Sex education book 'Welcome to Sex' is a best-seller, but has been pulled off one Australian retailer's shelves after a conservative backlash, including death threats against one of the authors
The book has been criticised by campaigners including Rachael Wong, the chief executive of Women’s Forum Australia, an organisation critical of pro-trans activism. Speaking to 2GB’s Ben Fordham on Tuesday, Wong called it a “graphic sex guide for children”, adding that she felt “physically ill at the thought of children reading it”. Other conservative media figures have amplified the criticism.
“This book was a response to genuine questions asked by adolescents to [magazine column] ‘Dolly Doctor’ for more than 20 years. [Dr Melissa Kang, one of the co-writers], was exposed to what kids were too ashamed to ask anyone else.”
Critics have taken particular issue with small sections of the book that address inclusive sexual practices beyond penetrative sex, including “fingering”, “oral sex”, “scissoring”, and “anal sex”.
They are also critical of the inclusion of what they term “gender ideology”. Others are accusing the authors of “grooming” children – a term that is increasingly misused.
The backlash has been so intense Big W stopped selling the book in-store after staff members were abused, although the retailer has defended it and it remains available online.
"I've seen people saying to me 'I want to kill you' or 'You should die'," Stynes told SBS News.
Well that's infuriating.
Keeping kids unequipped to discuss or process their own feelings and perspectives on sexuality just leads to undue anxieties down the line and makes them more vulnerable to people who want to take advantage of them.
When are kids supposed to learn about sex, according to these death-threat morons? What kid is worse off for knowing this information? I guess I might be asking for too much introspection.
According to the outraged, kids should not learn about anything that is outside of what the parent wants. So if you follow the chain some more, they do not want kids to learn about sex, at least, not in the way this book is meaning to teach.
The book and others like it try to demystify the concept, bring it down to earth as a human activity, and teach the safe, right, and pleasurable ways to enjoy the human activity. The very notion of teaching kids about sex in any other way other than for life bearing purposes post marriage goes against many Abrahamic religions.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many of the denominations all have a lot to say about sex. Purity, virginity, and exclusivity are also common topics and make for one of the core pillars of the religions. There's clear written guides in their holy texts of what acts are okay, when they're okay, and what acts aren't. I concede there's contradictions and ambiguity and stand alone complexes with certain messages never having appeared in the holy text but it's understood among the followers as having come from their deity regardless. That's neither here nor there.
Sex, shame, and women are at the root of a lot of these religions so when a book comes along advocating for safe, fun, extramarital sex, it is inherently anti religious. And anything anti religious to these religions, is inherently bad. False idols, other gods, Satan's influence, temptation etc. Abrahamic religions are something to witness when it comes to self correcting logic. The built in defense against criticism and scrutiny is dynamic and adapts on the fly by instinctively moving goal posts that easily fortify the dogma. Really, it's spectacular.
Anyways, that's why most social programs and most liberal notions are considered evil, by existing they go against what their holy texts say. Even if the conservative agrees with something like...helping the poor, they can't abide by the liberal breaking so many other rules like tattoos or sex or drugs or whatever else because in these religions (with exceptions) letting someone break God's laws in front of you and working with them makes you guilty too. They are not good people, you shouldn't associate with them lest you get tempted and fall away.
That's if the conservative is angry because of religious belief. My personal favorite theory is shame. They experienced sexual shame or abuse growing up because of ignorance to the subject and they have no answers for their children and the cycle repeats.
The parents had an awful time with sex because of their parents who had an awful time because of their parents and so on and so forth. Women don't even get to have fun with sex as it's only used for birthing and if you enjoy it too much then you're slut shamed. The man enjoys it but only post marriage, until then he is in sexual agony feeling guilty about masterbating with visual aids, and lusting after women and until a drunk night happens which feels good in the moment but then the guilt and shame come crashing down the day after and they take it out on the woman.
It's disgusting. It's my belief conservative parents don't want to talk about oral, or anal, or fingering because they either never did it, did it poorly and it hurt them, did it and enjoyed it but got in massive trouble, or were forced to do it and feel defiled and dirty in the eyes of God.
Or they're conflicted because they're held hostage by religious beliefs. They enjoy sex, they see nothing wrong with it, they had an adventurous youth but they don't want to be hypocrites and tell their children to enjoy it because they're watched closely by extended family and are fearful of being cast out by their religious community.
So where does the kid go to learn about sex? Pornhub. At their none religious cousins house in the middle of the night when no one is looking. And if they're a girl? Probably from nowhere until a guy comes onto them trying to role play Pornhub scenarios.
Then the cycle repeats.
What you say about conservative religious culture and attitudes to sex is entirely true.
However the interesting thing here is that this fuss is being made in Australia, a country that in my experience is comparatively relaxed about sex and sex education.
Even religious schools tend to teach sex education, and contraception of all kinds is widely available to young people at low cost.
Australia is also very low-key with respect to religion, especially with comparison to the US. I have lived in both countries and the difference is night and day.
Religion in Australia is a private matter and generally is not a part of the public discourse, and a very large subsection of the community does not practice any religion at all.
So to have a reaction like this to a sex ed book in Australia is unusual, to say the least.
Plus, Yumi Stynes is a capable and level-headed journalist and not someone likely to be sensationalising the topic.
The whole thing seems quite strange to me.
Very solid point!
I'll add a few things to what you said. The political right is on the rise just about everywhere due to fear about a multitude of issues including emigration, inflation, and social issues. I'm not surprised there's a politically conservative response even in Australia. All I see is a more "courageous" and unafraid response in what would otherwise, as you said, have been a private matter and impolite in public forums.
It was that way in the United States as well. Believe it or not, there was a time not so long ago where civil discourse could be had between parties and matters best left to the privacy of the home, like sexual education, wasn't political theater.
If there was a political graph with a clear rise and curve for the united states, you would see a similar rise and curve everywhere else as well. Greece, England, Italy, Spain, France, Japan (at my own peril), the pacific theater and other places. Fascism is on the rise with "strong men" appearing out of nowhere to "say it like it is" and cure the country of whatever aisles it.
I'll throw a tinfoil curveball however, just for shits and gigs.
The Christian right is well known for witnessing. It's another cornerstone of their religion to actively witness to others and to be an influence in places ignorant of the good word. There's quite a lot of Christian organizations that are very well connected (see: Prayer Breakfast and "The Family" by Jeff Sharlet) and very powerful that have a global network.
You mentioned this is strange and I agree. It's unaustrailian based on what you said, but beat for beat American. I would have a heart attack from the massive surprise in realizing this whole "scandal" has ties to America in some form or fashion.
It could simply be the symptom of effective far right propaganda stemming from the United States and or manufactured by Russia to destabilize the US.
Trace the outrage and there's some obscure blog or YouTube or podcast somewhere that has roots in utter fiction.
Unfortunately, since they "won" this one I think you can expect to see more of it. Appeasement only amplifies their message and resolve.
The issue is multifold.
-The intolerant are taking advantage of your normal persons aversion to conflict. It is easier to ignore a hateful message than argue with someone over it. However, people need to understand the Paradox of Intolerance and realize the best time to fight this was years ago but the second best time to fight it is NOW.
-They shared hatred makes them far more organized. They're motivated and seemingly of 1 mind on most topics and it is a simple "NO" (book bans, anti LGBTQ laws, abortion, etc). The opposition to them may have different degrees of "Yes, but..."
-They see any change in the status quo they are railing against claim victory (rightly or wrongly) which further reinforces their behaviour. See Bud Light, Disney, Target, etc. If Disney releases a movie that doesn't do well they'll crow about how "Go Woke, Go Broke" instead of things like "franchise fatique", overall box office numbers, etc.
From what I've heard of Australia over the years, they seem quick to censor things dealing with sex.
Happened with GTA 5, then they tried to soft-ban porn with petite actors, and as far as I'm aware it's still currently illegal to produce and upload porn in Australia.
Given I'm an outsider, I only hear the big controversial stuff though of course.
But I can't say that I view Australia as a sexually liberated country.
For some, I think it's also about control.
I can't speak for other religions, but having grown up in a predominantly baptist Christian part of the US, it's my observation that adherents of that faith have a tendency towards controlling their children, and it's no coincidence that one of the best ways to manifest such control is to place heavy restrictions around primal needs and instinctual urges. Doing this creates boundaries that will almost certainly be crossed at some point (practically a guarantee with teenagers, whose underdeveloped frontal cortexes are swimming in hormones), which feeds a cycle of guilt which can then be (ab)used as a method of control.
