I've known it all along, but Peter Hitchens puts it succinctly.
Sex education has failed. So the Establishment decrees that we must have more of it, and in fact that there shall be no escape from it.
What I don’t grasp is why the people of this country put up with so many separate insults to their intelligence in any given week.
And why this particular blatantly obvious sequence comes round year by year and nobody even laughs, let alone draws the correct conclusion.
Despite the casual massacre of unborn babies in the abortion mills, and the free handouts of morning-after pills (originally developed for pedigree dogs which had been consorting improperly with mongrels), and the ready issue of condoms to anyone who asks, and the prescription of contraceptive devices to young girls behind the backs of their parents by smiling advice workers, and the invasion of school classrooms by supposedly educational smut, the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy has failed, is failing and will continue to fail.
In the week that figures clearly showed that the Government’s supposed target for cutting teen pregnancy by half is never going to be reached, compulsory smut education – a key part of this ‘strategy’ – was forced on all English schools by law for the first time.
There will be no opt-outs. The new liberal gospel of ‘do what thou wilt – but wear a condom while thou doest it’ will be taught by order of the State.
Some years ago, I wrote a short history of sex education in this country. I didn’t then know about its first invention, during the Hungarian Soviet revolution of 1919, when Education Commissar George Lukacs ordered teachers to instruct children about sex in a deliberate effort to debauch Christian morality.
But what I found was this. That the people who want it are always militant Leftists who loathe conventional family life; that the pretext for it has always been the same – a supposed effort to reduce teen pregnancy and sexual disease; and that it has always been followed by the exact opposite.
It was introduced into schools against much parental resistance during the early Fifties. And, yes, the more of it there was, the more under-age and extramarital sex there seemed to be.
By 1963, in Norwich, parents were told that their young were to be instructed in sexual matters because the illegitimacy rate in that fine city had reached an alarming 7.7 per cent (compared with a national rate of 5.9 per cent). The national rate is now 46 per cent and climbing, so that was obviously a success, wasn’t it?
Well, yes it was, because the people who force these peculiar classes on our young are lying about their aims. You can see why.
Most of us, in any other circumstance, would be highly suspicious of adults who wanted to talk about sex to other people’s children. But by this sleight of hand – that they are somehow being protected from disease and unwanted pregnancy – we are tricked into permitting it.
And our civilised society goes swirling down the plughole of moral chaos.
Well said, Sir! Mr. Hitchens is writing about England, but my experience in the USA bears out what he says. The more sex education you provide to inquiring teenage minds, the more they're going to want to experiment with what you've taught them, and the more teenage pregnancies - and abortions, and unwanted births - will result. Q.E.D.