Now, I realize that this introduction is seemingly far removed from sexual education, but that is where I discover my inner spider, and start weaving a web of connections (that sounded way less lame in my head, I swear). Education is, above all, a political entity, and sexual education is perhaps the most political sub-entity of them all. What is taught is extremely dependent on how we construct adolescents, what we assume to be normal, and what we value. Allow me to demonstrate what I mean here, which will summarize some of the main ideas that were learned in our Contemporary Issues in Education classroom.
Let's think about how our society constructs adolescents. In my experience, especially having just been there, I can say that most people view adolescents as loose cannons of sorts: they're moody, mouthy, rebellious, hormonal, emotional, difficult, and are doing it like rabbits. I know that sounds a bit crude, but hey, I'm just keeping it real. This construction of hypersexuality is a main element of Laina Bay-Cheng's (2003) article that we reviewed in class. She states that "the infusion of a biologically determined hypersexuality into the identity of the adolescent succeeds in giving inevitable and natural cause for adult intervention and surveillance" (p.62). By constructing adolescents in this way, the adult world has a responsibility to "control" the adolescents, to reduce and subdue their "uncontrollable" urges. The education world does this by implementing "abstinence-only" or "abstinence-centered" programs that are largely fear-based, (meaning that they concentrate on the negative consequences of sex) attempting to deter teens from having any form of sex. We will talk about the effectiveness of these types of programs later on, so stay tuned.
So we know how we construct adolescents, and now we have to decide what it normal, so that we can teach it. As a society, we are completely obsessed with normality; our entire lives are fashioned around the idea of normalcy. Think about it: what was the most important thing as a child? Most of you are probably thinking that you wanted to be just like the popular kids, to be part of the in-crowd. Normalcy could almost be considered a value, something that is inherently right. So we ask ourselves, what is normal sexually speaking? Bay-Cheng (2003) succinctly explains this normalcy: "normality is located within a monogamous, coitus-centered relationship between a man and a woman, both of whom generally conform to conventional gender roles" (p.67). There's a major problem here: in this day and age, this is no longer the only perspective we can address. The LGTBQ community is totally excluded from this perspective, and young people who do not identity with this heterosexual identity are impeded from further developing their identity in the classroom, which is arguably one of the biggest purposes of school. Bay-Cheng (2003) also states that "to accept a single way of being as natural is to privilege it and imbue it with a sort of correctness" (p.67). So, basically, the message that is being sent to the LGTBQ youth in the classroom is that they are wrong, that they are irregular, that they are not normal, that they don't fit in. In light of all the recent gay teen suicides, this seems like something that should be of high priority to remedy.
This issue of normalcy also ties into the next problem: what do we value? If we are supposed to teach the youth of today what is right, then what do we teach them? What is "right"? In his chapter on sexual education, values, and cultural diversity, Ronald W. Morris (2000) discusses the predicament we have had throughout history on what to include, value-wise in programs. There was a time when sexual education was thought to be best taught objectively, free of values. However, you cannot really teach a subject that is so full of emotion, political, and social connotation in a "value-free" way, to which Morris agrees. However, he explains that we cannot use "pre-packaged" values, and that, in my opinion, is the biggest fallacy of our system. Our sexual values are very much influenced by religious doctrine, which is highly apparent in the construction of normalcy (did you know that, in the 16th century, 10% of canon law was concerning sex or sex-related items?). We are incredibly stuck in the past when it comes to values applied to sexual education, and remain firm in attempting to prevent sex, as opposed to being actively trying to prevent unsafe sex. This is another reason why abstinence-only and abstinence-centered programs remain so popular. Morris also discusses the inadequate education that pre-service teachers are getting, and how this is causing their own values to influence their teaching, and to cause them to fear the controversial, "non-normal" components of sexual education, and therefore, exclude them from their teachings completely. This is a notion we will explore more deeply as we go along.
I know this is a lot of information to take in at once. However, we have created a picture of what sexual education programs are looking like today, and talked about some of the reasons why they are the way they are. Now, we can talk about the all-important question of the hour: do they work? I would tell you what I think…. but if I did that there would be no reason to keep reading, would there? :P. Stay tuned, it’s about to get interesting :).
References
Bay-Cheng, Laina Y. (2003). The Trouble of Teen Sex: the construction of adolescent sexuality through school-based sexuality education. Sex Education 3(1). 61-71. doi: 10.1080/1468181032000052162
Morris, R.W. (2000) “Sexuality Education, Values and Cultural Diversity: International Developments and Questions Arising,” in M. Leicester, C. Modgil, and S. Modgil (eds.) Education, Culture and Values: Practice, Pedagogy and Curriculum (Vol. 3), London: Falmer Press. p. 212-219.
No comments:
Post a Comment