Sex is political, not just pleasure-driven, the idea of 'compulsory heterosexuality' being the foremost lifestyle on which our society hinges. What everyone is required to do, regardless of their sexuality, is to reinforce the compulsory cultural norm of heterosexuality, at home, work, and school, and at volunteer activities.
Pressure is put on young men and women to conform or if not, to uphold the one accepted major sexual lifestyle in our society in the 21st century - heterosexuality. Even lesbians have to abide by the desires of straight men, and find a way of living in this world alongside them; not so difficult for gay men, whose brains, and the location of them, aren't so far off that of straight men.
Is it possible for society to raise respectful men and women, when so much hinges on their support for an ideology that places at its centre not just the old stand-by 'family,' but the ideals of 'pleasure' and 'work'? Heterosexuality has little to do with respect. Rewarding those who conform to or uphold heterosexual demands leads only to a false respect. It's about power and subordination, rather than co-operation and respect for one's own body and the choices of others. Men's desire for sex, and women's for a career or the chance to do their life's work, seem to involve the necessity to 'fake it', each in their own way, as their agendas collide.Barbara Kay argues in her recent article that 'multisexualism' refers to the idea that "all sexual behaviours and lifestyles are of equal social worth, except those that refuse to detach morality from sexuality." This has been the way sex education has been presented in schools, as something matter-of-fact, instead of sexuality being recognized as value-laden and deeply personal (at least for some). Time for change!
What is needed, rather than a school curriculum about sexual practices, is for boys and girls to become aware from an early stage how our society indoctrinates them into becoming men or women. Instead of sex classes, an emphasis on masculinity and femininity in the social context of life could be a valuable addition to the school curriculum. Teaching 'sex and gender' classes at an earlier age would give young people the resources they need to examine the social situations they find themselves in as they grow older, and possibly make more informed choices.
And then there's the argument that heterosexuality is normal, that it's how our civilized society has evolved, that there's nothing 'compulsory' about it. But surely female animals don't always want sex with the males but do have to coerced, sometimes. Do the males just have to line up, or do they have to preen and display their maleness to attract the females.
Girls no longer have to wait for estrus, as their female animal counterparts have to, but that doesn't mean they want it all the time. Heterosexuality is fine, as a lifestyle, or a cultural norm. But it's through women having to look sexually attractive, having to do sex in order to be 'real' women, or though being coerced or having to put up with men's unwanted advances as well as putting up with women's acts of persuasion,' that the term 'compulsory' takes its meaning.
The original mention of the new sex education curriculum mentioned sexual orientation and gender identity. Could it be these terms that scared parents, the public schools, and the Catholic schools) off just as much as the mention of anal sex? It looks as though most parents just want their kids to know the basics, but not have any further understanding of their own sexuality.
Added June, 2012
It looks like things are changing rather quickly. Note links to 5 additional articles added - Anti-bullying bill a front (2011); Anti-bullying bill passes (2012); Birds, bees and poisonous rhetoric (2011); Hudak says McGuinty keeps parents in dark (2011); Sex-ed game featuring penis-armed 'Sperminator' (2012).
Anti-bullying bill a front for ‘sex ed’ agenda, groups say
By Tanya Talaga Queen's Park Bureau
The Star
Dec 6, 2011
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1097682--anti-bullying-bill-a-front-for-sex-ed-agenda-groups-say
Anti-bullying bill passes final reading
The Canadian Press
The Record
Jun 6, 2012
http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/737846--anti-bullying-bill-passes-final-reading
Birds, bees and poisonous rhetoric on sex ed in Ontario
By Emma Teitel
Oct 25, 2011
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/25/birds-bees-and-poisonous-rhetoric/
The cult of multisexualism
By Barbara Kay
National Post
Apr 28, 2010 http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/28/barbara-kay-the-cult-of-multisexualism.aspx link not working
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/04/28/barbara-kay-the-cult-of-multisexualism/
Hudak says McGuinty keeps parents in dark on sex-ed curriculum
By Keith Leslie, The Canadian Press
Global Toronto News and The Canadian Times
Sept 23, 2011
http://www.globaltoronto.com/hudak+says+mcguinty+keeps+parents+in+dark+on+sex-ed+curriculum/6442488232/story.html
http://www.canadiantimes.ca/CMS/index.php/word-tv/77-news-news/830-hudak-says-mcguinty-keeps-parents-in-dark-on-sex-ed-curriculum
McGuinty says he was in the dark about sex-ed plan
By Karen Howlett Toronto — Globe and Mail Update
Published on Wednesday, Apr. 28, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/mcguinty-says-he-was-in-the-dark-about-sex-ed-plan/article1549547/
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2010_Apr_McGuintyInDarkAboutSex.doc
McGuinty’s sex-ed surrender
TO Star
Apr 29, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/802560--mcguinty-s-sex-ed-surrender
Ontario premier defends sex-ed curriculum
By Linda Nguyen, Canwest News Service
National Post
Apr 20, 2010
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2930506
http://www.globaltvbc.com/ontario+premier+defends+sex-ed+curriculum/74305/story.html
Sex-ed game featuring penis-armed 'Sperminator' sparks controversy
By Jonathan Sher, QMI Agency
Toronto Sun
Jan 20, 2012
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/20/sex-ed-game-featuring-penis-armed-sperminator-sparks-controversy
Links updated June 2012
Showing posts with label sex education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex education. Show all posts
11 November 2006
And the aim of this campaign is . . . surely not promiscuity
Re: Condom call for young 'on pull'. BBC News. 11 Nov 2006.
