Al Jazeera reports that after two decades of hesitation, the French government has now made three mandatory sex education sessions compulsory for all age groups, from five-year-old children to high school teenagers. Officials state the goal is clear: raising awareness, preventing violence, and protection against the dangers of the digital space. However, behind this legal obligation lies a deep ambiguity about the real effectiveness of such programs… What is the scientific basis for this mandate? Can it be said that school-based sex education protects children from sexual violence and abuse?
The truth is, a number of conducted scientific studies have stated that a large portion of school-based sex education programs not only fail to achieve the expected results but, in some cases, have even been associated with unintended consequences. One study, which reviewed 103 programs across three databases, declared that only six programs had a measurable positive effect. These studies have indicated that increasing children’s sexual awareness does not necessarily lead to a reduction in high-risk sexual behaviors or a decrease in sexual harassment. Furthermore, in some countries following the implementation of such education, statistics on sexual violence and assault in schools have increased significantly.
Although there is disagreement about the origin of the increase in high-risk behaviors, the fact that high-risk sexual behaviors and sexual harassment occurred precisely after the implementation of sex education programs is undeniable. This raises a serious question for us: Does sex education truly lead to a reduction in sexual harm for children, or conversely, might it unintentionally pave the way for their greater involvement in high-risk behaviors and sexual harassment?
What is clear and undeniable is that providing early and extensive education in the school environment may lead to sexual curiosity and early puberty in children, or cause them anxiety and confusion, harming their mental health. Many parents who oppose this policy raise precisely this concern. They believe that a child who lacks the necessary mental and psychological readiness, when faced with concepts that are premature for them, is neither protected nor made more aware; rather, they are placed under mental pressure and face an unwanted emotional burden.
In contrast, proponents of school-based sex education argue that since children will inevitably encounter incorrect sexual information through friends, media, and the digital space sooner or later, it is necessary for us to teach these concepts “correctly” and before they do. To respond to this approach, a serious question arises: Why should we pursue a new challenge instead of addressing the root problem? … Essentially, introducing young children to the world of sexual information, whether correct or incorrect, is a major error and in many cases can have irreversible psychological and educational effects on children.
In facing this crisis, we must target the root of the problem, which is reforming family upbringing, increasing parenting literacy, paying attention to the child’s circle of friends and social environment, choosing healthy spaces for play and recreation, and most importantly, responsible and aware monitoring of the digital space, where a major part of the harm begins. As long as these foundations are not put in order, early education is neither a solution nor a protective shield; rather, it can become part of the problem itself.
Furthermore, the key role of the government and officials in managing media content and digital platforms cannot be overlooked. As long as the media and television space is filled with sexual or inappropriate images and content, expecting to protect children through school sex education is merely a hopeful delusion, not a solution! What is essential to consider is that television programs, home video networks, and digital platforms must be produced with greater responsibility and refrain from publishing provocative or harmful content.
Let us not forget that the government can only provide a safe environment for children’s growth when it manages and reforms the primary context that shapes premature curiosities and stimulations, rather than producing any content indiscriminately and then seeking to compensate for its negative consequences on children.
Fatemeh Ghasemi
