SEX AND THE CURRICULUM IN MEXICO AND
THE UNITED STATES: A HEAVY BURDEN IN IGNORANCE
Barbara Bayardo
In the past, men and boys, if they so chose, could
engage in unprotected intercourse and flee the scene with no serious or lasting
consequences--or at least with no potentially lethal consequences. With the emergence of
Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), however, the previously peaceful horizon of
male sexuality became more like women's in the sense that pleasure and danger are now
inextricably linked. Still, the responsibility for contraception, and now for practicing
safer sex, continues to lie on women's shoulders. Current research indicates that this
assumption is made by scholars and activists in the fields of sex education. Men do not
see themselves as responsible for practicing safer sex measures, let alone for using
contraception; [nor are they seen as responsible for this by women.] The dominant views in
the debate over sex education encourage men and women to protect themselves by avoiding
sex altogether, an ineffectual suggestion.
In this paper I will discuss the ongoing debate on
sex education in school curricula in two widely disparate societies and discuss the
different approaches that shape the debate. I will argue that the increasingly pervasive
focus of sex education that promotes a "just say no" to sex strategy is
unrealistic. It also places the burden of avoiding unprotected intercourse solely on
women, denying the cultural and gender constraints to which they are subject. Although
there is unquestionably a place in sex education for the prevention of AIDS, sexually
transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies, these are not the only reasons that the
debate over sex education should be resolved in a more open and progressive discussion of
the topic. The relative failure of safer sex campaigns has its roots in the contradictory
messages on sexuality that women receive, the uncooperative behavior of males, and the
lack of knowledge and communication skills that characterize contemporary male and female
heterosexual relationships.
In many countries around the world, teenage
pregnancy has attracted widespread scholarly concern and exaggerated media attention, but
most young women do not get pregnant during their teenage years and so the problem, even
though serious, is limited to a relatively small population. The threat of AIDS, however,
has brought female adolescent sexuality to the front burner as unprotected adolescent
intercourse in general, for both young men and women, is now potentially lethal. Today,
many more teenagers have sex and the statistics show that nearly one quarter of Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-infected people worldwide are in their twenties, which
suggests that many were infected during their teenage years.
The need for sex education is a worldwide concern.
Some developed countries, such as Sweden, are highly advanced in their comprehensive
approach to sex education. Paradoxically, in the area of sex education, being a developed
country does not necessarily translate into enlightened acceptance of the need for sex
education in the public schools. Nor does it guarantee a highly sophisticated content or
modern instructional methods. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the comparatively slow
progress that sex education has undergone in the U.S. public schools. Cross-cultural
analyses of such disparate societies as Mexico and the U.S. may shed some light on the
relationship between economic development and the sometimes paradoxical underdevelopment
of education in general, and sex education in particular. If nothing more, a comparative
focus offers a useful exercise on the possibilities and obstacles for sex education across
borders and spanning different cultural settings.
Mexico and the U.S. both subscribe to the principles
of a democratic society and of equality but in practice, the poor, the homeless, blacks,
indigenous people, older people, and women are often excluded from the benefits of these
modern democratic societies. Because these sectors have the least educational, social, and
health benefits, the incidence of problems such as AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases,
and unwanted pregnancies are highest among the most underprivileged sectors, both in
Mexico and in the U.S. That these problems occur in such large numbers in the younger
adolescent women and men is even more tragic. But poverty only partially explains the
negative consequences of early teenage sexual activity because the incidence of these
problems crosses different economic sectors.
Focusing on such disparate countries as the U.S. and
Mexico raises the images of a modern, developed country and a traditional, underdeveloped
one. A closer look shows, however, that the U.S. can exhibit unlikely traditional
characteristics, while the predominantly traditional Mexican society is not unknown to
waver between tradition and modernity, many times favoring the latter. Tradition seems to
be a double-edged sword. For instance, while teenage pregnancy is a serious problem in
both Mexico and the U.S., lower birth weight, which is one of the negative consequences of
teenage pregnancy worldwide, is avoided altogether in Mexico because the family takes on
the responsibility for the unborn child. Teenage girls are often taken care of while they
are pregnant and babies, on average, are born quite robust. By the same token, for the
pregnant teenager, the family safety net is likely to become a mixed blessing as her
future financial and educational independence is dimmed by the new and premature
responsibility of raising a child. Tradition is tricky because it may serve both to buffer
the consequences of a social phenomena and at the same time to prevent change. Modernity
is also a two-sided coin. Societies are often characterized as modern or traditional; yet,
it is more likely that modernity and tradition co-exist, each tending to predominate at
one time or another.
