying of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) in a serious manner, in context with the marital life and family life . Islam does not consider women (or men) an object of sexual pleasure but with a legal frame work of relationship fulfilling the will of God. While the sex outside marriage is a punishable sin, sex with one's spouse is an act of worship. The Islamic laws regarding sex are fixed and do not change with peer pressure or changing values of society. Virginity at the time of marriage is considered a virtue in Islamic morality, but a disadvantage in the West. No wonder less than 10% of American brides are virgin.

Mention Of Creation, Reproduction And Sex In The Quran
1. "Did We not create you from a sticky fluid?, Which We laid up in a safe abode, for a known term. Thus We arranged, how excellent is Our arrangement".

2. "So let man consider from what he is created. From a gushing fluid that issues between the lion and the ribs.

3. "Verily We created man from a product of wet earth, then placed him in a drop in a safe lodging, then We fashioned the clot into a little lump, then We fashioned the lump into bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the best of creators". Commentary: The seminal fluid has all the ingredients (protein, carbohydrate, minerals) as earth has. The order of embryology given 1400 years ago when no microscope, X-ray of ultrasound were available is the same as discovered now. Western scientists recognized sperm in 17th century and thought it to be a miniature pre-formed man".

4. "Your women are a tilth for you, so enjoy your tilth the way you wish, and make an introduction to yourself.

Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) said:
1. "When one of you have sex with your wife it is a rewardable act of charity". The companions were surprised and asked, "but we do it out of our desire, how can it be counted as a charity?". The Prophet replied "if you had done with a forbidden women, it would have been counted as a sin, but if you do it in legitimacy it is counted as a charity?".

2. "Let not the one of you fall upon his wife like a beast falls. It is more appropriate to send a message before the act" .

3. "Do not divulge secrets of your sex with your wife to another person, nor describe her physical feature to anyone".

Concept of Adultery (Fornication or Zina) in Islam
Allah says in Quran:
1."Do not come near to adultery. Surely it is a shameful deed and Evil, opening roads to another evils ".

2. "Say: Verily, my Lord has prohibited the shameful deeds, be it open or secret, sins and trespasses against the truth and reasons" .

3. "Women impure are for men impure, and men impure are for women impure and women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity".

Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) has said on many places against adultery as one of the three major sins. However the most interesting story is that of a younger man, who came to him and asked his permission for fornication, since he could not control himself. The Prophet dealth with him with reasoning and asked him if he will approve of someone else doing illegal sex with his mother, sister, daughter or wife. Each time the man said 'no' then the Prophet replied that the woman with whom you plan to have sex could also be somebody's mother, sister, daughter or wife. The man understood and repented. The Prophet prayed for his forgiveness.

Adultery is a crime not against one person but against the whole society. It is a violation of marital contract. 50% of all first time marriages in this country result in divorce in 2 years, and the main reason for divorce is extra- marital affairs of either husband or wife. Adultery which includes both pre- marital and extramarital sex is an epidemic in this society. Nobody seems to listen to the Bible which says frequently "Thou shalt not do adultery". The Quranic approach "Do not approach adultery" is more sensible. What it means that not only illegal sex is prohibited, but anything which leads to illegal sex is also illegal. These things include dating, free mixing of sex, provocative dress, nudity, obscenity and pornography. The dress code both for men and women is to protect them from temptation and desires by onlookers who may lose self control and fall into sin.

"Say to the believing men, that they should lower their gaze
and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity,
and God is well acquainted with all they do". "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty. ..". Concept of Marriage In Islam
Islam recognizes the strong sexual urge and desire for reproduction. Thus Islam encourages marriage as a legal sexual outlook and as a shield from immorality (sex without commitment). In Islam the marriage of a man and woman is not just a financial and legal living arrangement, not even just for reproduction, but providing with a total commitment to each other, a contract witnessed by Allah. Love and joy of companionship is a part of the commitment. A married couple assumes a new social status and responsibility for himself, his wife and his children and for the community.

Allah says:
"Among His signs is that he created consorts for you from
among yourself, so that you may find tranquility with them,
and (He) set love and compassion between you. Verily in
this are signs for people who reflect."
Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) said:

I. "Marriage is my tradition. He who rejects my tradition is not of me".

2. "Marriage is half of the religion, the other half is being God fearing".

