[Daily Blog reposts] A brief, contextualised history of sex ed

This post was originally published at The Daily Blog on 6 June 2013.

Once upon a time, sex education – when it was provided at all, which wasn’t a given – was a simple biology lesson, which assumed that all people identified with the gender which corresponded to their genitalia, which were in the standard configuration.

Students learned the “facts of life” and, if they were really lucky, got a lecture about how they weren’t allowed to use their societally-approved genitalia until God said so.

Because in those days, people were happy to ignore the fact that not everyone’s a man or a woman or heterosexual or cisgendered.  So it went without saying that boys grew up knowing they had to force themselves to at least look like they were men, and girls, women.

There were a lot of sexually transmitted diseases, but everyone pretended they didn’t exist because they were associated with immorality, and thus those who contracted them weren’t worth caring about.

Certain behaviours were labelled as “not normal” and  there were harsh social and even criminal punishments for being at all different.

Things have changed.  Kinda.

Now we have comprehensive sexuality education, which acknowledges the fact that humans are generally social creatures who have relationships and emotions and and aren’t all heterosexual cisgendered men and women.  Children learn they’re sexual from birth, because we install sexchips in their brains, and that the proper time for sexual activity is when they’re ready, because we want them to be sluts.

They’re taught they have a right to pleasure, birth control, and abortion, because … um, they are.

The terms husband and wife aren’t used, ever.  Using them is punishable by death.  The union of man and woman is one of several options, because, um, it is.  And trying to erase the glorious diversity of human relationships under the guise of “morality”?  Well, that’s judging, and judging is douchey.

You will find biology in sexuality education, it’s just part of a wider curriculum designed by heathen sluts who understand that relationships are about a little bit more than Tab A entering Slot B to produce Baby C.  There’s also voluminous information on the existing, factual varieties of sexual expression, the pros and cons of different contraceptives and abortion, and the harm of gender stereotypes.

Gender itself is taught like it’s a complicated matter.  Because, um, it is.

We now actually discuss the many types of sexually transmitted disease, and how common a lot of them are, which some people insist on pretending means that we think getting one is totally cool.

And childhood innocence?  Well, we no longer treat sexuality as an inherently immoral thing from which children must be protected in a fake, sheltered state of grace.  On websites recommended to students, things are explained, even if they were previously labelled “deviant”.

Oh, Dr Grossman, I wish it were so.  What a fantastic world it would be where we treated sex like a natural part of human existence (which it is) and stopped trying, with words, peer pressure and naked violence, to force everyone into little boxes labelled Husbandfatherworker and Wifemothercarer.

We don’t.  But giving the rising panic amongst fundies, I think we’re getting closer.


Source.  Click for her armchair-albeit-professional psychoanalysis of Alfred Kinsey, which oh-so-conveniently aligns with her own biases.