A new Harvard University study suggests that rather than sex education comprising a single, awkward lesson, it should form part of a continuing conversation. Emotional education is very much part of this – the report comes with a series of talking points for parents to discuss with their children, ranging from what romantic love is and what it feels like, to lessons they have learned from their own relationships, to ethical quandaries such as what makes a relationship exploitative. These subjects, says the report, should become part of an “ongoing dialogue”.
Ah, the “ongoing dialogue” (OD). What a cherished myth we have of the OD with our children – about anything at all, let alone about sex and relationship education. There are three major things that stand in the way of the OD. First, most children will suspect that most of the stuff that comes out of their parents’ mouth is tarnished, or at least outdated information about the way things were when they were children. Second, as parents are in a position of power, the powerless are likely to reject their opinions as inherently oppressive. Third, children aren’t that well-versed in dialogue – and neither are adults.
People somehow organically acquire opinions, most often nowadays from Google, Facebook or Twitter. These accrue like fluff on a jumper. Once you have a point of view, it’s very hard to shift it. Confirmation bias is the technical term, and it is well-established at an early age. People tend to only want to hear views that confirm what they already think.
We retain the idea that children and young people, simply by being young, are more generally open to the input of fresh ideas. And they may well be – but not to ideas that come from adults, by and large, those wrinkled, bossy giants who fill their lives with commands and principles and lessons.
The real dialogue should perhaps not be about sex and emotional relationships (and nobody understands emotional relationships anyway) but about dialogue itself. Schools – and parents – still operate on the principle that the rational mind trumps all else. But I doubt that this is the case. The inroads that talk can make on young minds are very limited.
It is a mystery to me what makes people believe what they believe. There is some research that shows that it is peer groups, not adults, that have some hope of making an indent into children’s views. Parents are somewhat redundant. I have gained much knowledge of emotional relationships, mainly through mistakes and, all too often, suffering. Does this mean my children listen to my informed and hard-earned point of view? Not at all – and this is a good thing. Because my knowledge doesn’t come from being told anything by anyone. It comes from experience – and that’s how my children will learn about how the world works, emotionally or otherwise.
My children are deeply independent thinkers. They may be independently wrong or ill-informed but they are independent. They are not going to be force-fed my views and opinions, even if those opinions carry the weight of many years. This is why dialogue often fails. But there is one other way of getting to your children, rather than leaving them to their own devices.
Writers often say: “Show, don’t tell.” Likewise, if you have something to teach your children, show them, don’t tell them. Don’t insist that they be kind and honest, be kind and honest yourself. Don’t tell them to treat people with respect, treat people with respect. Don’t give them lectures about healthy relationships, show them a healthy relationship.
In short, don’t OD on the OD. Visible action is the only kind of teaching that works. My father often used to say to me: “Do as I say, not as I do.” He had it exactly the wrong way round.
