The presentation at the UN Committee on the Status of Women that talked about “orgasm, oral sex and masturbation” in the schools generated a lot of controversy, around the internet and right here at the Ruth blog. One of our permanent commenters suggested that I go listen to the whole speech, and that I would find the original article had misrepresented her.
I think our commenter was correct that Ms. Diane Schneider was not explicitly advocating that “orgasm, oral sex and masturbation” be taught as activities in the school. However, I don’t think the discrepancy salvages her speech in the slightest.
The comment (about five minutes into the presentation, 5:10-5:30) about “How can we teach sex education without including TERMS such as orgasm, oral sex and masturbation?” arises in the context of “teaching sex for the sake of reproducing.” Ms. Schneider obviously disapproves of this approach to teaching sex ed. The terms on this list have to do with non-procreative sexual activity. If you were teaching about “sex for the sake of reproducing,” those terms wouldn’t be particularly relevant.
But this raises the question of why we are teaching about sex in the schools in the first place. The usual justification for sex ed is that we must prevent teen pregnancy. But non-procreative sexual activity, by definition, doesn’t have the social consequences of unwanted pregnancy. So, why should government schools care?
And given that sex is supposed to be private, (the Supreme Court says so, after all) why are government schools teaching anything about sex at all? In my recent article in the Family in America, I lay out some possible reasons why the government might have an interest in people’s private sexual and reproductive behavior. I find all of them wanting.
But even if you buy pregnancy-prevention as a legitimate reason for sex ed in the government schools, why in the world should any level of government care about the non-procreative sexual behavior of young people? Whether they do it or don’t do it? When they learn about it and from whom?
Ms Schneider comes to our aid. She helps us understand why the NEA thinks non-procreative sex should be taught along with pregnancy-prevention. It is quite clear throughout this speech that she thinks it is the job of the schools to eradicate homophobia. She also disapproves of anything that might be construed as gender roles. She says around 6 minutes in that “We must teach our children from a very young age that being male, female or intersexed, comes with the presence of genitalia, and no further expectation.”
Really? This is the job of the schools? This is such a self-evident truth that no further discussion is needed?
Listen around 4:30 through 5, where she says, “sex education in the realm of reproduction in biology class provides a subtle message to LGTB youth that their intimacy doesn’t count.” Why is it the job of the schools to be telling anyone anything, subtly or not-so-subtly, about whether their intimacy “counts”? I thought the point of sex ed was to not dish out moral approval, but to be morally neutral?
Now you can see why she tacitly disapproves of students being able to opt-out of sex ed. Sex ed is about eliminating homophobia, a morally charged goal, not about science or health or any of those other things that are supposedly value-free.
Yes, by all means, go listen to the speech yourselves.
I think people involved in schools, parents, teachers and taxpayers, are entitled to know what representatives of the NEA think.