Tuesday, November 22, 2005

The Paradox of Sex Education

Sex Education in School did caused certain confusion and draw various comments by various reader.

Somehow, I felt compelled to explain.

Sex education as defined by wikipedia is education about sexual reproduction in human beings, sexual intercourse and other aspects of human sexual behavior.

The study of sexual behavior in humans concerns the instinctive form of physical intimacy which are performed for the purposes of reproduction, the expressing of affection, spiritual transcendence, the release of tension, and the experiencing of sexual gratifications. The desire to have sex is one of the basic drives of human behavior.

Sex education is the subject of much contentious debate worldwide. Chief among controversial points is whether sexual freedom for minors is valuable or detrimental, as well as whether instruction about condoms and birth control pills reduce or increase out-of-wedlock or teenage pregnancy and STDs. The existence of AIDS has given a new sense of urgency to the topic of sex education.

One viewpoint on sex education holds that what is at stake in sex education is control over the body and liberation of the body from social control. The question arises is whether society or the individual should dictate sexual mores. Mores are strongly held norms or customs which are derived from the established practices of a society.

Sexual education may thus be seen as providing individuals with the knowledge necessary to liberate themselves from socially organized sexual oppression and to make up their own minds.

A more common approach to sex education is to view it as necessary to reduce risk behaviours such as unprotected sex and to equip individuals to make informed decisions about their personal sexual activity. Additionally, proponents of comprehensive sex education contend that education about homosexuality encourages tolerance.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth are often ignored in sex education in US. This means that information about safer sex practices for manual, oral, and anal sex is not discussed, nor are their different risk levels for diseases. Some people do not support including this additional information because it might be seen as approving of homosexual behavor. However, by excluding discussion of these issues, feelings of isolation, loneliness, guilt, shame, and depression are made much worse. Supporters of including LGBT issues as an integral part of comprehensive sexuality education argue that this information is still useful and relevant and reduces the likelihood of suicide, sexually transmitted disease, acting out, and maladaptive behavior. In the absence of such discussion, these youth are de facto forced to remain in the closet, while heterosexual youth are left without guidance on dealing with their own homosexual attractions and with their homosexual classmates.

Supporters of comprehensive sex education programs argue that abstinence-only curricula that advocate that youth should abstain from sex until marriage ignore and marginalize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, who might not be able to marry their partner due to legal restrictions. Proponents of abstinence-only education often have a more conservative view of homosexuality and are against it being taught as a normal, accepted lifestyle, or placed on the same platform as heterosexual relations, and so they generally do not see this as a problem.

In many schools across America, teachers find themselves out of control when facing a room full of adolescent students. With classes full of immature children titillated by the subject matter, giggles, whoops and hollers echo into the halls as middle school children are exposed to the deadly serious aspect of approaching their sexual development responsibly. Their teachers constantly struggling to keep the children focused on the gravity of what is being discussed. Consequently, because of the loose and casual atmosphere of sex education classrooms, thousands of parents question the validity and the effectiveness of sex-education being delivered in public education. The question debated is "If the message can't be delivered responsibly then should it be delivered at all?"

Many parents feel that sex education programs in public schools (in US) amount to no more than a 3 day sex talk complete with giggles, immature commentary, and very little real instruction taking place rather than being approached in a true academic manner.

Taught properly, sexual education and development could easily become part of any other scientific course of study like Human Biology, Human Behavior, Human Anatomy or Health. More importantly, perhaps if administrators present a more dignified and academic approach to the delivery of sexual education, complete with test and grades, it may just impress upon our children that they should view sex a serious part of their human development rather than a recreational activity.

The public controversy centered around sex education in Malaysian public schools raised the question whether or not sexual education should be taught in public schools, and if in the affirmative, what methodology and curriculum should be adopted and taught. It give rise to questions whether to teach "abstinence only" approach or the more contemporary sexuality programs that include the correct usage and protective qualities of contraceptives.

If sex education is to be taught in school, are the teachers qualified to teach? Try asked the teachers whether they had knowledge about historically inspired sexologists such as Wilhelm Reich, Sigmund Freud and James W. Prescott and their thesis such as:

Wilhelm Reich, Theory of "Body Armoring", Character Analysis, The Sexual Revolution
Sigmund Freud, Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905),
James W. Prescott, Body Pleasure and the origins of Violence

For more information and references of sex education, you can visit:

Sex Education by Wikipedia
Human Sexual Behavior
psparents
CSUN
New Dawn Magazine
NVSH
Psychosexual Development
Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence

No comments: