My sex education was worse than useless - and Cameron's refusal to make it compulsory is damaging

No mention of STIs, no mention of how to use condoms, no mention of the distinctive difference between a healthy and an abusive relationship - and sent out the class if you asked about condoms

(Rex)

I attended an all-girls’ Church of England school, and the information I received on sex and relationships was appalling, to say the least. Following a short video in which two nine-year-olds held hands down the road (I was 15 at the time), we were shown three forms of contraception, and that was that.

No mention of STIs, no mention of how to use condoms, no mention of the distinctive difference between a healthy and an abusive relationship. I recall one girl asking a question about a condom, and being sent out of the class for ‘impertinence’.

As a class, we finished school, aged 18, having gleaned our only knowledge about sex and relationships from women’s magazines, and next to nothing from our teachers. While Cosmopolitan and its ilk can make for highly entertaining reads, ’10 ways to impress your man in bed’ is hardly constructive information for a bunch of teenagers who know nothing about what goes on in bed in the first place.

Young women and men are leaving the education system with next to no information (or zero information, in cases where parents block them attending sex and relationship education lessons altogether), and this is actively putting their sexual and mental wellbeing at risk.

David Cameron’s quiet blocking of compulsory sex education in schools is an absolute travesty - and particularly shocking considering the lack of headlines the issue received over the weekend.

While key female cabinet members, including the Education Secretary Nicky Morgan and Theresa May, were reported to have fought a ‘valiant’ battle for the policy to be pushed through, it seems that irreparable damage to young people’s lives comes low on the Prime Minister’s priority list.

Letting students leave education without the proper information is a disservice to them, and to the education system as a whole. These children who are blocked from receiving sex ed by their parents on the grounds of faith or preference are being withheld something that should be completely fundamental to teaching. Sex education should be a right, not a preference: regardless of the views of their parents, every child should at least know the basics, so that they enter their relationships properly armed with the knowledge to give consent.

In particular, this is important for children who find themselves somewhere on the LGBT spectrum. Kids who are unsure of their sexuality and gender should be able to explore this, by being given the proper information about this during sex and relationship lessons.

I shall again refer to my own sex education at school: not one, tiny, measly bit of information was provided on same sex relationships, on bisexual leanings or about being transgender. A lot of the girls I attended school with, including myself, had no exposure to transgender issues or LGBT concerns in their entirety until reaching university.

This is the problem with blocking compulsory education in faith schools, of any denomination: they can be reluctant to discuss issues that fall outside of the remit of their beliefs.

The question is: why is the government bowing to the feet of faith schools and overly protective parents, while sacrificing the needs of the children within their care and ‘protecting’ them from the facts of real life?