Sopstories

I sometimes go to http://tampinescourt.blogspot.com/ because i am interested in enbloc issues. Incidentally I am pro enbloc – so i do not necessarily agree with the blog writer’s opinions. But here is the beauty of agreeing to disagree – I can read her posts and not get angry. As a mother she has written a piece not about AWARE but about their Comprehensive Sex Education. I applaud her for doing so and I agree with what she has to say.  Let me give the link to their CSE programme manual – and I am sure many parents will be concerned if this is taught to children in their early teens.http://voicethread.com/#q.b468061.i2489074

Here are some of my thoughts.

Pg 13

1. Similarly pain can be positive or negative. It becomes positive when their is mutual consent and pleasure.

Err – since when is pleasure a marker of positive activity? So many kids are already cutting themselves. Should they say they feel pleasure while doing so, does that make it all right? Mutual consent makes things all right? Even if the parties are young and may not have thought issues through properly? What sort of criteria is that?

2. The table on page 13 shows some positive, neutral and negative terms. Foreplay for instance is considered positive as is the condom, and the homosexuality is neutral as is the pill. First and foremost, positive for whom, neutral for whom? When you say foreplay is positive, what are you telling these young children? Do they need to know about foreplay at this age? Isn’t it more important to help them understand basic concepts of sexuality? And the condom and pill – how can they be positive or even neutral  at this stage? The pill tampers with the hormonal system, and surely it cannot be good for growing girls?

3. Anal sex can be healthy or neutral if practiced with consent and with a condom.
Healthy is not a neutral word. Healthy is good. We all want to be healthy. What are we saying to the kids?

4. People might place pre-marital sex as negative, but it is actually neutral…

So much has been said about Christians being intolerant. But isn’t this manual intolerant of my views as well? How can a trusted trainer be allowed to teach this? I can imagine the tussle and fight between an already hormonal, and possibly tantrumy teenager who has just been taught this and a parent who preaches abstinence – and its not only Chrisitans who do this.

5. Then there is the sex is fun concept. We all want fun don’t we? Why are we teaching kids that sex is fun? What are we telling them about sex? What is the importance of this? Kids are struggling with physical changes, their sense of morality is being challenged daily. Ok – let’s not talk about sex. Watching TV or playing computer games is fun. Do we need to teach them that? Isn’t it more important to teach them self-control?

The list goes on. Read the blog I mentioned and you can see her reaction.

It is strange how when we stand up our views are considered intolerant. How tolerant are the people who wrote this programme over our views?

Derrick wrote a comment under AWARE, BEWARE about his stance. He talked about how even though the new EXCO seemed to have taken helm in a high-handed fashion, he is still applauding for their making known this issue.

To put in a fair word for the new EXCO, if I am concerned about an issue, and passionately so, where do I look for support – from my circle – naturally. So how is it surprising if a few of them come from the same church? It was also the old guard who threw the gauntlet regards their stands re homosexuality. It is not the only thing AWARE does, so why only challenge them on this one stand? They did not say they will not act on behalf of women who suffer abuse did they? Why is it seen as a religious issue? Many voices against the CSE are not coming from the Christian community.

My children are grown, and are sensible. I thank God for them. When they were young, I controlled their tv watching habits. Programmes that promoted premarital sex, multiple sexual partners, adultery, I either did not allow, or I allowed to watch with some guidance. My children did not grow up warped. They were not deprived. Many times, such programmes make sex look so cool, and those who do not participate look so nerdy. That is selling the wrong product. Now that they are grown, I no longer need to exercise this sort of control – the values have been laid down – and it is time for them to take their own decisions. Should they deviate from the paths I have taught them, it will cost me pain. But I will not love them any less. Similarly, I have friends who do not practice what I believe in. I love them nonetheless- but my stand is plain. They accept me for who I am and vice versa. They do not need my approval to do what they do. This is tolerance. I cannot impose my beliefs on them, but that does not mean i do not make my beliefs known.

Also, I want to talk about “genetics” and sexual orientation. Nature has created male and female sexual organs to complement each other – its natural. As for whether there is a gene for homosexuality – well scientists are looking for genes for serial killers, or paedophiles. In fact, the bible says that men have a bent towards sinning. So we all have a sin “gene” if you like. Using genetics to explain homosexuality and tolerance of it does not hold water.

By the way, there is a petition http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/parents_sex_ed_appeal/where we can sign our protest re this education programme. Its really not about AWARE or new EXCO or old – its about what we want our children to learn.