The following section shows how the values of
modernity and tradition are debated in an attempt to dominate the type of sex education
that young people ought to receive. In this process, it will become evident that much more
is at stake than simply the notion of whether or not teenagers should have sex.
Sex Education in the United States
Compared to Mexico, sex education in the United
States is characterized by a longer history and greater public debate over the content of
sexuality courses. In fact, it is no longer debated that sex education should take place
within the public school system. As of 1994, 47 states had laws or policies requiring or
recommending some level of sex education between kindergarten and twelfth grade. In
addition, all states require or encourage instruction about HIV and AIDS. However, unlike
Mexico where education is nationally mandated, educational policies in the United States
are locally interpreted by school-board members and parent committees. It often happens
that school authorities decide that students will not receive sex education until the
junior years. As far back as 1981, researchers Kirby and Scales found that out of 50
states, only 7 prohibited sex education (1981). Again, these figures are deceiving since
sex education depends on local sensibilities and because these numbers say nothing about
the approach and scope of instruction. Indeed, some studies report that sex education in
U.S. public schools is usually limited to 10 hours per year. In terms of content approach,
it has been established that only 10 percent of all public school students receive
comprehensive sex education (SIECUS 1993). Researchers have concluded that sex education
in American public schools provides only a fraction of the sexual knowledge that students
acquire.
Adolescents in the U.S. acquire their understanding
of sexuality mostly by informal means such as mass media, parents, religious authorities
at schools, and peers at various sites including the school bus, the bathroom, and the
lockerooms. Despite countless obstacles, efforts to offer comprehensive sex education in
the schools has been constant and vigorous. The main barrier has been a large and vocal
opposition of political conservative groups and some Christian fundamentalists. Since
1980, these national conservative groups, such as the Eagle Forum headed by Phyllis
Schafley, have vocally protested against specific curricula. The "Just Say No"
philosophy which calls for practicing abstinence until marriage has been the essence of
these groups. The chastity approach was enthusiastically endorsed by the Reagan
administration, creating a formidable enemy to comprehensive sex education in the schools.
Then, in 1986, with the public recognition of AIDS,
United States Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who had previously been strongly critical
of sex education programs and was thus highly regarded among conservative circles, issued
a report that spurred the debate and balanced the scales in favor of comprehensive sex
education in the schools:
If we have something that threatens life, you just don't back into a
corner and say let's not tell kids that when trucks hit them it kills them. This is the
way life is and you've got to protect kids against those things that they don't understand
and until they are mature enough to make their own decisions. People just have to get over
the idea that you can't educate children about sex and still do it morally and in the
framework that parents will appreciate. There is now no doubt that we need sex education
in schools and that it must include information on heterosexual and homosexual
relationships. (Pacifica National Programs 1994)
The report lead to the establishment of new
curricula all around the country and became a serious setback for advocates of abstinence
and the supporters of the chastity philosophy. While the abstinence approach may be easily
debunked at the national level, these increasingly persuasive groups have recently
acquired many supporters within local communities.
One of the more common effects of adolescent sexual
activity has been the growing incidence of teenage pregnancy, which has received
widespread media attention and has been inappropriately labeled the "epidemic of
teenage pregnancy." In fact, some studies have reported that in the past two decades
teenage pregnancy and venereal disease have been much lower than we have been led to
believe (Lees 1993, 189). In the U.S., the rate of adolescent pregnancy and childbearing
is higher than in other industrialized countries. Voydanoff and Donnelly report that, in
1981, the pregnancy rate was "twice that of England and Wales, France and Canada,
three times that of Sweden and six times that of the Netherlands" (quoted in Lees
1993, 190). The American Association of University Women (AAUW) states that: "Just
under one-half million babies were born to women under age twenty in the United States,
giving this country the highest rate of teenage childbearing in the Western industrialized
world" (AAUW 1992, 37). But the report also states that: "Overall, the number
and rate of births to teens continues a downward trend begun in 1975" (AAUW 1992).