In Islam there is no fixed rule to the age of marriage. It is becoming fashionable for Muslim young men not to marry until they have completed their education, have a job, or reached age 26-30 or more. Similarly Muslim young girls say they want to marry after age 24 - why? When asked, they would say "I am not ready for it" - not ready for what? Don't they have normal sexual desire? If the answer is, yes, then they have only one of the two choices (a) marry or (b) postpone sex (abstinence till they marry). "Let those who find not the where withal for marriage,
keep them self chaste till God find them the means from His
Grace" .
Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) said:
"Those of you who own the means, should marry, otherwise should keep fasting, for it curbs desires".
The western concept for delaying marriage is different from ours. When I suggested to one of my sexually active young female patient, she bluntly said "I don't want to sleep with the same guy every night."

Role Of Muslim Parents And Muslim Organizations
I am not proposing that all Muslim youth be married at age 16. But I must say that youth should accept the biological instinct and make decisions which will help a more satisfied life devoted to the career rather than spending time in chasing (or dreaming about) the opposite sex. Parents should help their sons and daughters in selection of their mate using Islamic practice as a criteria and not the race, color or wealth. They should encourage them to know each other in a supervised setting.

a) To provide a platform for boys and girls to see and know each other without any intimacy.

b) Offer premarital educational courses to boys and girls over 18, separately to prepare them for the role of father and husband and of mother and wife.

The father has a special role, mentioned by Prophet Muhammed "one who is given by God, a child, should give it a beautiful name, should give him or her education, and training and when he or she attains puberty, she should see to it that he or she is married. If the father does not arrange their marriage after puberty, and the boy or girl is involved in sin, the responsibility of that sin will lie with the father". (Reported in Mishkat, page 271).

The Curriculum For Islamic Sex Education
Islamic sex education should be taught at home, starting at an early age. Before giving education about the anatomy and physiology, the belief in the Creator should be well established. As Destoevsky puts it "without God everything, is possible" meaning that the lack of belief or awareness of God gives an okay for wrong doing".

The father should teach the son and mother should teach her daughter. In the absence of a willing parent, the next best choice should be a Muslim male teacher (preferably a physician) for boys and a Muslim female teacher (a nurse or physician) for a girl at the Sunday Islamic school.

The curriculum should be tailored according to the age of the child and classes be held separately. Only answer to a pertinent question be given. By this I mean that if a 5 year old asks "how did I get into mom's tummy", there is no need to describe the whole act of intercourse. Similarly it is not necessary to tell a 14 year old how to put on condoms. This might be taught in premarital class just before his or her marriage.

The Curriculum For Sex Education Should Include:

a)  Sexual growth and development

     * Time table for puberty

     *Physical changes during puberty

     * Need for family life

b)  Physiology of reproductive system

     *   For girls - organ, menstruation, premenstrual syndrome

     *   For boys - the organ, the sex drive



c) Conception, development of fetus & birth

d) Sexually transmitted disease (VD/AIDS) (emphasize the lslamic aspect).

e)   * Mental, emotional & social aspect of puberty

     *   Social, moral and religious ethics

     *   How to avoid peer pressure

Sex Education After Marriage
This article is not intended to be a sex manual for married couples, though I may write such someday. I just wanted to remind the reader a short verse in Quran and then elaborate.

"They are your garments, and you are their garments".
Thus husbands and wives are described as garments to each other. A garment is very close to our body, so they should be close to each other, a garment protects and shields our modesty, so they should do the same to each other, garments are put on anytime we like, so should they be available to each other anytime, and a garment adds to our beauty, so they should praise and beautify each other.

For husbands I should say this. Sex is an expression of love and one without the other is incomplete. One of your jobs is to educate her in matters of sex especially in your likes and dislikes and do not compare her to another woman.

For wives I want to say this. Man's sexual needs are different from woman's. Instead of being, a passive recipient of sex, try to be an active partner. He is exposed to many temptations outside the home. Be available to please him, and do not give him an excuse to make a choice between you and the hellfire.