Sex education

Press, 3 November 1984, Page 20

Sex education

Sir,—l agree that there is not necessarily any .link between high moral standard’s and belief, in divine beings, but there seems a close connection between confused

moral standards and lack of allegiance to any divine being. Some State schoolteachers seem to feel inhibited and unable to uphold Christian moral values. Television, news media, modern novels and local gossip largely support a humanistic view of moral values — as long as you really love each other you can do what you like. Unless a clearly-reasoned so-called Christian view is upheld, then by default the teachers of sex education are supporting the humanistic view. I believe few parents want their children to be encouraged to have sexual relationships outside of marriage. I again urge all parents to find out exactly what will be taught and not to be too trusting like the Rev. Ezio Blazoni.—Yours,, etc MARY BROUGHTON. October 30, 1984.

Sir,—l agree that the child is the parents’ responsibility (M. T. Donnall, October 30). However, the sad fact remains that parents do not always meet that responsibility. Some feel unable or unwilling to discuss the sexual aspects of life, yet their children, through their own feelings and other contacts, are well aware of the existence of sexuality. Such children struggle to acquire knowledge on this, as on any other important topic. What they learn from their class mates or from popular reading is likely to be inadequate or wrong. The proposed sex education in schools offers basic biological facts presented in their natural context, as part of family life and human relationships, with opportunities for discussion. Children need facts and to feel comfortable, not ashamed, about their own and other people’s sexuality. How they express that sexuality remains their choice, influenced by many factors, of which family background is a major one.—Yours, etc.,-, CATHERINE GLUE. October 31, 1984.