The numbers that have increased are those which indicate that teenagers are having sex
more frequently and starting at a younger age. The AAUW cites data from the National
Survey of Family Growth indicating that "the number of fifteen-year-olds with sexual
experience increased from 17 percent in 1980 to 26 percent in 1988 (AAUW 1992). Much more
serious is the fact that high numbers of teenagers fail to use any contraceptive or other
protective measures. In a national public opinion poll investigating the incidence of
teenage pregnancy in the United States it was estimated that almost 30 percent of
teenagers never used contraceptives (Wattleton 1988, 16).
While conservatives in the United States wage a
battle against sex education, growing concern over unprotected adolescent sexual activity
has made the general population relatively more open in dealing with sex education. When
asked specifically whether students should receive sex education in the public schools, 80
percent of North American adults responded positively (Harris and Yankelovich cited in
Fine 1988, 43). Another organization has estimated that at least 9 in 10 parents support
the idea of their children receiving sex education within the school curriculum (Siecus
1991). As some authors have noted, "Resistance to sex education, while loud at the
level of public rhetoric and conservative organizing, is both less vocal and less active
within schools and parents' groups" (Hottois and Milner cited in Fine 1988).
Despite the numerous studies that show the
increasing openness of the American public, government policies and media images lag
behind general social acceptance of sex education. It is only recently that the Clinton
administration has reversed the policy on condom advertisement on television, more than 10
years after HIV was detected. This lag in using the powerful mass media as a channel to
promote condoms and safer sex is unique in the history of AIDS prevention that
characterizes developed nations and even developing countries. Most countries moved very
quickly to promote condom use. Also relatively recent is the allocation of new funds to
the Office of Adolescent Health which is intended to fund programs providing comprehensive
health education.
Almost behind the scenes and at the margins of
national debates, many non-governmental institutions in the U.S. are part of a vast
network of non-formal sex education efforts that watch with dismay the slow pace of
mainstream sex education. One of the most highly regarded institutions among sex educators
and conversely, increasingly controversial for conservatives, is the Sex Information and
Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS). In 1990, SIECUS organized a task force which
brought together representatives from the medical professions, educators, the Planned
Parenthood Association, sexologists, and experienced school-based sex education teachers
to develop what is now known as the SIECUS guidelines for comprehensive sex education for
kindergarten through twelth grade.
Sex Education in Mexico
On the Mexican side, sex education in the formal
curriculum has been limited, too. Sex education in Mexico operates mostly at the fringes
of the formal school system, in informal networks and non-governmental institutions, on
radio programs, and in street theater. Many of these institutions are supported by
international funding agencies, some of them of a philanthropic nature. Sporadic efforts
to include sex education in the public schools are constantly taking place but, in
general, inclusion in the curriculum has been lacking. In fact, more of the impetus for
sex education has come from non-educational or health sectors of the government,
specifically from the Ministry of Health. In 1975, there was an important attempt to
revise the curriculum but the issues were so controversial that the revision has never
seen the light of day.
While there are many negative consequences of
unprotected early adolescent sex, teenage pregnancy in Mexico is perhaps the most
dramatic. Young people aged 10 to 19 account for 25 percent of Mexico's population. The
Ministry of Health estimates 7 of every 10 women that become pregnant for the first time
are younger than 20 years old. This means that of the group of adolescent girls aged 15 to
19, there are 430,000 who become pregnant every year (Lugo 1991, 2). There is also
evidence that it happens very fast. One Mexican study reports that the period between
girls' first sexual intercourse and pregnancy is, at most, five months (Ehrenfeld 1994).
