Archive

When I was at secondary school I had the very good fortune to be taught about sex in a way that was relevant, rational, and perhaps best of all, not sanctimonious, writes Simon Demetriou.

It seems clear to me that sex should not just be taught about as part of biology, since the relative strength of insects' mandibles has considerably less bearing on our lives than our sexual practices. But what I am wary of is a shift too far in the other direction.

Presently, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority says that, as well as teaching the dangers of irresponsible sex, an important aim of SRE is to encourage students to understand moral behaviour including "the importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children".

Not only does this seem to be enforcing an outdated homo-heterosexual marital paradigm, but it also takes sex from one realm of irrelevance to another if taken too far. For most young people, thoughts about marriage and moral repercussions are as far from their minds when they begin having sex as the intricate workings of the ovaries.

And as long as you are having sex responsibly, there is no reason that you should be concerned with either of these (in reality) peripheral things. After all, where biology keeps real sex unmentioned, often morality makes real sex unmentionable.


If taught well, "moral behaviour" should be no more or less than respect and openness for and with your partner. But by bringing in marriage, education loads sex with meanings that it does not intrinsically have and casts promiscuity into the shadows of immorality.

Promiscuity is not the same as irresponsibility, and responsible young people who can find themselves in situations from pregnancy to just wanting an HIV test should not be made to feel wrong for not conforming to a stereotype that is rapidly dwindling in credibility.

Simon Demetriou is 19