The other complaint against the booklet was that it did not specify that sex should only take place in a permanent, loving relationship. This school of thought, insisting that sex for pleasure is basically wrong, and that it should only take place within marriage (preferably for the purposes of procreation), is clearly held by only a small minority in society.
Such zealots have a right to live as they wish, but no right to tell others how to live.
In any event we all know that whether or not teachers are allowed to tell young people about sex, teenagers will continue to be sexually active. This is not a problem that will go away if ignored.
However there is a more sinister political threat behind the crass and hypocritical headlines - from same tabloids which a few weeks ago were revelling in the steamy details of Gillian Taylforth's Range Rover blowjob libel case.
Runing for cover Why did the Health Education Authority, which commissioned the booklet, not stand by its decision? The explanation is that the Tory government holds the purse strings on the HEA, and decides each year how much to allocate to health promotion. This financial year's allocation has still not been agreed -even though we are well into April. Under this blackmail, the HEA is held politically under the thumb of Tory ministers. This is also why there is so little informed discussion of the links between social class, poverty and ill health. The HEA has been forced to walk a tight-rope, outlining superficial measures to promote better health while not criticising government policy which undermines the health of the poorest.
By cracking the whip again over this booklet, the Tories have again tightened the gag on the HEA, which winds up effectively subscribing to the view that health promotion is an individual issue rather than one of social policy.
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK No.60, April 16 1994, Page 13