Sexual "Education"
Arthur Dent and Thomas Paine
Every January, a new group of freshmen embarks on a wondrous journey. Expectations abound as these youthful, curious pupils trek into the vast and unknown environs that are "Health." Up to this point, they have been told so little, and hence they are full of questions, namely, the age-old "Where do babies come from?" The students have a rough and bumpy road lying ahead of them at the onset of this voyage, but never fear - they have a group of dedicated older men ready and willing to fill them in on all the gory details.
Every March, these very same freshmen emerge from the jungles of sexual education with a new question: "What the fuck was that?" Although their teachers are a well-meaning bunch who endeavor to answer every question, the fact remains that a fifty-something Don Taylor, no matter how well intentioned (or well-versed in the sexual arts), is simply not the man for the job. In fact, there is no man for the job - it's one best done by a woman.
According to the California State Framework for Heath Education, the goal of any health class is to develop a student body that "understands science-based principles of health promotion and disease prevention, incorporates that knowledge into personal health-related attitudes, and makes health a priority in his or her life." Could we get any vaguer? The goal of sex education should be to answer any and all questions that students may have not only about the "science-based principles" of sex, but also about the social, emotional, and psychological aspects as well. We all know that sex is about a lot more than biology, so it boggles the mind that the State of California would choose to ignore everything but science and disease prevention. Unless sex ed evolves beyond a set of dry facts and nebulous euphemisms, no substantive goal can be accomplished.
Even worse than the tedious and uninspiring factoids which form the basis for our sexual education program is the fact that students are being taught by a bunch of people to whom they cannot relate. It's all well and good to learn what the urethra is, but unless students have an environment in which they feel comfortable asking trickier questions like, "Can I get pregnant if I have sex during my period?" it's all for naught. The sex ed portion of the health course may be the only time that a student comes in contact with an adult who is trained and willing to answer some of the more difficult questions about pregnancy, disease, sex, or birth control. It's just a damn shame that most students won't ask the majority of these trained adults those difficult questions - most of the current instructors make the students uncomfortable. What these classrooms need are moms. Not your moms, per se, but women who have been there, women who have done that, women who don't mind talking about it in an open forum. Students need and want someone who will "tell it like it is" without mincing words and tap-dancing around the word "vagina." Why is it, then, that sex ed at Terra Nova is predominantly taught by men over 40? No offense to these well-meaning individuals, but girls, can you imagine asking Mr. Crowley about the different types of tampons available or the risk of herpes from oral sex? Even boys, when asked, say that they'd rather talk to a woman about sex than a man.
Of all the subjects ever broached on a high school campus, there's none more captivating than sex. It has always been a hot topic, and it will always be one. What TN needs to do is stop pussyfooting around the subject, and give us a little credit. What TN needs to do is stop treating sexual education as a strictly "science-based" class for fear of ruffling any feathers. What TN needs to do is put the health classes in the hands of the women to whom the students already turn. Until that day, our poor freshmen are going to have to rely on HBO for their sexual education…