Sadly, we don’t have to look too far to see the sexualisation of children; we do not need to look for it at all, for it comes looking for us.
The article examined below is Brook’s ‘Masturbation as a tool for sex education,’ and is a case in point. We discuss author Terri Harris’ idea that adults should ‘talk to young people about masturbation’ as part of sex education.
Note that, in an attempt to make these conversations sound more palatable, children are euphemistically referred to as ‘young people.’ Yet, we know that she means ‘children’ because the article refers to sex education – a subject designated for Key Stage pupils in Key Stage 4 (sixteen years old) and below. The term ‘young people’ appears nine times throughout – but is conveniently undefined. However, we remind our readers that a child is, in law, a person under the age of 18.
Myriad safeguarding concerns arise from discussing masturbation with children, from the problems associated with sexual citizenship; the removal of safeguarding barriers; myths about a supposed culture of shame; conflating masturbation with sex; and unwarranted interference in the sexual development of children.
Sexual Citizenship
Harris’ article insists that sexual pleasure needs to be explicitly taught within sex education. This is a central tenet of ‘sexual citizenship’, explained in an article by Jonny Hunt in the TES which we have previously critiqued. The points we made in that article apply here too. Our biggest concerns are:
- False claims of “shame” that should be overridden by discussion of sexual pleasure. Harris states that there is a “prevailing culture of shame” around masturbation. We would strongly question the idea that there is a prevailing culture of shame around the act of masturbation in private. The effect of this argument is to try to shame adults, to make them doubt their impulse to safeguard children. Adults should feel uncomfortable talking to children about sexual pleasure. Indeed, if the words ‘adults’ ‘and’ ‘children’ and ‘sexual pleasure’ appear together, then a red flag should be raised, immediately.
- Explicit teaching about masturbation is entirely unnecessary. Both platonic and sexual relationships should be based on mutual respect; this can be discussed and taught without going into detail about masturbation. Children can and should be told, age-appropriately, that masturbation is not shameful or harmful. There is no benefit to children of any more detailed discussion, but there are considerable risks. Children will discover, in private, their own bodies and as they become adults, will be able to find out considerably more information if they want to.
- PSHE is a compulsory subject. It covers many topics that children may feel uncomfortable and embarrassed to discuss in school. In some cases, this is justifiable because the topic is too important not to teach – for example, learning about puberty may be embarrassing, but is important so that children can understand their changing bodies; it should be done in a way that minimises embarrassment. Any topics that may cause children to feel embarrassed or uncomfortable need a strong justification that it is for the benefit of the children. There is no such justification for extensive teaching about masturbation.
- Sex and a good sex life are undoubtedly important to many adults; however, neither adults nor children should be forced to listen to or discuss sexual pleasure. Children cannot choose their classmates and it will be extremely uncomfortable or distressing for many of them to have to discuss sexual pleasure not just with people that are their friends, but with people they actively dislike. Given the high levels of sexual harassment and assault in schools, it is very likely that girls will be forced to engage in discussions about sexual pleasure with boys who have harassed or assaulted them. No adult would accept this situation in the workplace and yet this is being suggested as appropriate for children.
- Mode of operation of abusers: Harris’ emphasis on pleasure ignores aspects of abuse and abusers that should be known to anyone purporting to be an expert in sex education. It is common for abusers to tell children that they have enjoyed the abuse. This is a deliberate tactic used to confuse children about what is happening and shame them into silence, through their fear that people will consider them to have enjoyed their own abuse. Furthermore, some children may experience involuntary reactions that the abuser describes as ‘pleasure’, thus further blurring the boundaries between abuse and consent. This can cause self-blame by the survivors of abuse. Harris is bound to ignore this because her aim is also to teach children about masturbation, so they can “begin to discover…pleasure.”
- Erosion of children’s boundaries: Aside from the danger posed by actual predators, if discussions around sexual pleasure are included in the curriculum, then adults talking to children about sex will become normalised to the children and erode children’s natural and protective boundaries. In our article about the age of consent we addressed the question of boundaries. Forcing children to listen, and possibly contribute, to discussions about masturbation is surely paradoxical: it will be extremelyhard for children to assert appropriate boundaries against a sex educator, who by their position as ‘teacher’ holds a position of power.
- Erosion of adults’ boundaries: If adults blur the boundaries about what can be discussed with children, this makes it much harder to spot when an adult is grooming a child. Discussions with children about sexual pleasure undermine the principles of safeguarding because it not only becomes more difficult to spot a predator but also gifts them the defence of plausible deniability. It is known that predators will target any organisation that will give them access to children and this will only get worse if talking about sexual pleasure is embedded in schools.
Dismantling safeguarding – Chesterton’s Fence
Further, in common with other ‘pioneers’ of sex ed, Harris explicitly proposes a wholesale change of approach, effectively advocating the removal of safeguards but without providing compelling reasons for doing so. The foolhardiness underlying this type of strategy can be outlined as follows:
“There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” G.K Chesterton
So, what are we really saying? Quite simply, we mean that the idea of teaching children about sexual pleasure may be advanced by well-meaning but naïve advocates, but the dismantling of safeguards will always be taken advantage of. Even if it were possible to differentiate those possessed with ill-intent from well-intentioned advocates, the ability to do so remains academic, for it is the nature of safeguarding that those responsible for keeping children safe must always have in mind those who do not have children’s best interests at heart – and acknowledge these people will seek out such roles. This necessarily means that arguments that appear to be made in good faith, but that are open to exploitation, must be dismissed.
Harris also claims that there is a ‘prevailing culture of shame shrouded by myths like: ‘too much masturbation causes erectile dysfunction,’ an argument also made by the Peadeophile Information Exchange (PIE):
‘The reluctance to acknowledge children’s sexuality is greatly reinforced by feelings of sexual guilt all too common in our society…and therefore something from which children should be protected.’
The intentions behind attempts to destigmatise masturbation instead signal an invitation to those with nefarious intent.
Myths and misdirection
Returning to Harris’ assertion that the ‘prevailing culture of shame shrouded by myths like: ‘too much masturbation causes erectile dysfunction,’ is an unhelpful and partial truth. We have previously written about erectile dysfunction
‘Teenagers increasingly understand they are addicted to porn. NHS figures, reported on Radio 4 Women’s Hour in 2019 revealed the number of teenagers in therapy for porn addiction had increased 228% in just two years, from 1400 to 4600. Sex and relationships therapist Miranda Christophers, in this interview, says that teenagers are looking for help because they are increasingly suffering from erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and female genital pain. She relates this to the use of pornography.’
It is also a straw man argument. The argument that masturbation in itself (not aligned to porn) causes erectile dysfunction is one that is now very rarely heard in a world saturated with sex positivity.
Further, Harris’ assertion that masturbation makes one ‘weird and gross’ may be true in that endlessly talking about it in public would make one ‘weird and gross,’ but at no point do we advocate telling children that what they do privately – and keep to themselves – is either of those things.
Dangerous lack of definition
We are concerned about other aspects of this article, including:
Telling children that masturbation can mean ‘sex’ is reckless because where there is ambiguity there will be doubt, and doubt can be exploited and manipulated by predators. Definitions must be watertight and based on a shared societal meaning. A rationale frequently offered for sex education is that it is supposed to protect children from abuse. Ambiguity, however, foils this rationale.
Unwarranted interference in the sexual development of children
Harris is prepared to rob the pleasure of sexual discovery from ‘young people’ via the disingenuous argument that this tried and tested method is somehow harmful. She asserts that without education about masturbation:
“…young people stumble into sexual intimacy having never experienced that kind of pleasure before. This is not just unnerving, but also means it’s much harder for that experience to be pleasurable. It’s hard enough to navigate a new experience for the first time, without also having to blindly guide someone else.”
This is utterly despicable. It is no adult’s place to ‘teach’ ‘young people’ how to navigate their first sexual experiences, which belong only to them and the person they are sharing this experience with.
It would be more efficacious to protect children’s boundaries if the age of consent was increased to 18, as we have argued for. At present, external sex ed organisations might argue that, as children can consent to sex at 16, they are simply fulfilling an educational role.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Brook and Harris are part of a push to shift the boundaries of acceptability, including ignoring safeguarding guidelines, by advancing lies and misrepresenting facts about sexual development. Because of the vulnerabilities of all children, everyone that works with them must prioritise their needs and welfare. This is part of being a ‘suitable person’ – these responsibilities are wide and cannot be delegated.
We know that safeguarding is at heart risk management and that this risk management is a continuous process. School leaders must play their part by refusing to allow organisations such as this from having access to children. That we at SSA are compelled to continuously draw attention to these failings demonstrates the extent to which safeguarding has been institutionally compromised – and underscores the need for an immediate public inquiry.
Select item to view