While I agree that advocating the use of condoms is a wise measure, especially to prevent stds, the way this is being gone about in this BBC article is questionable. There are new sexual freedoms in society today that just weren't there 30 years ago. Although this article claims not to be advocating promiscuity, it also says,
"The aim of this campaign is to make carrying and using a condom among this age group as familiar as carrying a mobile phone, lipstick or putting on a seat-belt."
So there is a dual message here, not just about STIs and condoms, but about sex itself.
If that isn't encouraging promiscuity, then what is? Practically all young people carry a mobile phone, and I would imagine most young women wear lipstick when they go clubbing. Surely, encouraging all young men and women of that age group to always carry condoms, just as they always carry their phone, could be seen as encouraging them to be promiscuous. The message is that they carry condoms EVERYWHERE, as they woud a mobile phone, and not just when they are out clubbing The wording creates an association between lipstick and sex, and between cellphones and sex, familiar objects in our world, not just when people go clubbing, but ALL THE TIME.
The following statement is from the article: "This is not about encouraging promiscuity, but saying to those who are already sexually active: sex without a condom is seriously risky, so always use one." But that does not reflect what is actually being told to young people in the rest of the article.
The aim of this article would actually seem to be to get young people to carry condoms as they would some of the most familar and well-used items they have (regardless of whether they expect or would choose to be sexually active, and regardless of whether they are going clubbing or going to work). Carry your condoms as you would your mobile phone, is the message it is giving out.
So how about this line instead:
*"The aim of this campaign is to make carrying and using a condom for some men and women in this age group as familiar as eating cereal for breakfast. "*
Using this analogy might help lessen the idea that all women and men are as eager and willing to engage in sex as they are to talk on their cellphone, and might help in lessening pregnancies that come about from some kinds of sexual encounters.
Condom call for young 'on pull' BBC News 11 Nov 06
Young adults are to be urged to carry condoms when they are out "on the pull", as part of a government sexual health campaign.
It will focus on 18 to 24-year-olds. Just 20% of people in this age group say they carry condoms on a night out. continues at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6132822.stm
Link updated April 18, 2012
While I agree that advocating the use of condoms is a wise measure, especially to prevent stds, the way this is being gone about in this BBC article is questionable. There are new sexual freedoms in society today that just weren't there 30 years ago. Although this article claims not to be advocating promiscuity, it also says,
"The aim of this campaign is to make carrying and using a condom among this age group as familiar as carrying a mobile phone, lipstick or putting on a seat-belt."
So there is a dual message here, not just about STIs and condoms, but about sex itself.
If that isn't encouraging promiscuity, then what is? Practically all young people carry a mobile phone, and I would imagine most young women wear lipstick when they go clubbing. Surely, encouraging all young men and women of that age group to always carry condoms, just as they always carry their phone, could be seen as encouraging them to be promiscuous. The message is that they carry condoms EVERYWHERE, as they woud a mobile phone, and not just when they are out clubbing The wording creates an association between lipstick and sex, and between cellphones and sex, familiar objects in our world, not just when people go clubbing, but ALL THE TIME.
The following statement is from the article: "This is not about encouraging promiscuity, but saying to those who are already sexually active: sex without a condom is seriously risky, so always use one." But that does not reflect what is actually being told to young people in the rest of the article.
The aim of this article would actually seem to be to get young people to carry condoms as they would some of the most familar and well-used items they have (regardless of whether they expect or would choose to be sexually active, and regardless of whether they are going clubbing or going to work). Carry your condoms as you would your mobile phone, is the message it is giving out.
So how about this line instead:
*"The aim of this campaign is to make carrying and using a condom for some men and women in this age group as familiar as eating cereal for breakfast. "*
Using this analogy might help lessen the idea that all women and men are as eager and willing to engage in sex as they are to talk on their cellphone, and might help in lessening pregnancies that come about from some kinds of sexual encounters.
Condom call for young 'on pull' BBC News 11 Nov 06
Young adults are to be urged to carry condoms when they are out "on the pull", as part of a government sexual health campaign.
It will focus on 18 to 24-year-olds. Just 20% of people in this age group say they carry condoms on a night out. continues at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6132822.stm
Link updated April 18, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)