Censoring Sex Education - 3 views
started by Weiye Loh on 04 Sep 09
started by Weiye Loh on 04 Sep 09
Start a New Topic » « Back to the New Media Ethics 2009 course group
started by Weiye Loh on 04 Sep 09
International guidelines on sex education reignite debate
By Ong Dailin, TODAY | Posted: 04 September 2009 0715 hrs
SINGAPORE: A foreign controversy, over a set of proposed international guidelines on sex education, threatens to reignite the debate that raged just six months ago over Singapore's own sexuality education programme in schools.
The guidelines, scheduled to be released by UNESCO next week, are aimed at reducing HIV infections among the young, and will be distributed to education ministries and school systems around the world.
But an earlier draft issued in June was attacked by conservative and religious groups, mainly in the United States, for recommending discussions of homosexuality, describing sexual abstinence as "only one of a range of choices available to young people" - and even suggesting a discussion of masturbation with children as young as five, reported the New York Times.
When contacted by TODAY, a Ministry of Education (MOE) spokeswoman said: "We will be studying the revised guidelines to see how useful and relevant they are to the current review of Sexuality Education in our schools."
Two civil society groups expressed contrasting views.
Ms Dana Lam, president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), felt UNESCO's guidelines affirmed AWARE's own Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme, which was suspended by the MOE in May.
Ms Lam said the UNESCO guidelines, which took an "evidence-informed and rights-based" approach, offered "a sound, comprehensive approach to sexuality education".
The emphasis "on relationships, values, attitudes, culture, human development, sexual and reproductive health exactly matches the emphasis" in AWARE's CSE programme, she added.
The latter was suspended after parents objected to the programme's explicit content, and the MOE found it conveyed messages "which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex".
Going forward, the ministry signalled that sexuality education should "adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society"; while Education Minister Ng Eng Hen said it should encourage heterosexual married couples to have healthy relationships and stable families.
Focus on the Family's senior vice-president, Mrs Chong Cheh Hoon, was opposed to the UNESCO guidelines.
Apart from questioning their US-centrism and bias, she found some of the content "highly inappropriate", such as teaching children aged nine to 12 about basic contraception.
"This is like telling our kids not to smoke and yet providing them with cigarette filters," she said.
In the material recommended for ages 12 to 15, the guidelines advise the youth to practise safe and consensual sex "if sexually active". But, Mrs Chong countered, this was inconsistent messaging - since countries like Singapore have statutory rape laws covering those up to age 14.
UNESCO experts have been working on the guidelines for two years, reportedly drawing on more than 80 studies of sex education. But conservative flak has already caused one of the project's key participating agencies, the United Nations Population Fund, to pull back, said NYT.
UNESCO has defended its guidelines as "evidence-informed and rights-based". Its guidelines also argue that sex education helps to delay the onset of sexual activity, reduce the number of sexual partners and unprotected sex.
"In the absence of a vaccine for AIDS, education is the only vaccine we have," said Mr Mark Richmond, UNESCO's global coordinator for HIV and AIDS.
He added that just 40 per cent of youth aged 15 to 24 "have accurate knowledge" of how the disease is transmitted.
------------------------------------
My comment/ question: What happens when both partners are below the age of consent? Who's raping who in that case? I wonder how the severity is like in such cases compared to outright rape under the law. If it is indeed more severe than outright rape, why then shouldn't we provide sex education that really educates rather than preaches?
Again, here we see the nonsensical/ irrational argument oft-used by the conservatives bigots that kids and their whatever innocence or pureness should be 'protected'. If anything, knowledge is the best form of protection against anything and everything! Knowing the map protects you from getting lost. Knowing math protects you from being cheated by unscrupulous mercenaries.
Besides, sex education is after all education. That there is a "sex" adjective in front does not mean that it is sexual. It is the dirty minds of these bigots that make sex education sounds bad. And that is assuming that sex is inherently bad in the first place.
God these people.