Margaret Wente on the new Ontario sex-ed thing:
I do have one objection to the way sex ed is taught in schools. It is so scrupulously gender-neutral that it ignores the fundamental differences between teenage boys and girls. Boys want sex, all the time. Girls want relationships. It’s hardwired into their biology. The more that girls absorb this cruel fact of life, the better off they’ll be. Teenage girls need to learn that having sex as freely as guys do is not necessarily empowering. In fact, it’s a lot more empowering if they don’t.
Darn right! But there’s more: Not only are girls looking for something other than just casual sex 24/7, they are the ones most at risk when it comes to long-term consequences from sexually-transmitted diseases (what a surprise it must be to find out, in your early thirties, that the family you are now ready to start can’t happen because you are sterile), and they’re also the ones who end up having to deal with a pregnancy when, you know, things don’t go quite as planned. As a very predictable result, many girls are made to feel that, should they get pregnant, it’s their “problem” and theirs alone even though it usually takes more than one person to create a baby. That, too, is far from empowering. Go read Unprotected if you don’t believe me.
On an another note, I also agree with this bit from Ms. Wente’s column:
If you’re a parent, it’s not sex ed that deserves to drive you nuts. It’s green ed. Today is Earth Day, as you have surely noticed – the holiest day in the school calendar. All across the land, millions of schoolchildren are being reminded that the glaciers are melting and the polar bears are drowning and the entire planet is in peril. The schools are there to teach them that they are stewards of the Earth (it says so, right in the Ontario curriculum), which can only be saved by turning out the lights and recycling the dryer lint. Time to make them watch An Inconvenient Truth again! Poor kids. Now that’s indoctrination.
___________________
Andrea adds: I guess I read recently that even in marriage a husband knows his wife loves him if she has sex with him, and a wife knows her husband loves her if he talks with her. Not that I’m reading any relationship self-help books, no, no. But people keep sending them to me! (And I’m not above the help, either.)
by 
At the risk of exposing myself here, I imagine sex would be pretty meaningless (with my wife of 13+ years) if we didn’t have a decent relationship where we talk, etc. I can easily imagine not really liking the idea of sex if we didn’t get along outside the bedroom. It would feel like I was simply using her – so the emotional/communicational side of things is pretty important to me too.
Thanks, Shane. Sometimes the books can be dumb insofar as they make it sound like men and women are different species. Which we aren’t.
It seems that the Wente words and the following editorial comment spring from a misandric and sexist perspective. Thought PWPL was different.
David: I believe the argument here is that sexist views are justified if it can be shown men and women (or boys and girls) really are demonstratably different in the area being debated.
So it’s ok to treat them differently only if you have a really, really good reason to do so, and can provide the proof that this reason is valid. But if those conditions are met, no problem.
It seems to me it is never appropriate to treat people ‘differently’. The acceptance of the assumptions of; ‘guys want sex, all the time’, ‘just casual sex 24/7’, ‘girls want relationships’, are stereotypical and imply something ontological and allows for justifying discrimination. Justifying ‘sexist’ is justifying stereotypes, it is similiar to ‘racist’, and argues for a belief in one gender being less or more valuable than another. I find it good to treat each other as persons first.
It seems to me it is never appropriate to treat people ‘differently’. The acceptance of the assumptions of; ‘guys want sex, all the time’, ‘just casual sex 24/7’, ‘girls want relationships’, are stereotypical and imply something ontological and allows for justifying discrimination. Justifying ‘sexist’ is justifying stereotypes, it is similar to ‘racist’, and argues for a belief in one gender being less or more valuable than another. I prefer to treat each other as persons.
I was thinking more along the lines of a love languages model (Gary Chapman). Ie men and women (often) experience love differently. And while the whole gender won’t be the same–ie stereotypes don’t apply–I think some differences can be fairly identified quite consistently. Treat people as individuals, absolutely, and men are not a different species. But to say men and women are exactly the same, and motivated in the same way, does us all a great disservice. A man should not be treated as a woman, a woman should not be treated as a man. There’s something subtle there, that we have totally lost in the so-called gender wars. This discussion might be viewed as one more sad manifestation of that. I’m quite sure Brigitte meant nothing bad by it, and her comments were viewed as misandric. Then Suricou jumps in and cries sexism, whatever that means. Too bad.
I think people ought to think twice before using big words where they don’t belong. Actually, they should think once. That ought to be enough.
Excellent point- too often girls and women are taught that casual sex is somehow “empowering” (I am SO looking at you, Sex and the City!). If a grown woman makes a choice that she wants that lifestyle and she’s willing to deal with whatever the consequences are, that’s fine by me. But to not tell girls that things aren’t like that in real life, that there ARE emotional and mental components to a sexual relationship, does them an incredible disservice. It sets them up to be used and hurt.
I’m not saying boys shouldn’t be taught that, too- the media seems to be trying to tell everyone that casual, consequence-free sex is normal and desirable, and boys can get hurt, too.