How schools are sexualising childhood

Alarm about children being taught highly sexualised, politically loaded and age-inappropriate topics in school sex-education lessons has been growing for many years. Back in May, the UK’s then-Conservative government finally decided to tackle the problem. Ministers issued new guidance that ruled out teaching contested gender ideology as fact and teaching children about sex before the age of nine. This was a sensible corrective. But with Labour now in charge, all aspects of the school curriculum, including Relationships and Sex Education, are seemingly up for review.

The Labour Party is under pressure to drop the recent guidance, which has barely yet been implemented, and bring back lessons teaching children that gender is multiple, fluid and for them to choose for themselves – and that knowledge of extreme sexual practices is somehow empowering (even if you are only eight years old). More than 100 groups have written to the new Labour education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, warning that the previous guidance to schools ‘falls short of what is required to help keep children safe, healthy and prepared for modern life’. They argue that age restrictions on teaching children about sex and on covering the topic of gender identity threaten the ‘preventative role’ sex education plays.

As I set out in a new report published today by MCC Brussels, the argument that highly sexualised lessons are needed to ‘protect’ children is employed by influential international organisations such as UNESCO, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the European Parliament. Together, this elite group of unappointed sexuality ‘experts’ claims the moral authority to shape what children all around the world are taught about the most intimate aspects of their lives – their identity, sexuality and private relationships. Those groups currently lobbying the British government want UK schools to teach ‘comprehensive sexuality education’ (CSE) in line with this global agenda.

The notion that schools must teach sexually explicit content in order to protect children is one of the key problems with the internationally adopted approach. In Sexualising Children? The Rise of Comprehensive Sexuality Education, I argue that far from protecting children, CSE robs them of their innocence and, potentially, places them at risk.

One of the principles on which CSE is based assumes children are sexual beings from birth. This justifies calls for CSE to begin in early childhood. The WHO argues that:

‘From birth, babies learn the value and pleasure of bodily contact, warmth and intimacy… From birth, parents in particular send messages to their children that relate to the human body and intimacy. In other words, they are engaging in sexuality education.’

This reinterprets child development and family interactions through a sexual lens. Parents have not traditionally seen themselves as ‘engaging in sexuality education’ when they care for their babies and young children. To suggest that this is the case imposes a highly sexualised framework on family life. It is not babies that are sexual beings, but the WHO that sexualises childhood and intimate relationships.

Once it is accepted that children are sexual beings from birth, then it is never too young to teach children about their sexual rights, including, first and foremost, the right to sexual pleasure. IPPF argues that:

‘All conversations around pleasure must emphasise the diversity forms of pleasure can take. Programmes which do this can strengthen the focus on communication and consent, through recognition that giving and receiving pleasure requires sexual partners to reject assumptions, in favour of asking questions and verbalising both desires and boundaries.’

This suggests that the role of CSE is to teach children diverse forms of sexual pleasure and encourage them to reject assumptions about what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Children are taught to expand their sexual horizons, to ‘reject assumptions’ and focus on ‘giving and receiving pleasure’ before being encouraged to ‘verbalise’ boundaries. Children are taught that the only limit is consent – and even consent requires that they first have an open mind to saying yes. Although dressed up in the language of ‘health’ and preventing risk, giving children responsibility for their sexual experiences, and encouraging a wider range of behaviours, arguably leaves children more at risk than if they had not been exposed to CSE.

This is reinforced by UNESCO, the WHO and other promoters of CSE referring to ‘young people’ rather than children. That some countries have an age of consent to sex that demarcates between children and adults is ignored. By the same token, the need for ‘age-appropriate’ lessons morphs into arguments for ‘developmentally appropriate’ instruction, while the need to teach ‘preventatively’ suggests ‘pre-empting’ sexual development. In other words, children supposedly need to be taught about sexuality before they need or want such knowledge. In any case, it is surely the role of adults to protect children from abuse, not for children to have to protect themselves. This lack of respect for age-of-consent laws shows how international organisations are prepared to ride roughshod over national sovereignty and regional customs in their rush to promote CSE.

Alongside this, CSE undermines families. It should be for parents to pass on to children values around sex and relationships, not teachers or NGOs. It also degrades education. Schools are being exploited as the place where children comprise a captive audience. Ironically, as my report shows, CSE can leave children knowing little about sex. Classes focus little on the basic science of sexual reproduction and concentrate instead on broader themes such as sexuality and intimate relationships. The aim is to change children’s attitudes and behaviours and, in this way, implement broader social change. As such, the global imposition of CSE involves unwitting children in an explicitly political project.

It is vital that Labour resists the pressure it is now facing to drop the previous government’s guidance on sex education. Unfortunately, neither Keir Starmer nor Phillipson offered an endorsement of it back in May. Those opposed to the sexualisation of childhood and the politicisation of education must make their voices heard.

Joanna Williams is a spiked columnist and author of How Woke Won. She is a visiting fellow at MCC Budapest. Read her new report, Sexualising Children? The Rise of Comprehensive Sexuality Education, here.