![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
On Comprehensive Sex Ed: Facts For Fun And Forewarning
So, figleaf of Real Adult Sex was talking about Freud's discussion on polymorphous perversity in which he wrote,
I think (obviously for someone with my blog title) it's more appropriate to encourage sexual expression in adults after we've gone through a lot of healthy identity formation. One of the problems with children, ironically, is that because they're polymorphous they're more easily manipulated down convenient-for-adult narrow pathways (gee, sound familiar?)... as opposed to organically developing their own.
I really liked this aside. For several reasons.
Now, most of you probably know I'm totally for comprehensive sex education, at whatever age. This rule of thumb of mine may change, but I figure, if a kid is old enough to ask sex-related questions, then avoiding the questions isn't going to do much for them. In fact, I've been totally misled by something my mom said when I was a kid because she didn't really want to have a conversation with me about it. (And a good thing nothing bad ever came out of it too, and that I realized what a bad thing it was.)
I couldn't really express that there because I was afraid it might be too OT, and besides which, I hadn't really articulated anything else, but I replied with this:
I like the way you put this. Somehow, whenever I try to talk about comprehensive sex education for kids, either I get the told that I'm expecting kids to have sexual expression too young, or that sex shouldn't be a priority anyway. It's kinda mind-boggling.
And don't we darling liberals get that a lot? Especially in traditional Asian countries? "If you teach them about sex they're going to have sex, of course! If they don't know anything about it, how will they know to do anything??"
And figleaf responded to my comment with a whole post that quite beautifully expresses why it's such a good idea to present sex education as morally-neutral to kids.
When I wrote my comment, I was struggling to express it better that wasn't OT, but said pretty much what he just said in this post. The best way I've been able to put it is "just because I advocate comprehensive sex education for children doesn't mean I want them having sex like bunnies or whatever. That's like saying that giving a person a comprehensive education in science will drive them to create monstrosities and death rays."
We teach science because it's useful to know certain facts in case we're in trouble and it helps us better understand the world around us. So why not teach sex ed, to help us better understand this really complicated, hard-to-comprehend part of ourselves? Especially when one considers the likelihood of someone building monstrosities is far less than the likelihood of someone being taken advantage of because they didn't have all the facts they need.
(Also, if you're using your knowledge of science to create zombie monstrosities and death rays to blow up the world, chances are your education wasn't fucking comprehensive enough that nobody ever taught you to be cautious with the shit you work with out of consideration for other people who live on the planet.)
Which is why I get pretty annoyed seeing conservative people decrying sex education like it's going to make their children filthy. If you teach your child that sex outside of marriage is a filthy thing, then yes, it's going to be a filthy thing for your child. Not that it fucking helps them any, mind you, in the off-chance that they get raped or molested or otherwise sexually violated and have no recourse for it. I get annoyed when I see traditional folks bitching that if you teach kids about sex it means that they'll have no respect for sex and for themselves.
Because, in my admittedly very limited experience, learning about something deepens appreciation for the subject. The more I learned about flowers, the more cool they were. The more I figured out the workings of a computer, the nerdier I got. The more I understand social cues and cultural relativity, the more I appreciate cultural divides and the more tickled I am when I see such things happen in stuff I read.
Telling children plain facts about their biological processes, sexualities, and physiological developement probably isn't going to make them want to have sex. Especially if you posit sex as an activity involving more than one person. In fact, it'll probably delay them from it because that shit is complicated, yo, and anybody can figure out really quickly that it's probably best to grow up and figure one's self out first before involving other people in this personal shit.
Now, another thing I get is that if we teach kids sex education, we're positing that sex is a priority, and sex shouldn't be a priority at that age. It's true, sex should wait until you've got your own damn personal hubris sorted out. I understand that sex between two happy, self-confident, psychologically stable, secure people is pretty damn hot. But if we communicate this (that sex between two actively involved, self-confident adults who really dig each other is a categorical good) to kids, that would protect them from being preyed upon by unhappy, controlling, jerks who take advantage of their sexual ignorance.
And anyways, go read figleaf's post, because he explains it much better than I do.
