Is This Sex Education?
Reading this article , I was shocked. What schools are offering sex education curricula like this while taking government money for abstinence education? Two years ago, I had a discussion with many of my college friends and realized that I had far more "liberal" sex education than the rest of them. Yet these curricula left a bad taste in my mouth. To wit, if sexual intercourse is sacrosanct or even "special," most of the alternative behaviors cited by the author of the article only can erode stepwise the mystery surrounding the ultimate set of acts. And how can anyone promote abstinence under any conditions while discussing household substitutes for lubricants? I only can conclude that the quarter of Americans who are less conservative on sex education approve of these curricula in their children's schools.
The great problem that surrounds this issue is that almost everyone would agree on moral or prudential grounds that minors should not be engaging in oral, anal, or vaginal sex, but some unknown proportion will do so anyway and need some sort of warning and information about the consequences thereof. O, upon the first it so easy to agree, but in the second, it would not be too overblown to say that the fates of the worlds almost have become woven into its solution.
Now for some commentary:
Statistical studies suggest that maintaining virginity is on the rise, that is, not engaging in vaginal intercourse. Now is as good as any time to mention that I think our current definition of virginity is a grave mistake, founded upon an obsession in many cultures including that of the ancient Near East (indeed as the common lawyers had it, even the slightest penetration sufficed for sexual offenses), upon vaginal penetration and the property relationships that rose and fell on these grounds, possibly because the virginity of a woman can but may not be verifiable physically. This definition has led to all kinds of fascinating moral evasions, including that of "oral sex is not sex." On the opposite side of the spectrum from this definition of virginity is the extreme interpretation of this verse of the Gospel of Matthew, "if anyone look at a woman with a lustful eye, they have committed adultery in their heart." Sex in its most extreme definition becomes any thought or overt act of love and affection which possibly could have penetration as its end. The flaw of this definition chiefly lies on its dependence on potentiality. It smacks of men who imagined that every man kissing a woman longed to have sex with her, because they, themselves, desired her. So how does anyone define sex or virginity? Another possibility is a golden oldie from the Ancient Near East: nakedness, by which they meant genitals. In defining such matters as incest, the Mosaic Code gets to heart of sex and avoids the quagmire and evasions of vaginal penetration. Salon in a review of the recent Mandy Moore movie spoke of the thrill of unbuckling pants. Whatever their purpose, our organs of generation retain a metaphysical significance that transcends culture. The "naked savages" of whom older generations of Europe worked to enlighten generally covered their pudendae in some way, although they might emphasize the area or have less hang-ups about other areas. I only can think of one exception: a British traveler of the 19th century described an Arab chieftain who displayed one of his wives riding a horse while executing a handstand. Of course, she flashed the Englishman, who was duly shocked, but his host was proud that his wife kept her face covered (another odd quirk common in both Greece and the ancient Near East). With such a definition of sex, we might have a fairer discussion of abstinence.
Despite the rise of "virginity", which the Christian Coalition et cetera sees as a sign of victory in der kulturkampf , oral sex is on the rise. A friend of mine once found himself in a pretty pickle when he published a poll on the sexual practices of our high school's student body in the newspaper. The poll's response rate was somewhat limited, so the administration upbraided him for using too small of a sample, but he really was getting the flack for the results. Somewhat responsible for the mess myself but asked to resolve it, I determined that if a poll taken about fifteen years before had the same response rate, oral sex had doubled in the intervening period. The AIDS crisis, among many populations, just has increased concern about disease and not intimacy. Worse yet, the closest thing to the Christian Coalition on my campus seemed to have members who were obsessed with doing anything but what is expressly prohibited with any number of girls.
Sex is becoming a force among younger and younger persons. It begins when kindergarteners spout obscenities rather than scatologies and know what they mean. It continues in sixth grade, as spending time with a girl, or hope of hopes, dancing with a girl suddenly loses its thrill. (It never lost any thrill with me, and I hope it never does.) I suspect that it always happened. The young are adventuresome, but two crazy idiots usually can keep their fumblings quiet. When you hear about it, it has become widespread. The new movie Thirteen directly addresses matters that used to be rare enough to be quiet. In middle school, I used to hear rumors about "loose" high school women, to use a Victorian term and wave away the ugliness of prudery. One would have a crush in high school and hear their male friends try to solicit for them. And then there was the homophobia. I, in retrospect, was a jock. Yet I was a geek, too. My heterosexuality was continually impugned. Fortunately, I was in an environment where nothing really evil could be done to me on this account. Yet I recently learned that I always was harassed in the presence of a homosexual male. I can't imagine how he felt during high school.
In summary, sex education of most types is a complete failure. On one side, it evades sex completely by enveloping it in prohibitions that ignore the realities of what those being educated think they know and believe they want. They set down rules that either defy reason or scream for evasion. On the other hand, sex education that focuses excessively on the condoms and the pursuit of physically good sex evades sex as well. Sex education ought to be a theoretical course rather than a practicum. The culture warns about disease and pregnancy. I hear three condom commercials per hour. Yet few hear reasonable responses to homophobia and the other crudenesses of sexual life. No one hears of love and intercourse without sex.
