How should we approach the discussion of sex in public schools? Should we consider it a matter of health and safety bereft of moral content? Should we forbid it because the subject has traditionally been the responsibility of the family and religious institutions? Or should we develop a sex education program that provides children with the facts they need to know within the context of values that responsible and moral persons seek to affirm and embody in their lives? I assert that sex education should not be taught as a chapter in human hygiene or human biology, akin to dental care or car mechanics. It should not be treated as though it is, was, or could be value-free.
Communitarianism, the social movement for which I speak, is rooted in the belief that strong rights presume strong responsibilities, and it views the teaching of values as a proper role for the schools. In this context, we should fold sex education into a much more encompassing treatment of interpersonal relations, family life, and intimacy. Such a program should be part of all public schools, at least in junior high schools (or middle schools) and high schools.
Schools would not need to become involved in this subject if parents initiated, advanced, and completed the education of their children in a socially and morally appropriate manner. All too many parents, however, are either unable or unwilling to dedicate themselves sufficiently to the education of their children. Indeed, throughout modern times, schools have supplemented parental education and stepped in where parents were not available or their contributions were insufficient. Public education for intimacy is no different.
A Broad Context
Education for intimacy should take place in a broad context that includes discussion of human nature and an examination of human beings as social creatures who require one another and who have transcendental needs for meaning and moral values. It should explore the responsibilities that we have for one another as members of a community. It should help us strengthen our relations with one another as coworkers, neighbors, friends, and potential family members. It should teach us ways to work out differences, through improved communication skills and conflict resolution. Discussion of family life should explore the nature of the commitments involved in marriage; sharing decision making in family moves and budgets; and other issues, ranging from avoiding exploitative relations to using contraceptives.
Schools now cover many of these topics in a variety of classes, such as social studies and home economics, while ignoring other topics. By combining some of these already existing elements with new ones, we can provide the needed context for teaching sex education.
Character education. Developing a strong character must be at the core of all education programs—particularly those dedicated to interpersonal relations, family life, and intimacy. People with weak characters cannot take responsibility for their actions, abide by values they themselves believe in, be good partners in a relationship, or be upstanding members of a community.
Two personality capabilities lead the agenda of character building. First, a person of good character is able to restrain raw impulses by channeling them into socially constructive and morally sound avenues rather than mindlessly yielding to them. Such a person can express affection and commitment in socially and morally appropriate ways. Second, a person of good character can empathize with others who may have different needs or be at a different stage of sexual and social development.
Values education. The intimacy program's orientation to sex is that sex is inherently neither good nor evil, neither pure nor sinful; the context makes all the difference. Sex is somewhat akin to nuclear energy: properly contained, it is a boon to the world; let loose, it can be a highly destructive force.
Sexual exploitation, for example, is a widespread problem. A high proportion of teen pregnancies are caused by men who are not high school youth, but who are at least five years older than the young women they impregnate. Frequently, these are men who hang around the mothers of the girls involved, and sex is nonconsensual. According to one study, 75 percent of teenage pregnancies and youth-affected sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) would still occur if all teenage boys refrained from having sex; and 51 percent of pregnancies in junior high school would still occur if teenage boys refrained from having sex (Males 1993). Incest is also all too common. All intimacy programs should include strategies for dealing with those who pressure children to have sex.
Several studies and surveys of teenage girls have found that, more than information about contraception, STDs, HIV, and pregnancy, girls seek information on how to refuse to engage in sexual acts without hurting someone's feelings. Boys also need better communication skills, particularly relating to rape and prevention of sexual harassment. These skills help young people become better friends, employees, neighbors, and community members.
Even less severe expressions of sex are matters of serious concern. Making sexual advances to someone committed to one's friend is a quick way to lose that friendship and to offend one's community. The same holds for continuing to make sexual advances to those who indicate that they do not appreciate being approached.
In contrast, sex properly contextualized is a precondition of our future. Sex can be an appropriate way to cement relations that have properly matured, and it can be a source of much joy. In short, sex should always be viewed, treated, and taught within the context of values and relationships.
Family life education. Education for intimacy seeks to encourage children to refrain from having children. Children born to children are more prone to illnesses, anxieties, and other afflictions. They often become public charges in a society that is increasingly disinclined to attend to children properly. Children who have babies often find their life opportunities seriously constricted. They are much less likely to complete their studies, find work, and otherwise develop their own lives —economically, socially, and otherwise.
Education for intimacy should stress that bringing children into the world is a moral act—one that entails a set of personal and social responsibilities. We all need to appreciate that sex is not merely biological and is much more than "recreational." It is an act that can carry with it serious consequences, including loss of life. Responsible persons weigh the moral issues involved; they take into account that yielding to impulse can lead to dire consequences for the child to be born, restrict the life chances of the parents, and corrode the values of our communities.
Decision-making education. When educational programs favor the position that young people defer engaging in sex, the question is raised: Should sex be deferred until a person is 18? 21? married? Those who argue that sex is proper only within marriage often raise this question. While much is to be said for deferring sex until two people have made the kind of permanent commitment implied by marriage, marriage is not the only criterion. Young teens should defer both sex and marriage, as they are likely not to be ready to make a responsible decision in either department. Maturity is measured by behavior rather than chronological age, but it is more common among those who are older than those who are younger.
Methodology
If proper values and interpersonal skill development are included in the intimacy education program, intercourse is no longer the only issue or main focus. At the same time, programs that deal only with values or relations, but exclude specific sex education, are insufficient.
Defining sex. The methodology I favor diverges from the notion that sex should be described simply as a natural, healthy act and that children should be taught how to proceed safely, but not be discouraged otherwise. Statements such as "sexuality is a natural and healthy part of living" and "all persons are sexual" may be correct by some standards of psychiatry but are open to gross misinterpretation when told to children, especially without the proper normative context. To state that "the primary goal of sexuality education is the promotion of sexual health" is particularly unfortunate in this context. At the same time, we should avoid approaches that treat sex not tied to procreation as sinful, shameful, or dirty.
Sex should be viewed as a primordial urge. Like all others, it cannot be ignored and should not be suppressed, but its expressions must be subject to self-control. People need to (1) form judgments before acting and (2) direct this urge into morally and socially responsible channels.
Abstinence "plus." Narrow sex education programs that favor giving young children full information about safe sex are problematic. These programs tend to assume that the effects of encouraging sexual activity are minimal. Also troublesome are programs that address contraception in "a tone of value neutrality, focusing on clinical information to the exclusion of social, emotional, and moral aspects of sex," as some do (Mauldon and Luker 1996).
At the same time, programs that promote abstinence only are cause for concern, because they do not sufficiently take into account the moral issues raised by the many young people who do not adhere to high standards. Many students do engage in sex and hence risk exposure to AIDS and other STDs; many students do experience unwanted pregnancies. These effects can be significantly reduced, albeit not eliminated, if students are taught about safer sex.
Educators, parents, community members, and policymakers need to understand that we can strongly urge young people to defer sexual behavior and still provide information for those who proceed anyhow, without making these two messages seem contradictory. We should employ programs that urge children to wait—at least until they are mature enough to deal with the consequences of their sexual acts—but also provide them with information on how to conduct themselves if they do not wait. Responsibility should include both the notions of deferring sex and of engaging in it in a responsible manner. This position is advocated by Bishop Albert Rouet, the chairman of the French Roman Catholic bishops' social committee, among others (Whitney 1996).
In dealing with topics such as divorce, religious groups have found ways to extol the importance of preserving marriage and still counsel those who divorce. We can do the same for sex education. We can strongly advocate abstinence but also provide youngsters with age-appropriate sex information and ways to proceed responsibly and safely, lest they rely on misconstrued notions provided by much less wholesome and responsible sources. Merely relying on will power—"just say no"—is naive and unrealistic.
Dealing with drugs. We need to teach children that the use of alcohol and drugs reduces self-control and lowers a person's ability to deal with urges in ways that are socially constructive and morally responsible. In addition, children need to learn—and above all experience—the joy of living up to their moral values and social commitment by engaging in positive acts such as community service, peer mentoring, and sports. "Just say no" should be preceded, accompanied, and followed by experiences that young people find reason to say "yes" to.
Encouraging active learning. The program envisioned should not be limited to lectures and reading material but should include role playing, role modeling, peer mentoring, school assemblies, plays, videotapes, and other techniques. Such techniques can help children acquire communication skills that will allow them to fend off unwanted and premature sexual advances without feeling inadequate, guilty, or isolated. Assemblies, peer juries, and other such educational techniques help develop the moral voice of the school community.
Role of Parents
The fact that some of the responsibility for sex education is delegated to schools does not mean that parents have lost their right and duty to be involved in decision making concerning the education to which their children are subjected, especially with highly charged and normatively loaded issues. Parents should be involved in education for intimacy. They have both rights and responsibilities in this area.
Opting out or in. Parents have a right to be informed and consulted about all school programs. Schools should actively reach out to parents and keep them informed about their approach to teaching sex education and what issues they will discuss. The parents' right is accompanied by a responsibility to inform themselves about the issues at hand before they act to curtail a program or urge the adoption of another or seek to remove their children from a given course.
Parents should have the right—and the opportunity—to opt children out of classes on intimacy, but not to block the whole program. This opting-out system requires notifying parents ahead of time about the material that will be covered in such classes, the methodology to be used, and other relevant matters. Children who are being opted out should receive other assignments in the same period.
At the same time, an opt-in system, under which a child would only be enrolled in a course if parents provide prior written approval, is not called for. We should not deny children education of any kind just because their parents are not available or are so indifferent that they neglect to act. We should give parents full opportunity to act on their values but not to block education by inaction.
Community input. One exception to the opting-out policy is important to note: the community may take the position that withholding certain kinds of information directly endangers lives. Similar to the use of vaccines, the common good may take priority over parental objections under certain limited conditions (Etzioni 1993). If we have evidence that in our jurisdiction a significant number of children die from AIDS and we believe that there is no other way to prevent the spread of the disease among students, we may require "inoculation" of youngsters against such dangers by sharing with them proper information and devices. This should be done only after the community discusses these matters with its elected bodies and following open hearings.
Schools are but one factor in the societal matrix that affects children's attitudes toward sex. Others include the media, families, adult role models, and socioeconomic forces. As educators, we cannot single-handedly deliver all the desired outcomes. We need to activate other social agents, calling on them to discharge their responsibilities in this area, to become partners with educators. As educators and as parents, we should support efforts to improve the messages children are exposed to on television. At the same time, we should not use these "other" forces as a rationale for not doing our part.
