If sex education in schools traditionally meant teaching the biological ‘facts of life’, today it is far more comprehensive, having been rebranded ‘sex and relationship education’ (SRE) under the even broader remit of personal, social and health education (PSHE). And the purpose of SRE is not simply to impart facts but, more practically, to reduce the likelihood of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Moreover, SRE is increasingly seen as a means of helping young people deal with the emotional turmoil, hurt and confusion that sometimes comes with sexual relationships. Indeed, UNESCO’s 2009 report, ‘Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education’ claims the problems of young people having sex too early are so overwhelming that SRE must be mandatory, even if some teachers and parents have their doubts. But what is, or should be, the content of SRE? And can relationships really be ‘taught’ at all? Or does SRE overstep the mark between objective knowledge and subjective attitudes?

There have always been those who were suspicious of sex education, often fearing it was a Trojan Horse for permissive attitudes to sex. So are critics of SRE today simply reactionary, or indeed reacting against a new form of moralism? For some, SRE’s increasing focus on the dark side of sex encourages young people to view it through the prism of abuse, and risks pathologising normal adolescent experiences such as broken hearts and fallings out, from which teenagers have traditionally learned. Whatever our own views, however, are there genuine grounds for unease when schools presume to teach children about something as personal as sex? Does SRE promote independent responsible behaviour or simply indoctrinate young people with fashionable psychobabble?