ESA(20030902.1)
Reading this article , I was shocked. What schools are offering sex education curricula like this while taking government money for abstinence education? Two years ago, I had a discussion with many of my college friends and realized that I had far more "liberal" sex education than the rest of them. Yet these curricula left a bad taste in my mouth. To wit, if sexual intercourse is sacrosanct or even "special," most of the alternative behaviors cited by the author of the article only can erode stepwise the mystery surrounding the ultimate set of acts. And how can anyone promote abstinence under any conditions while discussing household substitutes for lubricants? I only can conclude that the quarter of Americans who are less conservative on sex education approve of these curricula in their children's schools.
The great problem that surrounds this issue is that almost everyone would agree on moral or prudential grounds that minors should not be engaging in oral, anal, or vaginal sex, but some unknown proportion will do so anyway and need some sort of warning and information about the consequences thereof. O, upon the first it so easy to agree, but in the second, it would not be too overblown to say that the fates of the worlds almost have become woven into its solution.
Now for some commentary:
Statistical studies suggest that maintaining virginity is on the rise, that is, not engaging in vaginal intercourse. Now is as good as any time to mention that I think our current definition of virginity is a grave mistake, founded upon an obsession in many cultures including that of the ancient Near East (indeed as the common lawyers had it, even the slightest penetration sufficed for sexual offenses), upon vaginal penetration and the property relationships that rose and fell on these grounds, possibly because the virginity of a woman can but may not be verifiable physically. This definition has led to all kinds of fascinating moral evasions, including that of "oral sex is not sex." On the opposite side of the spectrum from this definition of virginity is the extreme interpretation of this verse of the Gospel of Matthew, "if anyone look at a woman with a lustful eye, they have committed adultery in their heart." Sex in its most extreme definition becomes any thought or overt act of love and affection which possibly could have penetration as its end. The flaw of this definition chiefly lies on its dependence on potentiality. It smacks of men who imagined that every man kissing a woman longed to have sex with her, because they, themselves, desired her. So how does anyone define sex or virginity? Another possibility is a golden oldie from the Ancient Near East: nakedness, by which they meant genitals. In defining such matters as incest, the Mosaic Code gets to heart of sex and avoids the quagmire and evasions of vaginal penetration. Salon in a review of the recent Mandy Moore movie spoke of the thrill of unbuckling pants. Whatever their purpose, our organs of generation retain a metaphysical significance that transcends culture. The "naked savages" of whom older generations of Europe worked to enlighten generally covered their pudendae in some way, although they might emphasize the area or have less hang-ups about other areas. I only can think of one exception: a British traveler of the 19th century described an Arab chieftain who displayed one of his wives riding a horse while executing a handstand. Of course, she flashed the Englishman, who was duly shocked, but his host was proud that his wife kept her face covered (another odd quirk common in both Greece and the ancient Near East). With such a definition of sex, we might have a fairer discussion of abstinence.
Despite the rise of "virginity", which the Christian Coalition et cetera sees as a sign of victory in der kulturkampf , oral sex is on the rise. A friend of mine once found himself in a pretty pickle when he published a poll on the sexual practices of our high school's student body in the newspaper. The poll's response rate was somewhat limited, so the administration upbraided him for using too small of a sample, but he really was getting the flack for the results. Somewhat responsible for the mess myself but asked to resolve it, I determined that if a poll taken about fifteen years before had the same response rate, oral sex had doubled in the intervening period. The AIDS crisis, among many populations, just has increased concern about disease and not intimacy. Worse yet, the closest thing to the Christian Coalition on my campus seemed to have members who were obsessed with doing anything but what is expressly prohibited with any number of girls.
Sex is becoming a force among younger and younger persons. It begins when kindergarteners spout obscenities rather than scatologies and know what they mean. It continues in sixth grade, as spending time with a girl, or hope of hopes, dancing with a girl suddenly loses its thrill. (It never lost any thrill with me, and I hope it never does.) I suspect that it always happened. The young are adventuresome, but two crazy idiots usually can keep their fumblings quiet. When you hear about it, it has become widespread. The new movie Thirteen directly addresses matters that used to be rare enough to be quiet. In middle school, I used to hear rumors about "loose" high school women, to use a Victorian term and wave away the ugliness of prudery. One would have a crush in high school and hear their male friends try to solicit for them. And then there was the homophobia. I, in retrospect, was a jock. Yet I was a geek, too. My heterosexuality was continually impugned. Fortunately, I was in an environment where nothing really evil could be done to me on this account. Yet I recently learned that I always was harassed in the presence of a homosexual male. I can't imagine how he felt during high school.
In summary, sex education of most types is a complete failure. On one side, it evades sex completely by enveloping it in prohibitions that ignore the realities of what those being educated think they know and believe they want. They set down rules that either defy reason or scream for evasion. On the other hand, sex education that focuses excessively on the condoms and the pursuit of physically good sex evades sex as well. Sex education ought to be a theoretical course rather than a practicum. The culture warns about disease and pregnancy. I hear three condom commercials per hour. Yet few hear reasonable responses to homophobia and the other crudenesses of sexual life. No one hears of love and intercourse without sex.
ESA(20030902.1)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home