This is of course not a perfect rule. I've come across religious folk who are wonderful, well-rounded individuals who respect the freedom of others and their children usually take on this more balanced demeanor, but these are not the ones who are boycotting books and the like.
Speaking anecdotally as someone who grew up in a small rural town in the midwest, keeping kids ignorant is absolutely the point of this. I know that "Don't have sex, you'll get pregnant and die." is a meme--but it's about as close to proper sex ed as we got at my middle/high school around 2008. Sex outside of marriage was bad. Condoms? Unreliable, you'll get pregnant/get someone pregnant. Other forms of sex/stimulation that aren't PIV? Deviant, even in marriage.
This was a public school system, mind you. One where our high school biology teacher "accidentally" skipped the lesson on evolution.
You can talk statistics and outcomes as much as you want. All the data that shows that proper sex education is infinitely healthier and safer. Sadly it doesn't matter when what you're up against is "This is evil/degenerate/will earn eternal punishment if allowed."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/04/the-forgotten-girls-monica-potts-book-excerpt/673581/
Discusses this further. Basically get pregnant early and give up opportunities to move out or explore sexuality.
The book shop next door has sex ed books for six year olds on prominent display right now and no one seems to care. It probably doesn't explain anal sex and the graphics are more cutesy than detailed, but it does explain genitals and reproduction and having sex for fun. It seems kids grow up in Europe (filthy liberal cesspool of sin) exposed to this and somehow aren't traumatized.
I believe this isn't about protecting children, it's about protecting parents from having to think about their children in the context of sexuality. Accusing the authors of sex ed books to be groomers helps to shift that away from their own feeling of discomfort towards righteous guardianship. But it is a lie, and a disservice to small, inquiring minds to keep them away from knowledge that might be important to them - how does a child communicate that it has been touched inappropriately, for example, if it only knows that the whole topic is shameful and it doesn't even know the proper words? You brought that point up, too, but I feel it's important enough to emphasize.
I have trouble believing that for most of the people fighting this they have any genuine belief. This is just an "us vs them" thing to them, pushed by politicians to try and stir up anger and by proxy, donations.
I think they DO have a genuine belief: "You're either with me/us or against me/us"
The politicians, in turn, see that as an easy way to get votes. The more rational voters are willing to overlook a thing or two that they may not totally agree with and still vote for a particular politician.
Too often we assume it is some plan to keep future generations dumb and manipulatable when at the end of the day this is the main reason.
I remember stumbling on an article talking about how a state or school system somewhere was trying to remove sex education from the curriculum. Somehow I ended up reading the comments about it on a certain conservative forum on reddit and was astonished by the replies. The basic gist I got was these topics should be taught only by parents and only to the extent the parents choose. If the kid can't or won't get that information from their parents, then tough cookies -- you're SOL.
It's maddening.
Kids are to learn about sex when they get married.
That's what these zealots think. And even then, it's to be kept behind closed doors as a shame. Because sex is only meant for procreation, not recreation.
So terrorism then? I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists. You know what happens when you pull one book off the shelf because someone threatens to murder people? They start threatening the next book in line they don't like.
Can we please just stop threatening to murder people who say things we don't like? We're trying to run a civilization here and they're not helping things.
Now now, we only call people terrorists when they're brown-colored. Death threats from white transphobes are just concerned citizens speaking their minds.
(/s ofc)
Not negotiating with terrorists is great, but I think companies have a greater responsibility to protect their employees.
So we just pull book after book off the shelf because a few crackpots threaten you? Where do you draw the line?
If you're a corporation, you draw the line where your legal advisors and actuaries tell you to draw it.
I do wonder how civil law handles cases of people being victimized because a third party antagonized the perp. It probably varies by jurisdiction, but is there a norm across most jurisdictions?
We had a book in kindergarten talking about how babies are made, full with graphic drawings about kissing, sex and childbirth. Of course a bunch of us looked at it giggling about the naked people, and I remember telling my friend, ewww I will never ever be doing this with a girl!!
Turns out it didn't destroy my psyche, it just made it normal and known, allowed me to not be embarrassed by it. When I was a teenager just after the AIDS pandemic became more well known, it was very clear to all of us what the risks were, how to protect ourselves and why. We had no teen pregnancies in my 4 years of highschool.
And eventually, at the ripe old age of 21 I did do it with a girl 😆
Does anyone have actual images of the alleged issues with the book, or know if there's a way to access an "alternative" copy? I couldn't find either.
Everyone seems to be basing their response on pure speculation. Without looking at the actual book, responses will only reflect the bias of the user.
2GB is fox news but on AM radio, for non-Australians who might not know.
I'm not sure how to feel about this, I was told about sex and all that when I was about 10 from my parents and they gave me a book that explained everything, not majorly graphic or anything, this book is aimed at 8 year olds and covers stuff like scissoring which I think is a bit unnececary for a child to learn about
Why would PIV sex be necessary and scissoring unnecessary, if parents don't know what their child's sexual orientation will be? I think that's the real reason why conservatives are losing their marbles over this sex ed book. It's inclusive and normalizes non-hetero sexual activity.
Stynes encourages parents to read the book and engage with their children in a controlled, staggered manner. I feel like an active/involved parent is the target demographic of this book anyways. It's apparently 300 pages and also covers emotions, feelings, consent, and respectful relationships. Seems like a "family book club" type of read to me.
I agree this book is extremely graphic for kids, parents should decide which books their kids should be aware of.
That's fair, each parent/legal guardian is allowed to decide whether their kid gets to read this or not.
However we should make it available and accessible for those who do want it, and we shouldn't attack authors or cause harm to them or their business just because we don't like what the book is about.
Personally I would let my kid (if I wanted and had one) read it once they are 14-15 years old. It sounds incredibly young, but most kids this age already know about sex (and probably watch porn - I know I did, and I don't consider myself traumatized/impacted negatively by it) and I'd rather have them read a book and learn from it instead of replicating whatever they watch on PornHub.
14-15 years doesn't sound too young to me. If we're talking girls, it might actually be a bit late since they've likely already gone through puberty.
I, as well as many others took sex-ed whenever it was offered, in both 6th/7th grade, so 11-13 years old
14-15 doesn't sound too young to me either. I'm okay with kids younger than that learning about sex but it also depends what we're talking here. Learning about reproduction is different from learning how to give a hand job.
My issue with this book is that it seems to contain more graphic content, which is not in itself a problem, but it seems deliberately marketed towards kids. Young kids. The cover art would be more at home in a kids' section than a teen section.
Death threats are obviously way way too far but in this case I think it is reasonable to think this is gross because it is, imo. I can't say that for any of the other conservative outrage I've seen.
I think it's important to think why it being graphic is a problem for you.
Sex is an inescapable fact of the human experience. Kids are among the most vulnerable when it comes to sexual assault and grooming - being able to see both what activities are called and what they look like is a massive advantage when it comes to recognizing a predator.
I lost my virginity at thirteen/fourteen years old with another similarly aged girl, and if not for the education I had from my parents, I'd probably be a parent right now.
So I'll ask again, why do you think it's a bad thing kids know what sex looks like? What, in your eyes, are the dangers?
13/14 is not what the book seems to be marketed towards. They're saying it is a book for teens (some sites list it for 14+) but the imagery and approach makes it look like it is for much younger kids.
I don't think it's a bad thing that kids know about sex, you're making a lot of assumptions here.
I think my takeaway is reasonable considering the language used.
13/14 is too late, as some kids are already engaging in sexual activities and - statistically - some are under threat of predators. My father gave me the talk when I was around ten, and used scientific/plain language to explain it, which gave me the tools I needed to know I should use a condom and dispelled a lot of myths.
Again I'll ask, why do young kids knowing about the existence of sex and how it looks like seem gross to you? What about that evokes discomfort, and what do you think the risks are? I'll stress that this should be restricted to knowledge and should be presented in a mature, serious way.
I agree with all of that.
Then I don't think you are familiar with the book? There is a difference between setting kids up with what they need to know, and giving them a 300-page book that goes super in-depth and contains graphic images. I also wouldn't call the delivery of this book "serious" but that's a matter of debate I suppose, and also I myself don't have a problem with that part specifically.
What disturbs me is that the author is simultaneously labelling it as a teen book for sale, but the book's colorful, playful imagery is much closer to what you would see in a children's book section and seems aimed at them. And I think it is aimed at young kids despite the labelling. There's a section called "what happens after my first period" -- most teen girls aren't going to get much out of that, they need that info when they're younger.
