Talk of sex

The debate over sex education in public schools is getting sillier and sillier with every passing day. I suspect that much of the conflict has to do with the failure of both sides to come up with a common frame of reference.

Proponents say sex education will address the problems of unwanted teenage pregnancy, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, etc. They add that young people nowadays get into trouble because they are unaware of how their bodies work.

Opponents insist that sex education, especially when done as merely a function of biology, would only encourage promiscuity.

Both sides are correct—but only partly so.

In rural settings sex is no mystery to young Filipinos. Dogs do it, pigs do it and so do other farm animals—often in full view of whoever happens to be around. But as our society has become increasingly urbanized, young people have been denied natural indoctrination in the propagation of the species.

True, youngsters need to learn about sex; otherwise, the human race would die out. For generations, however, the subject has been taboo and never discussed in “decent” circles. It is a situation that has proved profitable for the panderers of pornography and prostitution.

The opponents of sex education, on the other hand, say the subject needs to be taught within a moral framework—preferably in accordance with religious teachings, meaning their own, on the sanctity of marriage.

The problem with this requirement is that it seeks to impose spiritual values on an entire republic whose Constitution guarantees that the freedom of religion also means the freedom not to believe.

True, 80 percent or so of the population is Catholic—but being Catholic is no prerequisite for Philippine citizenship.

The opponents of sex education, therefore, need to allow for Filipinos of other faiths as well as Filipinos of “non-faith.” They cannot inflict their Judeo-Christian values on a nation that recognizes no official religion in the first place.

Where everyone can find common ground is gender sensitivity and sexual equality.

When you come right down to it, sex becomes a problem when it is used as a tool for oppression and exploitation. Big words, you might say. However, there is no denying that not a few people use their social, economic, political and, yes, even religious status as leverage just to get laid. For these people, sex is all about power.

People who engage in intercourse for the sole purpose of achieving self-gratification—along with the compulsion to do so—tend to look at their partners as less equal, as mere vessels to reach carnal bliss.

This tendency to disregard the humanity of sexual partners is what has thrown open the proverbial floodgates to disease, unwanted pregnancy, broken homes, runaway population growth and so on.

This egocentric notion of sex finds fertile ground in social and interpersonal settings where one partner regards the other as a mere extension of—and I find no polite way to put this—his or her masturbatory digits.

Sex becomes a problem when either or both participants regard the other as nothing more than objects for sensual pleasure.

Perhaps—and I stress “perhaps” because I do not claim to be an authority on the subject—sex education would be better able to achieve its proponents’ goals if it were done in the context of sexual equality.

Boys, for instance, need to learn that girls are not mere instruments for them to relish the delights of manhood. Girls, on the other hand, need to understand that there is more to life than becoming objects of desire.

If it is to be of any lasting value, sex education in public schools—and elsewhere, for that matter—needs to combat, clarify and correct the many confusing signals that youngsters are subjected to everyday from their equally naïve peers, from their less-than-exemplary elders and from the sensationalistic media.

Sex education, in the final analysis, should lead to the development of respect—both for one’s self and for others. –DAN MARIANO, Manila Times