Lessons in sexuality put children at risk
In July last year, I wrote a report for MCC Brussels exploring the teaching of comprehensive sexuality education in schools. It is interesting to re-read it after greater attention has finally been paid to the rape of girls in English towns by mainly Pakistani-heritage men. I have reproduced an extract below. What strikes me is the way in which sex education erodes a child’s capacity to say ‘no’ to sexual activity and, at the same time, presents ‘privacy’ between children and parents as something to be encouraged rather than a safeguarding risk.
Rather than considering Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) to be a ‘right’, which is how it is promoted by groups such as the World Health Organisation and UNESCO, it is perhaps better to consider it an imposition on children, by schools, at the behest of national governments and supranational organisations. As attendance is often mandatory, children have little choice other than to submit.
In this process of redefinition, rights are given to children but taken away from adults, most notably, their parents. The right to a private family life, free from outside interference, would once have encompassed the rights of parents to raise their children according to their personal moral codes.
This undermining of parents’ rights could put children at risk. CSE guidance assumes that it is not families but children who have a right to privacy and confidentiality. A child may divulge to a CSE teacher that they have engaged in sexual practices, or that they are experiencing confusion about their gender identity, with a reasonable assumption that such information will not be disclosed to their parents. This assumption of privacy extends to lesson content. Neither UNESCO, IPPF nor WHO consider parental consent a necessary factor in children’s access to CSE, no matter how contested or sexually explicit the content. In February 2025, the UK’s Labour government rejected a call for parents to have a legal right to know what their children are being taught in school.
The Council of Europe, in a Commissioner’s Human Rights Comment, addresses the issue of parents’ rights head-on. The Commissioner notes:
International human rights standards on the right to freedom of religion or belief do not entitle parents to withdraw children from sexuality education classes where relevant information is conveyed in an objective and impartial manner.
Yet there is little that is ‘objective’ or ‘impartial’ about relationships and sexuality, despite repeated attempts by international organizations to describe it as ‘scientific’. But even if there was, this should not undermine the right to family life and the right to freedom of conscience. CSE is promoted not just as a right in itself but as a way of teaching children to respect the rights of others. But often, when rights compete, a demand to respect the rights of others is a demand on individuals to suppress their own right to privacy, free speech or freedom of conscience. For example, respecting the right of a transgender person to express their gender identity could mean teaching children that it is wrong to assert a right to single-sex spaces.
Under a rights framework, moral questions relating to sexuality are redefined as legal questions. What matters is not what is morally right or wrong but what is legal or illegal. If people consent to engage in sexual activity, then children must learn to accept that anything goes. The role of CSE, in enabling the fulfilment of this right, is to provide the information necessary to expand the imagination of the child as a sexual-rights bearing being. In this way, the focus on children’s rights further erodes the boundary between childhood and adulthood. Rather than adults collectively safeguarding children, they teach them the importance of being ‘sex-positive’ or, in other words, embracing all consensual engagement in sexual activity.
Proponents argue CSE is needed to counteract the multiple risks children face if left to explore their sexuality without professional guidance. UNESCO claims that CSE:
plays a central role in the preparation of young people for a safe, productive, fulfilling life in a world where HIV and AIDS, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), unintended pregnancies, gender-based violence (GBV) and gender inequality still pose serious risks to their well-being.
Such statements illustrate the risks assumed to threaten children who do not partake in CSE. Health risks, such as HIV/AIDs or other sexually transmitted infections, as well as ‘unintended pregnancy’ are most frequently cited.
Critics argue the focus on pregnancy and disease is too negative and that, if it is to be effective, CSE needs to adopt a more positive approach. Rather than warning children of the dangers of negative behaviours, more recent guides encourage children to engage in what are perceived to be more positive practices:
The risk-reduction framework that guides the teaching of sex education in the United States focuses almost exclusively on avoiding unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, overlooking other critical topics such as the information and skills needed to form healthy relationships and content related to sexual pleasure.
The promotion of condom use rather than abstinence is an example of a ‘sex positive’ approach to risk. Children are taught that using condoms can increase ‘pleasure’. IPPF note:
there is growing evidence that promoting pleasure in male and female condom use, alongside safer sex messaging, can increase the consistent use of condoms and the practice of safer sex.
This suggests children are capable of making rational choices to maximise sexual pleasure. Rather than adults assuming responsibility and telling children what they cannot do, it is assumed no such distinctions between adult and child exist. We move from protecting children from risk to expecting children to have the capacity to negotiate sexual relationships for themselves.
By linking CSE to increased use of condoms and lower rates of STIs, the absence of CSE comes to be understood as a risk to children, irrespective of any sexual behaviours they may be engaged in. The European Parliament notes that:
Experts have argued in numerous studies and reports that flawed or insufficient sexuality education leads to an increase of teenage pregnancy rate and a higher amount of people suffering from AIDS and STIs. Sexuality education of young people must therefore be regarded as an appropriate means to prevent these negative effects.
This appears to suggest pregnancy or the transmission of STIs is caused by insufficient CSE, rather than simply unprotected sex. This point is made repeatedly, for example:
In the case of STI infection, the UK, Slovakia, and Spain are the most concerned. In these countries, it has been observed that sexuality education and prevention campaigns are insufficient or deficient.
In this way, CSE is presented as the only way of protecting children from risk and the absence of CSE is, in and of itself, a risk to children.
CSE is also linked to protecting children from sexual violence and abuse. IPPF note that,
Sexual health requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.
Healthy relationships are defined as ‘pleasurable’ and ‘safe’ in contrast to ‘coercion, discrimination and violence’. The phrase ‘child abuse’ is rarely used. Inherent in the notion of child abuse is the assumption that all sexual activity between adults and children is exploitative and abusive. Focusing on coercion and violence suggets that it is some behaviours, rather than some relationships, that are inherently wrong.
In terms of risk, a lack of CSE is presented as leading some to behave abusively and others to become victims. Both assumptions are false and raise significant questions about responsibility. The latter is particularly troubling. It appears to suggest that children are responsible for protecting themselves from abuse by changing their own behaviour in relation to adults. The important point that it is the responsibility of adults to protect children, not children to protect themselves, is often overlooked in the discussion of CSE and risk prevention.
CSE is assumed to protect children from emotional as well as physical risks. IPPF notes that:
Health is of course not simply physical, but should encompass mental health and emotional wellbeing. Many young people feel anxieties and worries about sex and sexuality. Anxieties about issues such as sexual orientation, gender and relationships can contribute to self-harm and suicide.
UNESCO similarly notes that:
CSE, by definition, promotes healthy social and emotional development, and therefore, as education systems recognize their role in promoting social and emotional learning, there is increasing interest in how CSE is already contributing to the development of social and emotional skills.
This ignores the role played by family, community and religion in establishing moral norms around relationships. Instead, it assumes there is such a thing as ‘emotional sexual-intelligence’ and that this can only be achieved through CSE.
My conclusion now is that if we are serious about safeguarding children, we need to kick CSE out of schools.