Sex education

Press, 21 April 1979, Page 14

Sex education

Sir, — A. Delhanty’s hope (April 16) that school sex education will counteract the effects of the commercial exploitation of sex is not backed by the evidence. Courses such as are common today, which include explicit photographs and detailed “how to” pictures which are themselves hardly less objectionable than the erotic books, magazines and films whose influence they are supposed to combat are unlikely to instil the Biblical idea of the sanctity of sex. The Director-General of Education has already declined to direct that sex education must be conducted on the basis that sex should be a strictly heterosexual activity confined within the marriage bond. Society owes its young protection from exploitation: a concerted effort against the influences which encourage and facilitate extra-marital sex is long overdue. Above all, parents must have the right to protect their children from misguided attempts to use the schools to effect social change. — Yours, etc., M. VINEY. April 16, 1979.

Sir, — In reply to Rosie Witty, (April 18) although television has good early evening showings, later programmes vary from good to very bad and many children are still watching. Because of the long time of viewing the greatest impact often comes from that which appeals to the lowest instincts without regard to the moral and spiritual havoc wrought to the plastic, sensitive minds of our young people. For this reason all films in the restricted class should be clearly marked, giving the censor’s classification. Personally, I would turn the knob on a restricted film. It is true that the Bible does not gloss over man’s imperfections nor glory in them like some film producers do. “All Scripture is by inspiration of God and is profitable,” and its many stories and characterisations must be honestly portrayed. —Yours, etc.. A. DELHANTY. April 18, 1979.