Birds and the bees revisited
By: Michael Schmidt
Issue date: 11/14/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
We all got separated in elementary school for "the talk" - boys in one room, girls in another. Through uncomfortable silence and nervous giggles we learned how our bodies transform and, in that transformation, how our interaction with others gains the possibility of a new dimension: sexual attraction and interaction. For boys, the topics of conversation ranged from erections to ejaculation. Down the hall, girls watched slides of their reproductive system and the insertion of a tampon. By only teaching boys about masturbation, teachers and nurses infused us with gender-specific values about sexuality: men are sexual beings and women are reproductive beings.
Parents rarely made up for the failings of the school system. They took us aside to inform us about "the birds and the bees." Our parents told us just enough so that we would know what was going on, but not so much that we would be thinking of getting it on. Riddled with anxiety, our teachers and parents struggled to find words to inform us about human sexuality. The words they found simply told us about the scientific mechanics of sexual reproduction.
In either junior high or high school we learned about the dangers of sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs). Graphic pictures accompanied scientific descriptions of symptoms and causes of these diseases. This was done with the hope that the "shock and awe" approach would deter us from not just unsafe sexual interactions, but any sexual interactions at all. Conspicuously absent, however, was the notion that you could be sexually active and a healthy, happy person. The formula was quite clear: sexual activity equals a baby and/or an STD. Implicitly, the educational system did not give us a choice about our sexual expression - the system simply tried to scare us away from it.
The gaps left by teachers and parents were filled by two extreme cultural representations of sex: pornography and romances. A young man learned to desire a woman whose primary goal was fulfilling any and all sexual desires with orgasmic delight. A young woman learned to desire a man who automatically knew how to fulfill her desires, silently taking her, yet still respecting her in the morning: objectifying and liberating her at the same time.
Parents rarely made up for the failings of the school system. They took us aside to inform us about "the birds and the bees." Our parents told us just enough so that we would know what was going on, but not so much that we would be thinking of getting it on. Riddled with anxiety, our teachers and parents struggled to find words to inform us about human sexuality. The words they found simply told us about the scientific mechanics of sexual reproduction.
In either junior high or high school we learned about the dangers of sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs). Graphic pictures accompanied scientific descriptions of symptoms and causes of these diseases. This was done with the hope that the "shock and awe" approach would deter us from not just unsafe sexual interactions, but any sexual interactions at all. Conspicuously absent, however, was the notion that you could be sexually active and a healthy, happy person. The formula was quite clear: sexual activity equals a baby and/or an STD. Implicitly, the educational system did not give us a choice about our sexual expression - the system simply tried to scare us away from it.
The gaps left by teachers and parents were filled by two extreme cultural representations of sex: pornography and romances. A young man learned to desire a woman whose primary goal was fulfilling any and all sexual desires with orgasmic delight. A young woman learned to desire a man who automatically knew how to fulfill her desires, silently taking her, yet still respecting her in the morning: objectifying and liberating her at the same time.
Be the first to comment on this story