I think (obviously for someone with my blog title) it's more appropriate to encourage sexual expression in adults after we've gone through a lot of healthy identity formation. One of the problems with children, ironically, is that because they're polymorphous they're more easily manipulated down convenient-for-adult narrow pathways (gee, sound familiar?)... as opposed to organically developing their own.
I really liked this aside. For several reasons.
Now, most of you probably know I'm totally for comprehensive sex education, at whatever age. This rule of thumb of mine may change, but I figure, if a kid is old enough to ask sex-related questions, then avoiding the questions isn't going to do much for them. In fact, I've been totally misled by something my mom said when I was a kid because she didn't really want to have a conversation with me about it. (And a good thing nothing bad ever came out of it too, and that I realized what a bad thing it was.)
I couldn't really express that there because I was afraid it might be too OT, and besides which, I hadn't really articulated anything else, but I replied with this:
I like the way you put this. Somehow, whenever I try to talk about comprehensive sex education for kids, either I get the told that I'm expecting kids to have sexual expression too young, or that sex shouldn't be a priority anyway. It's kinda mind-boggling.
And don't we darling liberals get that a lot? Especially in traditional Asian countries? "If you teach them about sex they're going to have sex, of course! If they don't know anything about it, how will they know to do anything??"
And figleaf responded to my comment with a whole post that quite beautifully expresses why it's such a good idea to present sex education as morally-neutral to kids.
When I wrote my comment, I was struggling to express it better that wasn't OT, but said pretty much what he just said in this post. The best way I've been able to put it is "just because I advocate comprehensive sex education for children doesn't mean I want them having sex like bunnies or whatever. That's like saying that giving a person a comprehensive education in science will drive them to create monstrosities and death rays."
We teach science because it's useful to know certain facts in case we're in trouble and it helps us better understand the world around us. So why not teach sex ed, to help us better understand this really complicated, hard-to-comprehend part of ourselves? Especially when one considers the likelihood of someone building monstrosities is far less than the likelihood of someone being taken advantage of because they didn't have all the facts they need.
(Also, if you're using your knowledge of science to create zombie monstrosities and death rays to blow up the world, chances are your education wasn't fucking comprehensive enough that nobody ever taught you to be cautious with the shit you work with out of consideration for other people who live on the planet.)
Which is why I get pretty annoyed seeing conservative people decrying sex education like it's going to make their children filthy. If you teach your child that sex outside of marriage is a filthy thing, then yes, it's going to be a filthy thing for your child. Not that it fucking helps them any, mind you, in the off-chance that they get raped or molested or otherwise sexually violated and have no recourse for it. I get annoyed when I see traditional folks bitching that if you teach kids about sex it means that they'll have no respect for sex and for themselves.
Because, in my admittedly very limited experience, learning about something deepens appreciation for the subject. The more I learned about flowers, the more cool they were. The more I figured out the workings of a computer, the nerdier I got. The more I understand social cues and cultural relativity, the more I appreciate cultural divides and the more tickled I am when I see such things happen in stuff I read.
Telling children plain facts about their biological processes, sexualities, and physiological developement probably isn't going to make them want to have sex. Especially if you posit sex as an activity involving more than one person. In fact, it'll probably delay them from it because that shit is complicated, yo, and anybody can figure out really quickly that it's probably best to grow up and figure one's self out first before involving other people in this personal shit.
Now, another thing I get is that if we teach kids sex education, we're positing that sex is a priority, and sex shouldn't be a priority at that age. It's true, sex should wait until you've got your own damn personal hubris sorted out. I understand that sex between two happy, self-confident, psychologically stable, secure people is pretty damn hot. But if we communicate this (that sex between two actively involved, self-confident adults who really dig each other is a categorical good) to kids, that would protect them from being preyed upon by unhappy, controlling, jerks who take advantage of their sexual ignorance.
And anyways, go read figleaf's post, because he explains it much better than I do.
no subject
Scarleteen.com does a fairly good job of it, though.
no subject
(I read "Starship Troopers" at the age of 9. I waded through "Stranger in a Strange Land" at the age of 12. I was still in my teens when I read "Time Enough for Love" and "I will Fear No Evil". No wonder I'm a strange person.)
no subject
I think we're both fairly well-adjusted, all things considered.