What I really don't like is that there is seemingly no middle ground between "give your kid a book with graphic images in it and let them go nuts reading about sex in elementary school" and "never let your kid read about sex at all, and ban this book from sale." If you aren't completely in agreement that this book is A-OK, you're the enemy. I'll reiterate that I don't think it should be banned from sale. I just think it's a disturbing approach and while I would give my kid a lot of the information that is in this book, I would not give them this book specifically as a child.
If they were say 14, I don't see a problem with it. They're going to be looking at porn at that age anyway whether you want them to or not.
I can concede you're probably more knowledgeable of the book than I am, as I've only read these articles and have not opened it myself. In the end, I think we can at least agree that if a parent feels this book is right for their kids they should have the right to buy it.
You're right that I was a bit too black and white with my arguments. There should be a middle ground, and it's not a matter of "teach your kids all about sex" and "keep them completely ignorant".
Maybe this book can give parents the language and framework to teach their kids specific subjects that become relevant, rather than giving their children the entire thing.
That's true, I forgot girls start puberty earlier than boys.
Not ignorant if you give the proper books and sex education, this book I think is not appropriate.
How so? What about the book seems inappropriate? Sure, it covers more than most books, but most books completely ignored how same sex relationships work and what sex looks like in those relationships, leaving potentially queer kids with a fundamental lack of knowledge about their sexuality and gives the sense that hetero relationships are all there is.
are you saying this based on first-hand knowledge of having read the book? or second-hand knowledge from media reports about the book?
isn't that...the status quo? and something that one book isn't going to change?
like, I haven't seen anyone advocating that this book should be required reading in school curricula, or released en masse from airplanes like WW2 propaganda leaflets, or anything like that.
if you have a kid, there's a spectrum of how obscene/graphic/detailed you want their sex education to be.
at one end of the spectrum, you've got no details at all, or "abstinence only" / "wait until you're married" education, etc. and at the other end, you've got "OK Billy, here's our color-illustrated copy of the Kama Sutra. it's a family heirloom so try not to get any pages stuck together. and we bought you a PornHub Platinum subscription if the book is too boring."
this book seems like it's kind of in the middle...trying to give parents an option for giving their kids detailed information about sex, but less graphic than telling them to "just google it" (which, for parents in 2023, seems like it'd be the go-to for almost any question their kids ask about something other than a difficult topic like sex). as one of the authors says:
instead, the backlash to this book seems to be about its existence. the authors have received death threats. retail workers have been harassed simply for working at a bookstore that sells the book.
far from upholding parents' ability to choose what books their kids are exposed to, the people protesting this book seem like they want to remove it as a choice that parents can make about their kids' education. they want to impose their view of what sex education should be onto other parents.
The words "obscene", "graphic", and "foul", "explicit" "inappropriate" etc are some of the more ambiguous and infuriating words because they're largely subjective despite having somewhat solid roots.
They are applied to anything and everything and the offended can clutch their pearls all they want without fear of retribution because it's their belief and you can't tell them how it's not graphic or foul or whatever else.
These words are popular among the religious and I find them to be codewords and excuses as to why something should be regulated, banned, controlled etc. It's also used in racist ways too.
Rap music videos are graphic and obscene is a common thing that's thrown around but what does that even mean? They say no no words and talk about sex, parties, alcohol and cars? Like country? Is it the whole "showing too much skin" thing but what does that mean? Why is showing skin bad? Why is sexuality and nudity bad?
If all of these topics were to be discussed maturely, they wouldn't be extreme things at all, they'd be normalized and they wouldn't be big deals.
I find that asking the person who said those key words "why" and then asking why again and again quickly peels back the layers until you find they're just uncomfortable. They're scared of what's on screen, ashamed of what they see, or fearful of what they'll do and feel if they're subjected further, or they're flat out disgusted by what they see for all similar reasons.
It's people projecting their subjectivity under the guise of some misused word that they're using to represent some standard the media is deviating from. They assume a norm and anything against it is extreme.
Their norm is what many believe in but not all so the terms might apply to them and their ilk but not to all. They assume their subjective bubble is objective and treat others with differing views as malformed.
High school never ended. Same shit just older.
Had people simply said "I find it graphic, it's not for me" no problem. You could then engage them on the nature of graphic things, but it's those that say claim the book is graphic and therefore shouldn't be allowed. That...that's what gets my goat.
"Parents should decide" is a far cry from demanding that a book be banished from stores/libraries and that its authors be harmed.