For eight years,
we had a Presidential administration that almost exclusively
advocated abstinence only sex education,which given rates of sexual
abuse, unplanned pregnancy, sexual violence, and sexually transmitted
infections (STI), completely ignores the fact that young people are
having sex and under an abstinence-only model are having sex
unprepared for the consequences of their actions.
The problem though
is not merely systemic, it's cultural as well. We don't allow
ourselves a space to healthily discuss sex. Within the public domain,
we rarely hear about condoms until at least puberty, and even then
the focus is on preventing pregnancy with little to no mention of STI
prevention. Few parents would be able to overcome their embarrassment
to bring up condom use to a teenager beyond surreptitiously leaving a
pack bedside and assuming they'll know what to do with it.
Even this
discourse completely ignores the range of emotional and social
pressures that come along with sex.
About six months
ago, I purchased a copy of the Guide to Getting It On
by Paul Joannides, an irreverent, comprehensive sex manual that with
glossary covers 982 pages. At times it exhibits language that makes
me uncomfortable for its misogynistic, heteronormative or
culturally-incompetent connotations, but it attempts to be inclusive
and is reflective of the idiomatic culture that spawned it, so I
would still recommend it for anyone interested about sex.
My
favorite part about this guide is not its wide range of sexual
positions and detailed descriptions of what to do in bed, for that
kind of information I would actually recommend you to a copy of the
Kama Sutra or Cosmo, but the way in which this book emphasizes the
connection and communication between partners.
Most
sex ed that I've encountered deals almost exclusively with the
mechanics of conception and rarely STI prevention. This is your basic
anatomy. This is how it functions to make a baby. This is everything
that can go wrong. If you're going to have sex, use protection or
die. What's missing from this approach is pleasure. It tells you
nothing about how to make sex better, which comes most strongly from
responding to what you and your partner want.
Now,
I've been an advocate for good communication skills probably since
about the time I became literate. Sexual literacy and communication
is no different. A sexual relationship is still, first and foremost,
a relationship. Even if it's casual hook-up sex, if only one partner
thinks of it that way, problems will occur.
Having
sex with another person is intimate. We're trained to keep it behind
closed doors both physically and mentally. So acknowledging that
you're with another person who has wants and needs and boundaries is
the first thing we should be teaching youth.
If
your brain is the most important sexual organ, your ears are the
second.
Part
of what will help make this process of education easier is changing
the way we talk about sex. The other day I was at a presentation by
Cynthia Morrison from the Washington State Department of Health and a
question she asked our scant audience of eight was why do we not talk
about sex the way we talk about eating.
The
question was mostly meant to address language use in a sex positive
culture. Consider for a moment the slang used for masturbation.
Jacking off, beating one out, spanking the monkey, choking the
chicken, ad nauseum, I would go on, but doesn't this list seem rather
violent, and it only really talks about male masturbation. Or for
another matter, what does it mean that some of the worst insults are
related to body parts?
I
like to eat standing in the kitchen as I'm making food for other
people. Sitting down is a rarity.
I
like to fuck in bed, being penetrated while on top, riding my partner.
Okay,
so you wouldn't exactly talk about sex the way you talk about eating
and I apologize if that last sentence gave any of you far too graphic
mental images of me, but the language we use is important. I would
rather hear about spicy, succulent, delicate, aromatic, tasty things
in bed than I would this pseudo-violent harder, faster,
aren't-I-such-a-good-little-bitch, use me, rhetoric we most often
ascribe to sex.
Can you imagine if it were the other way around? You're a bad apple, I'm going to have to take a bite out of you and swallow you whole.
Yeah... this is still a developing series of thoughts.
Can you imagine if it were the other way around? You're a bad apple, I'm going to have to take a bite out of you and swallow you whole.
Yeah... this is still a developing series of thoughts.
1 comment:
I wonder if a lot of it relates to binary worldviews. Because while there can be a sense of continuum in a sexual experience, I think a lot of people (well, a lot of men) see it as a strictly binary timeline:
<-[not having sex]-[sex]-[not having sex]->
Possibly.
Or because there can be such a thin line between pain and pleasure. Or because of the rather barbaric origins of our language. Or...
Lots of reasons. Good post!
Post a Comment