Purposeful Ramblings Through My Mind

These are my thoughts on a book review of a book entitled, "When Sex Goes to School," by Kristin Luker. The review can be found here.

First, i agree with the idea that differing views on sex education are about worldview first and foremost. However, I disagree with the very stark categorization he makes, and I want to know if this categorization is his or the author's. "“Sexual conservatives,” Luker explains, “ . . . believe that humans are fundamentally capable of the worst, and that it is only the combined power of an internal morality and external constraints that keeps most of us on the straight-and-narrow most of the time.” And this, she shows, is why we argue for “firm structures” and the teaching of moral boundaries. On the other hand, she says, “sexual liberals see a world in which the only way a diverse and heterogeneous group of people can be trusted to make good moral decisions is to ensure that all of them have the maximum amount of information possible.” So sexual liberals fight to give children as much sexual information as possible as early as possible, thinking “that if their children are given education and information, they will grow up to be morally good adults.”"

Now, sexual conservatives do, in fact, believe what he says they do. But he paints with a broad brush when he implies that all people who believe that way will choose to keep their children in ignorance of sexual realities as a way of putting external constraints on their behaviour. There are plenty of people who believe that sex is best kept for marriage, who still want their children to be thoroughly educated about it, because ignorance doesn't work very well as external constraints go. It is too easy to circumvent, or worse, partially circumvent. As the old saying goes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I can't think of any area where that is more true than in sexual education.

By the same token, the brush for sexual liberals is too broad. Most of the liberals I know don't fight to give sexual information before puberty (though some do, and I always wonder why. Statistically, very, very few kids need that information before the age of eleven or twelve, which is, not coincidentally, the age when most school districts begin sex ed. I understand the idea of a gradual flowering of interest in one's own sexuality, and giving information that is timely to that interest - but as much as possible, as soon as possible?) So "as early as possible" is an exaggeration. It's also an exaggeration to say that giving their children all possible information will be enough to have them make good choices for themselves. There are certainly some people who feel that any sexual inhibition is a bad thing, but most try to teach their children responsibility along with their education.

The reviewer has painted two camps that are diametrically opposed, while ignoring the substantial middle ground between the two viewpoints - a middle ground that acknowledges the importance of accurate, timely information, while teaching responsibility and morality.

I'm now interested in reading the book. I want to know if this comes from the author or from the reviewer.

Is from my blood boiling.

Consensual sex gets prison term