(no subject)

[fpb]

Where sex is concerned, people's powers of logic and argument fly right out of the window, especially if they are addicted to BBC/Guardian/Independent. I just read the following two sentences - in the blog, mind you, of an academic from one of Europe's most prestigious universities: "it's simply not true that sex ed lowers the age people start to have sex. It's far more complicated than that". A statement as incoherent and illogical on any other subject would have caused academic disgrace, or at least I hope so. Any teacher worth their salt would point out that just because "it's more complicated", i.e. other factors are involved, does not mean that "it's simply not true." It can be shown that every expansion of sex ed has corresponded with an expansion of underage sex practice. This does not prove that the one causes the other, but it places the burden of proof on those who would deny it outright.

Personally, I believe that sex ed does cause - or help to cause - underage sex practice, and the reason should be obvious to anyone who does not hide their head in the sand where sex is concerned: that is, that sex is taught as a rational and controllable activity where it is in fact irrational, terrible, and controlling. The first thing that a person in the grip of lust does is to forget reason. And to introduce children to this terrible force under this cloak of misguided rationality is like handing them the key to the dynamite store and expect them not to blow up things.

Comments

[cette-vie.livejournal.com]

I would argue for a strict dividing wall between teaching sex and teaching lust, which you seem to be confusing. Lust is certainly an irrational thing, and sweeps away reason. Yet you expect that lust will stay hidden and locked inside a person, until you tell them about it? Lust comes by itself - children learn masturbation well before puberty, and not one whit of knowledge, about what sex is or what it can happen to you because of it, can actually cause children to have sex on their own. It plants no seeds in our minds, because what actually motivates us to have sex is already there, conscious or subconscious.

(There's also a whole other argument to be made about the amount of underage sex that actually happens, and how much of it is actually adults consorting with minors, and what minors should have to protect themselves from being abused. But you get the drift. And there's also another argument to be made about how you seem to read a correspondence between expansion of sex ed and underage sex practice. It could be just as possible that the latter precipitates the former.)

For one thing, most sex ed I've seen is an introduction to the biological workings inside us, and either intentionally or unintentionally, it's pretty disgusting. They show you videos of a woman giving birth, talk of menstrual cycles, how much sperm is normally in a single ejaculation. It's not meant, nor should it, induce any willingness to have sex. The first time I accidentally saw a porn clip, shortly after my sex ed class in fifth grade, my primary impression was one of pain - how could something that big fit inside a woman? And wouldn't that hurt like hell? This is what children think of. Not how good it might feel, and how they'd like to try it out.

So my own interpretation of your metaphor would be something like this: the key exists around the house, and children will find it one way or another during the course of their childhood and adolescence. You can either show it to them at a certain time and tell them that it's the key to a very dangerous dynamite store, and about how they can hurt themselves by using it. Or you don't tell them about it, and hope that whenever they happen to find it, they don't bring a torch to try it in the door of the dynamite store. If lust sweeps all reason away, is it better not to have any reason there that could block you from a dangerous experience? That seems to be what you're saying.

Furthermore, just remember - it is entirely possible to have sex without knowing what you're doing, just as it is possible to know what sex is and not have it.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It is entirely possible to have sex without knowing what you're doing. And if you are taught to regard sex as a matter of mechanics, it is absolutely certain that you will.