There has been a lot of hue and cry about the proposal to introduce sex education as part of the education curriculum, some reports even saying that it would be started as early as kindergarten. As I do not really have all the facts before me, I can only say in charity that there may be misconceptions on both sides of the issue, fuelled by both those who consider that the Church is once again interfering with the rights of the State and those who believe that introducing sex education is simply another way again to ensure the passage or at least, the aims of the objectionable RH bill are fulfilled.

Allow me however to state my position on what is noisily called “sex education” for all, including young children. To me, this represents the main vehicle of the so-called sexual revolution, which simply means removing sex from the intimacy of a husband-wife relationship, and bringing it out in the open.

Sex now becomes merely a means of obtaining pleasure, without the responsibility of the consequences of intercourse, namely the possibility of a human life, or the commitment of spouses (or partners) to love one another for the rest of one’s life. Thus sexual intercourse can be allowed as long as it gives pleasure, whether it is with one’s spouse or anyone else, or with many partners, or with children, or with someone of the same sex, or to go to an extreme, even with animals.

From what I have read in the papers and what I hear, the purpose of introducing sex education is to teach students the biological or reproductive cycle, so that they would know what would result if intercourse takes place, and what could be done to prevent such an event from taking place. The other “high ground” taken is that it would inform them of the dangers of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, and therefore preventive action could be taken through the use of condoms (which studies have shown is not fool-proof). And of course, there is that idea of a continued threat of overpopulation, and the idea is interspersed with the “patriotic” need to ensure that economic growth can only take place if there are no new mouths to feed.

Teaching children what they are not yet ready to understand is actually a subtle method of desensitizing them. They would be given all the information about sex, more than what they need or can handle. Such information, “too much too soon” would actually encourage experimentation, promiscuity, the use of contraceptives, result in sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, and physical and psychological traumas that may ensue. It is through this insidious means that children are soon introduced to many anti-life and anti-family concepts. They learn that what is pleasurable is to be preferred, and that truth and goodness are really concepts that depend on one’s preferences, that is, it is all “relative”.

The other objection that I have is that the State is taking upon itself what parents have the first right of – namely the right to teach their children in the loving environment of the family that the union of their parents brought them into being, and that their parents are responsible for caring for them, nurturing them, sending them to school and preparing them for life. Parental autho rity is therefore undermined, and children learn to distrust their parents when it comes to sex and intimate relationships, and by extension, when it comes to other things. Parents are seen to be unable to tell the truth about sex, or because the subject is considered taboo at home, it has to be learned from peers or teachers. And of course, this would lead to advise on the use of contraceptives, or worse, abortion.

Of course, I am aware that the proponents of sex education say that middle class families have the luxury of that right to teach their children about “the birds and the bees”, but poor families, of which our country has more than a surfeit of, neither care nor feel that it is their right. Of course they would be more than happy to relinquish that right to the State, especially since the State would provide the means to ensure that any “unfortunate consequences” would be taken care of by public funds.

Perhaps I am suspicious of efforts of first-world countries, multinationals and their ilk, to entice developing countries with problems of poverty, through well-funded programs to encourage families to “stop at two”, indirectly violating our national sovereignty and our pro-family and pro-life Constitution. The infamous Kissinger Report, now taken out of its secret files, unabashedly advised the danger of unmitigated population growth in developing countries to their security and economic well-being, and that steps should be taken to control the increasing numbers of “rabble rousers” in those countries, a list of which included the Philippines. Perhaps I am ashamed that our poverty is being used to push the agendas of other countries or of international organizations mostly run by advanced countries. For example, the United Nations has issued a statement praising the planned sex education program. To use a blunt colloquial expression, “Pakialam nila!”

Perhaps I am being naive. Perhaps I believe that despite the difficulties that parents and educators must endure, teaching the value of human life must be a priority. Education, which must be a partnership between parents and educators must face the challenge of a clear and delicate way of teaching sex, which must always be from the viewpoint of love and self-giving. Our modern world is now faced with a culture that has reduced human sexuality to something that is commonplace, to considering it as a mere bodily function that is pleasurable. The duty of parents and educators is to aim for training in the area of sex that is truly and fully personal, for “sexuality is an enrichment of the whole person – body, emotions and soul – and it manifests its inmost meaning in leading the person to the gift of self in love.” And teaching love, rather than the graphic illustration of copulation, to my naive belief is the better way.
* * *
merci.suleik@gmail.com