Sex Ed is Obviously Meant to Teach…

Last updated on: June 8, 2013 at 12:40 pm by Leah Libresco

Sex Ed is Obviously Meant to Teach… 2013-06-08T12:40:03-04:00 Leah Libresco

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Last Friday, I was on Sheila Liaugminas’s Relevant Radio show (“A Closer Look”) with a couple other bloggers from the Catholic channel here (Calah Alexander, Sam Rocha, Betty Duffy). We all sat down for a roundtable on sex-ed (the mp3 can be found here).

The format was a little unconventional. Instead of Sunday-morning-political-show-style crosstalk, where all the participants speak in dialogue (frequently overlapping dialogue) and question or build on the previous speaker’s comments, Sheila’s show had each person speak uninterrupted for a while on a single question. The next blogger often addressed a new point, and we didn’t ask each other follow-ups.

As a result, we sure didn’t design a new comprehensive sex-ed curriculum, but I noticed something that might help defuse that fight a little. When we talked about what sex ed was meant to accomplish, we all brought up very different goals:

Public health: Reduce the transmission of disease, give students tools to reduce their risk, make risks visceral enough to constrain risky behavior, etc
Integrating sexuality into life: Oh gosh, what’s happening to your body, what should you make of your sexual feelings (in more contexts than sex-having), counteracting sex-makes-you-dirty/worthless
Gender relations: Counteracting prevalent harmful narratives (women’s sexuality is depraved/disgusting), do broad gender differences mean we should use slightly different framings?
Romantic relationships: Now that sex is on the table, how does it fit into what you’re already doing to respect a partner? What are common emotional risks and pitfalls? What are good safeguards?
Philosophy: How has sex/eros/love been treated across cultures? How do you know which tradition had it right (if any)? How can sexuality be a lens on what it is to be human?
and plenty more….

Once you start listing them all out, it’s not obvious that any one class could satisfy all of these goals, but they’ve all ended up implicitly grouped. And, what’s worst, we tend not to reference these goals explicitly when we argue about how to structure a sex-ed program. People are likely to fall prey to the illusion of transparency. We say we want a good sex-ed program, that teaches kids what they need to know, or even that they need to approach sex responsibly, and assume that everyone swaps out those italicizes phrases in the same way we do.

It’s the same problem that Arnold Kling is trying to solve with his The Three Languages of Politics. You have to find ways to restructure the discussion so you can catch a glimpse of what your interlocutors are actually trying to protect, the thing that’s so obviously valuable that it’s hard for them to remember to explain it. Once your cards are on the table, it’s easier to negotiate and find solutions that satisfy all (or nearly all) of these goals, even if they all don’t quite fit in one sex ed class together.

I’m tempted to try to slip my philosophy bullet point into the social studies curriculum, instead: “How did different views of eros shape culture? Which voices weren’t included in the debate? What prompted reframes and new ideas? What’s left out of our discussion today? What seems like cruft left over from the last problem we tried to solve — is that pressure still present?

But, until we pause for a moment to explain what exactly we’re trying to teach, I doubt it will help much for me to wade into a discussion and say “Doesn’t a lot of sex ed belong in social studies?” will help, as long as people are autocompleting things like “the mechanics of sex,” “slides of venereal disease,” or “biology lessons.”

Morality in Practice

church/state

sex and sexuality

Previous Post

June 7, 2013

7 Quick Takes (6/7/13)

Next Post

June 12, 2013 A terrible consequence of consequentialism

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 7 Quick Takes Apologetics Atheism Book Conversion Debate Tactics Debates Epistemology/Philosophy Housekeeping Ideological Turing Test Marriage Morality in Practice Parsing Catholicism Possibly Heretical Radio Reviews/Recommendations Sequence Index Spiritual Practice Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2017 March 2017 January 2017 December 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who wrestled with an angel and had his name changed to Israel?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Esau Jacob Moses Joseph