[But the sex-ed seminar was not a success. Some weeks later the
school head boy confiscated an item from a girl’s bag, declaring it contraband,
much to her embarrassment. He proudly dumped the suspicious article on the
teacher’s desk. She dragged the head boy out of class, whereupon she slapped
him, saying, “Don’t ever put a sanitary napkin on my desk again.”]
By
Siddharth Dhanvant Shanghvi
Credit: Awful Library Books |
But the sex-ed seminar was not a success. Some weeks later the
school head boy confiscated an item from a girl’s bag, declaring it contraband,
much to her embarrassment. He proudly dumped the suspicious article on the
teacher’s desk. She dragged the head boy out of class, whereupon she slapped
him, saying, “Don’t ever put a sanitary napkin on my desk again.”
While it’s glib to make light of Indians’ national awkwardness
in speaking about sex, there is something deeper simmering. In December the
Indian Supreme Court upheld Section 377, a colonial-era law forbidding
intercourse “against the order of nature.” This outlawed all intercourse other
than peno-vaginal sex. Homosexuals, rightfully incensed, took to public
protest. In a show of support, thousands of well-meaning Indian heterosexuals
removed their photos from their Facebook profiles. What many of them may not
have realized at the time was that this heroically stupid law affected them,
too, as, contrary to what the Supreme Court seems to have strangely supposed,
rather a lot of heterosexuals — even that is understating it — stray from
strictly peno-vaginal sex, and as such would be culpable under this law, which
does not specifically criminalize homosexuality, as largely perceived. Put
plainly, the law is anti-sex, and inhumane.
The Supreme Court’s reinstatement of Section 377, which had been
struck down in a progressive Delhi High Court ruling in 2009, is seen as a
triumph of conservatism. Many deem this a hallmark of the conservative
Bharatiya Janata Party government, whose head, Narendra Modi, is India’s
new prime minister. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right-wing group which
many believe represents a more hard-line Bharatiya Janata philosophy, recently
said both live-in relationships and homosexuality should not be tolerated,
declaring them Western imports (as if they were items well-heeled Indians might
pick up from duty free).
In April the Supreme Court agreed to hear a final appeal on
Section 377, filed by the Naz Foundation, a sexual-health organization. But
under the new government, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s vocal demand to
preserve the law, the appeal was served its first roadblock.
Perhaps this is where India’s new government should beg caution.
What if sections of India’s urban citizenry, through exposés on blogs and via
private investigations, cast light on the private lives of its politicians?
Abroad, the bedroom shenanigans of politicians is tabloid fodder. Not so in
India. Before our politicians support laws considered inhuman and retrograde in
other civilized societies, they ought to wonder whether their own actions fall
within the scope of Section 377.
The most significant transformation in our urban youth is a
growing refusal to subscribe to standard sexual classifications. Many from my
generation believe the sexual self is essentially variable — only a kind of
clothing, a performance. If you are a biological man who likes to deck himself
out in satin gowns and have intercourse with a trans man, then what, exactly,
is your sexual denomination? These questions are being asked more and more, and
one suspects that it’s this conversation that has driven the recent expansion
of the legal definition of gender: In April, the Supreme Court wisely
recognized transgender as a third gender.
Now, as the Supreme Court reconsiders Section 377, Mr. Modi’s
new government must remember that the conservative constituency that voted him
in is also the one whose sexual rights are up for confiscation. For in
principle, Section 377 does not discriminate between homosexuals and
heterosexuals; as hateful laws go, it takes an equal-opportunity approach. (The
law’s backers bring to mind my school head boy, who had no idea what exactly he
was declaring contraband.)
So, if the Bharatiya Janata Party truly wishes to convince us of
its secular, sensible, worldly, youth-friendly, pro-business,
tourism-encouraging, liberty-loving credentials, it must put Section 377 where
it belongs: in the bin. In the bargain, Mr. Modi would get more than our vote;
he would win a young nation’s love.
Siddharth Dhanvant Shanghvi is the author of “The Last Song
of Dusk” and was recently a visiting fellow at FIND: India-Europe Foundation
for New Dialogues.
@ The New York Times
SEX EDUCATION 'MUST BE COMPULSORY FOR ALL SCHOOL CHILDREN'
A
coalition of sexual health charities calls for compulsory sex education
lessons, despite warnings from traditionalists that it risks undermining
children's "natural sense of reserve"
“Until those in Westminster make a solid commitment to make SRE
a statutory part of the curriculum, generations of young people will continue
to leave school unprepared and at risk of sexual ill health.”
@ The Telegraph
SEX EDUCATION 'MUST BE COMPULSORY FOR ALL SCHOOL CHILDREN'
A
coalition of sexual health charities calls for compulsory sex education
lessons, despite warnings from traditionalists that it risks undermining
children's "natural sense of reserve"
By
Graeme Paton
Children as young as five should be given compulsory sex
education lessons to prevent schools marginalising the subject in timetables,
ministers have been told.
A coalition of charities is calling for sex and relationships
education to be placed on the national curriculum for the first time – making
it a statutory requirement in all state primary and secondary schools.
In a report published today, the Sex Education Forum claims that
compulsory lessons are needed to address a lack of awareness of sexual health
issues, consent, respectful relationships and domestic violence.
It quoted figures from Ofsted showing that a third of schools
are currently provide “inadequate” teaching in the subject.
Experts also warn that many other schools – particularly
faith-based institutions – shun it altogether.
Under current legislation, sex education is a non-statutory
subject, meaning schools are free to drop it altogether. The only compulsory
element is at secondary level where schools must teach about the biology of sex
and reproduction.
The calls threaten to resurrect a row last stoked in 2009 when
Labour proposed introducing mandatory classes in personal, social, health and
economic education (PSHE) – the vehicle used for delivering sex education.
The plan was eventually dropped just before the General
Election.
The Coalition was accused of undermining the subject further by
scrapping non-statutory guidance on PSHE, giving individual schools complete
freedom over how to teach it.
Today, the Sex Education Forum – a group of organisations based
at the National Children’s Bureau – called for a radical overhaul of the
subject.
It released the findings of a survey of more than 200 teachers
that found six per cent of schools have no policy on sex education and a small
handful ban the subject altogether.
Some seven out of 10 teachers said they needed “more training to
be able to teach good quality” sex and relationships education (SRE).
The report said: “Statutory status would allow SRE to be treated
the same as other subjects – with teachers getting the training they need and
enough time being allocated in the timetable for this vital subject to address
real life issues including respectful relationships, domestic violence and
consent.”
The calls came as the Commons education select committee
prepared to launch an inquiry into the teaching of the subject.
Family campaigners have resisted calls to make sex education
compulsory in the past, saying it risks exposing young children to adult themes
before they are ready.
Norman Wells, from the Family Education Trust, has said that
introducing sex education at an early age "runs the risk of breaking down
children’s natural sense of reserve".
"Far from being a hindrance, children’s natural inhibitions
and sense of modesty in talking about sexual matters are healthy and provide a
necessary safeguard against both sexual abuse and casual attitudes towards
sexual intimacy later on," he said.
But Jane Lees, chairman of the forum, said: “For too long young
people have been telling us about what they wish they had learnt in school
about consent and relationships and how better knowledge of their body and
sexual health facts could have kept them safer and healthier.
"As the education select committee opens its inquiry, we
are calling for all political parties’ commitment to make SRE statutory.”
Daisy Ellis, acting policy director at Terrence Higgins Trust,
the HIV and AIDS charity, said: “We have reached a stage where teachers and
students agree that the current approach to sex and relationships education is
not working.
@ The Telegraph