“In tones as smooth as butter on bread, Ssu-chi (思琪) said to her mother: ‘We have learned all sorts of things in this family — the only thing missing is sex education.’ With a look of surprise, her mother replied: ‘What sex education? Sex education is for people who need sex. Isn’t that what education is all about?’ At that moment, Ssu-chi understood that her parents would always be absent from this story. They had skipped class without even knowing that classes had begun.”
This passage from Lin Yi-han’s (林奕含) novel The Playground of Fang Ssu-chi’s First Love (房思琪的初戀樂園) makes for sad reading in the context of its author’s suicide and begs the question: Is sex education really only for people who need sex?
Recently, the media pointed an accusing finger at judges in a sexual assault case involving a seven-year-old girl.
Commentators were surprised that the judges gave the perpetrator a light sentence after determining that the sexual acts had been “consensual.”
However, the judges’ decision was based on a resolution passed at the seventh conference of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division in 2010.
The resolution states that intercourse with a person less than seven years old should be considered aggravated sexual intercourse — a serious offense punishable by at least seven years in prison.
However, if the victim is aged between seven and 14, the court should investigate if the act was consensual and only if it is determined to have been non-consensual should it be ruled aggravated sexual intercourse.
If it is determined to have been consensual, it is to be handled according to Article 227, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, which states: “A person who has sexual intercourse with a male or female under the age of 14 shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than three years, but not more than 10 years.”
This is why whether sex was consensual becomes a key point of contention in cases of sexual assault involving people who are more than seven years old. However, the idea that sex under such circumstances can be defined as consensual is ridiculous.
Is a seven-year-old capable of expressing his or her will regarding sexual acts? If seven-year old children do not know what sex is, then when it is happening, the child is incapable of knowing what it is. In that case the child is not capable of expressing his or her desires.
One of the main purposes of sex education is for children to familiarize themselves with their bodies, to be able to distinguish between other people’s bodies and their own, and to learn respect for the autonomy and privacy they have over their own bodies and other people’s.
However, society is embarrassed about sex and treats it as a taboo. This can lead to an ostrich-like attitude to sex education that creates a hotbed for seduction of minors.
According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s statistics on reported sexual assaults last year, out of a total of 8,141 assault victims, 5,214, or 64 percent, were under the age of 18.
Among the “Fang Ssu-chis” I have encountered in the course of my work as a prosecutor and only counting cases in which substantial evidence could be found, the youngest victim of sexual assault was four years old.
Many “Fang Ssu-chis” have told me things like “uncle said he was playing a game with me” or “at the time I didn’t know what daddy was doing to me.” In such situations, the sexual behavior likely happened without resistance, so no one can say the person went “against the victim’s will.”
There are also “Fang Ssu-chis” who are not clear about where various parts of their bodies are and so cannot correctly identify which parts of their bodies have been sexually assaulted.
For many “Fang Ssu-chis,” it is not until they grow a bit older that they figure out what happened to them, but if several years have gone by they will have missed the chance to seek help from teachers or the judiciary, which could have prevented the molestation from continuing.
Some parents think that sex education is being taught too early and are fearful of giving children “sexual knowledge.” On May 2, Taipei Department of Education Commissioner Tseng Tsan-chin (曾燦金) said that sex education materials containing “inappropriate” content about gender equality would be withdrawn from schools, but what does “inappropriate” mean?
Media reports do not give a clear answer to this question. For example, if teaching materials say “sexual orientation does not necessarily correspond to biological gender,” this is a statement of fact. In that case, how can it be inappropriate? This issue calls for further discussion.
What will happen if we do not offer children correct sex education? If our sex education is just for those who need sex, there will be a huge gap of knowledge and power between those people and their naive and ignorant victims.
Those who have the knowledge and power would then find it easy not only to perpetrate abuses, but to cover their tracks and get away with it.
Wang Ching-yi is a public prosecutor at the Taoyuan District Prosecutors’ Office.
Translated by Julian Clegg
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS