Yates. Chapter 7. Enriching the Child's Sexual Response
<< Sex and Sacrilege >>
Twenty years ago, to be "for sex" was to be against tradition, the family, and the church — comparable to swearing at one's mother or wearing blue jeans to church. Times have indeed changed. Now we endorse gourmet eroticism with a spouse, although as a topic sex is still banned from polite conversation. Today, superstars announce bisexuality, and sex-change operations become an issue on the tennis court. Somehow, promoting children's eroticism is the worst yet. How far is too far?
There is a vast difference between foresight and hindsight. Things that were murky are clearer in the retrospectoscope. Every one of the men who engendered sociosexual change was perceived as an iconoclast at the time. Yet every one of these men was religious. For instance, Freud was condemned as prurient. Yet Hunt described him as a "rather puritanical, romantic, and inhibited young man...chaste before marriage, devoutly monogamous after it." Freud supported religion; he felt that it promoted refinement and was the best foundation for education.
The works of Alfred Kinsey provoked a similar furor. Yet in 1954 he wrote:
This is the season [Christmas] in which many persons are reexamining their faith. I should, therefore, like to say again that my faith in men and women has steadily grown as I have learned more about their history. Even though some of these histories have included things which did no good to anyone, and occasionally things which may have done outright damage to someone, most of the things which I have seen in the histories have increased my faith in the basic decency, the basic honesty, and the basic reasonableness of human behavior. ...
I have found that the sexual behavior of most men and women, including even their most cantankerous and socially impossible behavior, makes sense when one learns about the handicaps, the difficulties, the disappointments, the losses, and the tragedies which have led them into such behavior. I believe that most people would exercise greater Christian tolerance of all types of sexual behavior, if they understood, as I have begun to understand, why people do what they do sexually.
Faith in God was not incompatible with the acceptance of human sexual behavior.
Masters and Johnson exploded the secrecy of sex when they recorded and analyzed the act itself under the glaring lights and cameras of their laboratory. This approach was shockingly antiesthetic. Sex was pragmatic rather than romantic, and again there were cries of sacrilege. Yet in 1975, Masters and Johnson wrote:
When a man and a woman first commit themselves to each other sexually they do so for reasons that have been impressed upon them by society since childhood. They have been led to believe that on the basis of their union they will find physical, emotional and social fulfillment — and some people would include spiritual fulfillment as well. These are dimensions of human needs that have been intricately woven into "patterns" for commitment; woven and rewoven by successive generations from concepts of love and sex which reflected prevailing religious and cultural philosophies. ... Sex functions best when it is lived rather than performed and it can be lived best in a deep continuing commitment which is still most commonly a marriage.
All these researchers are committed to traditional values and see sex as primarily constructive rather than destructive. Of course, the road to hell may be paved with good intentions. The goal of heightened eroticism might also promote extramarital sex or in other ways erode the sanctity of the family. Here the sex clinics seem in opposition to organized religion. The clinics say that sexual fulfillment strengthens any union by providing a common base, a vehicle for intimacy, and communication. Christianity perceives coitus as permissible only in marriage and dangerous or damaging in any other context. In his syndicated column of November 26, 1976, Reverend Billy Graham responds to a mother who states that her daughter and her fiancé became of "one flesh." They asked the Lord's forgiveness for this sin, and now are no longer engaged. Would it be spiritually correct under the circumstances for her to marry any other man? Dr. Graham replies: "Your daughter has put herself in a precarious position. She compromised her ideals, lowered her moral flag, and thereby lost her boyfriend. What most girls don't realize is that sexual compromise, rather than drawing lovers together, usually drives them apart. Many a boy (and boys are different from girls in this respect) has as his goal total sexual commitment. Hence, when this is attained interest wanes." Dr. Graham holds that sex forces lovers apart and that sexual compromise sabotages intimacy. Yet one might be grateful that sex was not used like a carrot (or a cherry) on a stick to lure the boyfriend into a marriage for which he was totally unprepared.
The answer, as always, lies someplace in between. Sex is not a disease, nor is it a panacea for human misery. Those who feel ashamed of their bodies or guilty of a transgression against God may rupture a relationship because it "went too far." Other young people may, if they choose, use sex to extend or intensify an alliance. The decision is made not solely for passion but for a variety of conscious and unconscious reasons. If adolescents are comfortable with their bodies, they have a choice.
Sex doesn't deserve such notoriety. A natural function becomes a poison on one hand and an antidote on the other. Eroticism is the most fun but hardly the most significant or crucial of human needs. No one thinks of sex as the boat sinks, or even while elbowing through a mob at Macy's. Oddly enough, the unwarranted emphasis on sex is a Christian artifact. Sex must be powerful if it is equated with the devil.
The unwarranted power of sex was well illustrated by the controversy over bundling. Bundling was a custom encouraged in eighteenth-century Europe and colonial America, whereby fully clothed young couples shared a bed both to conserve warmth and to become better acquainted. David Mace reports that by the mid-nineteenth century bundling was described as a "ridiculous and pernicious custom" which "sapped the fountain of morality and tarnished the escutcheons of thousands of families." (Stiles, 1871) Bundling was both attacked and defended by devout Christians, depending on their interpretation of its purpose.
In the nineteenth century, emphasis on the evils of eroticism increased. The family would inevitably deteriorate if sex were not confined to the marital couch. Thus marriage became a barter of sexual privileges, and the constructive aspects of sexuality were lost in the shuffle. Even within marriage too great an interest in sex was a threat.
"Sexual excess in marriage weakens the brain by gratification of animal passions. Animal propensities are strengthened by the disgusting habit of secret vice. Moral pollution causes the shipwreck of our race. Those who gratify the lust of the flesh cannot be Christians. Sensuality withers the desire for holiness."
These horrendous preachings still color our perception of sex. Are we corrupted if we start too early or enjoy it too much? This simplistic overemphasis on sex detracts from more basic concepts such as intimacy, mutuality, accountability, and trust. Sexual appetite has little to do with the degree of commitment, although a total commitment does include sex.
Rather than dictating social change, the church is a part of the culture, sharing its contradictions and vicissitudes. Today there is greater diversity and change within church and synagogue than there is in psychiatry. Hellfire is preached in the tent while the Paulist Press tells Catholics of a new morality in which adultery should be judged according to the principle of "creative growth toward integration." A. N. Franzblau describes the Catholic Church as still imposing the severest of sexual restraints on its faithful. Celibacy for religious orders, rigid prohibition of divorce and abortion, and restrictions on interfaith marriage persist. Masturbation is officially regarded as sinful. Yet the Catholic Church of today is far less austere than the Catholic Church of yesteryear.
Judaism endorses a more positive attitude. The Talmud promotes all forms of sex play between husband and wife and encourages wives to use cosmetics and ornaments to maintain their sexual attractiveness in both youth and old age. "Enjoy life with the wife that thou lovest" (Ecclesiastes) epitomizes the Jewish view of marriage and sex. Sex can be robust and openly joyous. In other areas, however, Jews may be as strict as Catholics. Abortion and intermarriage are strongly opposed, and masturbation is discouraged. But contraception is allowed. Even though Jews are far more lenient about divorce than Catholics, the divorce rate among Jews is quite low. The encouragement of sexual expression is not associated with the disruption of the family.
Frangible indicates that as religions mature, they tend to approximate one another. All religious groups are now more relaxed regarding sexual expressions such as masturbation. There is an awareness of the breadth and importance of eroticism. The Christian sector is currently committed to sexuality as an integral part of the human condition. Religions are increasingly realistic, without forfeiting the emphasis on the integrity of the family. Heightened erotic enjoyment is not incompatible with most religious principles, nor with monogamy.
The church continues to provide much needed structure and direction throughout all stages of growth. Religion not only defines acceptable behavior, but provides role modeling, values, and exercises through which a child can identify himself as a valuable person. The church provides consistency and strength of purpose in a rapidly changing, increasingly ambiguous society.
Religions of tomorrow will be more sophisticated and realistic. Sex will decline in importance, to take its place among other essential values that contribute to the integrity and stability of the family. Sex and intimacy will no longer be confused, and religious leaders will devise methods of shaping both so that they may eventually be used to strengthen the marital bond. The harsh, punitive, guilt-ridden approach to sex will fade. Sex will be seen as inappropriate at certain times rather than sinful or dirty. Masturbation and sex play will be accepted as healthy parts of childhood. The concept of oneness with God will be extended to describe, on a lesser scale, the ability to fuse with another of God's products.
Mary Calderone reviews the changes in sex education in the schools over the past thirty-five years. Sex education remains the hottest item in the school curriculum. The joke about the little boy who requests a practical demonstration from his sex education teacher illustrates this controversy. Talking about sex may overstimulate youngsters. They may start to experiment, or begin coitus too soon. A class on sex may give them tacit permission.
Sex education has been present in the schools for more than thirty-five years. Early efforts were mechanistic, much like a class in anatomy. In the early sixties soaring teenage venereal disease, illegitimate pregnancies, and our increased knowledge of psychosexual development stimulated a searching reappraisal. A plethora of educational efforts filtered downward toward elementary school. Immediately, local communities reacted with petitions and political pressure. Sex education was undermining parental authority and corrupting the youth. Right-wing organizations and fundamentalist groups rose in anger. They were well organized, vociferous, and effective. The result was that the parent, who has little say about the "new math," now has the absolute right to deny the child sex education.
Sexuality is now recognized as another competence just as the ability to lead is a competence. Such competences develop throughout childhood, and to a great extent depend upon the child's opportunity to learn. Education in the school is important, but by itself totally inadequate. Basic concepts and attitudes are learned before the child ever reaches kindergarten. By then he may have acquired such a poor sexual self-image that the most expert guidance cannot heal the injury. By age five the child may be ashamed of his body, stating emphatically that the penis is dirty and should not be touched. The little girl may know that she is nicer and cleaner than boys — as long as she keeps her skirt pulled down.
Yet if any remediation is to be accomplished, the school is the place to do it, as sex is rarely discussed in most homes. Unfortunately, the teacher's upbringing is no different from the pupils'. Additional training for sex education varies from a weekend workshop to a full year at the master's-degree level. Many teachers remain anxious and uncomfortable with their own sexuality and are certain to transmit discomfort to their pupils. They may tenaciously cling to lists and diagrams, or overemphasize the dangers of venereal disease. Teachers are human also.
How can we make the most of a difficult and complicated situation when our tools are inadequate and we begin too late? First, not all teachers are emotionally ready to teach sex education. They need permission to refuse. Those who are truly comfortable need encouragement and special training. The number of pupils in the class needs to be limited so that the teacher can reassure and give specialized attention to the child who is anxious or reticent. Some pupils can explore only when given much time and patience. The child's misapperceptions and level of awareness need to be repeatedly assessed so that an individualized program can supplant the rigid format. Emphasis on feelings in discussion groups needs to replace the mechanistic presentation of facts, some times repeated ad nauseam each year. Who cares if the child can't name the structure which leads from ovary to uterus?
Rethinking of teaching programs and methods leads to more effective programs. At present, children are segregated according to sex so that they will feel free to ask questions. This may be true, but wouldn't it be more therapeutic for children to learn to speak about sex with members of the opposite sex? We may find that we were treating the teacher's discomfort, and communicating our own uneasiness to the children.
For their effectiveness to be maximized, programs must begin as early as possible, in kindergarten or nursery school. Special techniques and materials are necessary. The child of two to five learns best through play; the child of five to eight learns well through a combination of play and discussion. A boy doll with an expandable penis, and a girl doll with a soft, sized-to-fit vagina and a clitoris would aid the process. These could be available for free, unstructured play as well as demonstrations. The teacher's presentation would focus not just on how sex works, but on how good it feels. Group discussions can revolve about the children's real sexual experiences. The teacher would provide acceptance, offer encouragement, and clarify misconceptions.
The most we can expect from our schools is a diligent attempt at remediation. Prevention of sexual problems rightfully remains at home.
>>