Teaching teenagers about sex is not an easy task. It must be attempted, otherwise curiosity will lead potential students to hot corners of the Internet, where they can access “adult” material by simply clicking the “yes” button.
But avoiding potential pitfalls is not easy, because The Education Development Bureau (EDB) recently discoveredI would like to describe the machine as accurately as possible, while subtly preventing premature experiments in its use.
The EDB's efforts have come under fire. One potential problem is that your efforts to promote celibacy will invite a flood of racy jokes. The new curriculum's suggestion that people should sublimate their lustful urges by playing badminton has given a new sexual twist to an innocuous pastime. Inviting someone to a game will never be the same again.
And what will they say when they learn that the English name for that little furry thing they hit back and forth with is a shuttlecock?
Another danger is that the message will be tainted by well-intentioned claims that are clearly not supported by reality. The new curriculum says that premarital sex is viewed as “deviant” in society. Seriously?
However, if our government has a problem with heterosexual sex, it is nothing compared to its problem with the alphabetical list of alternatives.
Understandably, in the search for patriotic placeholders, very little attention was paid to the candidates’ attitudes toward sexual minorities. But as a result, some of the new public figures combined laudable enthusiasm for national security with a distinctly old-fashioned attitude toward the LGBTQ community.
See also: What are the Hong Kong Gay Games and why have they caused so much controversy?
This has been most evident in the history of the Gay Games, which has followed a trajectory reminiscent of Harbourfest after the SARS epidemic, beginning with widespread jubilation at an event that was supposed to put Hong Kong on the map and ending in bitter recriminations about wasted money and foreign influence.
More covertly, the new Puritanism is gradually influencing parts of government that interactor must interact with the sexual minority community.
For example, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau (oddly enough) is responsible for the Equal Opportunity Fund (Sexual Orientation), which has been supporting NGOs working in this area since 2015.
Its budget for the current fiscal year has been cut almost in half, with many groups cut or eliminated altogether. The fund went from supporting 18-24 groups to supporting just 10. Also among the survivors are three groups founded by the same man offering “conversion therapy” a scientifically dubious attempt to turn gays into “straights” that is so cherished by religious groups.
Funding for Aids prevention work, which comes from the Bureau of Health, has also been cut, and the Equal Opportunities Commission has backed away from its earlier enthusiasm for legislation against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Like other NGOs that do not receive official support, those working in this area have difficulty holding events in public places or book spaces for private events. Fundraising has languished due to legal risks, especially if the funds come from abroad.
These changes are ominous for the communities affected. Sure, government funds have become shorter in these times of scarcity, but the fact that money can still be found for fundamentalist nonsense suggests that something else is at work here. There is also a disturbing implication in all of this for all of us.
After all, NGOs that serve the needs of sexual minorities are not, in themselves, political. Encouraging people to feel comfortable in their partners is not subversive. Distributing health education materials and free condoms is not a threat to national security.
Are we approaching a new reality in which any NGO not wrapped in the tentacles of the local establishment will gradually be frozen and disappear? Justice, like justice, must not only be done, but also be visible.
Story Type: Opinion
Advocates ideas and draws conclusions based on interpretation of facts and data.
HKFP support | Politics and Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact us | Newsletter | Transparency and annual reporting | Applications
Help protect press freedom and keep HKFP free for all readers support our team
| HKFP is an impartial platform that does not necessarily endorse the views of its opinion writers or advertisers. HKFP represents a diversity of views and regularly invites figures from across the political spectrum to write for us. Press freedom is guaranteed by the Basic Law, the Security Law, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of China. Opinion articles aim to point out errors or shortcomings in the government, laws or policies, or to propose ideas or changes through legitimate means, without the intent to incite hatred, discontent or hostility towards the authorities or other communities. |
Source link