Family planning projects in Mexico have a long and
ambitious history. The government and international agencies have invested an enormous
amount of time and effort to reduce the fertility rate in Mexico by promoting and
educating the population on increasing contraceptive practices and policies. While there
are few studies in Mexico that evaluate the impact of these efforts, there is some
evidence that, at least in the adolescent sector, these programs have not had the expected
impact. One study that sought to evaluate the impact of a hospital project with pregnant
adolescent women found that as many as 88 percent of the women and their partners had not
used a contraceptive method during their first sexual intercourse (Ehrenfeld 1994, 7).
This evidence is not a question of unavailability or scarce resources. Contraception, or
at least several contraceptive measures, are free in Mexico through government health
agencies. Clearly, there are other reasons that the supply of contraceptives is higher
than the demand for them.
Mexico has its own counterparts to the Republican
Policy Committee and the Citizens for Decency that lobby against sex education in the U.S.
in the religious elements and political organizations that work to block or eliminate
efforts towards sex education in the schools. In Mexico, conservative groups tend to wield
more power because the majority of the population claims to be Catholic. Abortion, which
is illegal in Mexico, is a controversial subject and one that the powerful Catholic Church
rigidly opposes. Not everyone agrees with the Church, however. A 1991 study on abortion
found that 68.4 percent of Mexicans believe that the opinion of the Catholic Church should
not matter in a woman's decision to have an abortion. In the same study, 57 percent
consider that even if a woman has an abortion she would still be considered "a good
Christian." While almost 87 percent of the interviewees declared knowing that the
Catholic Church prohibits abortion, only about 30 percent agreed with this prohibition
(see Pick de Weiss and Givaudan 1991). Echoing similar trends in the United States, an
estimated 85 percent of the population in Mexico agrees on the necessity of offering sex
education to adolescents (Rivera Marín 1991).2 It is apparent that Mexicans
are not willing to blindly follow their spiritual leaders' mandates. At least with respect
to sex education in the public schools, Mexican society seems similar to that of the U.S..
Every social phenomenon in Mexico must be viewed in
the context of a tension between tradition and modernity. The fact is that Mexico wavers
between modernity and tradition and this dialectic has been an important factor guiding
many of its educational and social endeavors. Contrary to the United States, education in
Mexico is regulated by the national government. As with all governments, the Mexican state
is not a homogenous entity. The old conservative hard-liners in the educational system,
many of whom are linked with the conservative wing of the ruling party, the PRI,3
and with religious groups, have joined to create a formidable enemy to the advocates of
the modernization of education. They have been particularly instrumental in keeping sex
education out of the school curriculum, as is evidenced by the several attempts which have
been sabotaged. These conservative groups claim to be on guard from the imposition of U.S.
values and education, a fear that is at times legitimate and at times not. Sometimes it is
a genuine concern for preserving national autonomy and cultural identity, but at other
times it is a deep-rooted nationalistic sentiment shared also by religious and
conservative groups, a convenient excuse for inaction. This nationalistic sentiment is not
always echoed by the general population. The formal educational system, and thus the
possibility of introducing sex education into the curriculum, is caught, as one Mexican
scholar so aptly put it, in "the endless tension between traditional morality and
Mexico's traditional identification with modernity."
Covering the Sun with a Finger
While there is widespread consensus among the
general population on the need for sex education in both Mexican and U.S. public schools,
its content and the proper approach to it are under intense debate. Different groups and
institutions, governmental, non-governmental, national and international, religious or
quasi-political, have assessed the negative consequences of early adolescent sexual
activity differently and have suggested various tones and strategies to deal with the
problem.
Basically, the groups have advanced three
propositions with their corresponding strategies to eliminate teenage pregnancy and
disease transmission. The first is colloquially referred to as "abstinence," a
traditional view which argues that the negative outcomes of teenage sexual activity are
due to overexposure to sexual themes and lack of moral beliefs and behavior among young
adults. The preferred strategy of this group is to counter a "sex-drenched
society" by encouraging young adolescent women--the emphasis is solely on females--to
"just say no" and to delay sexual intercourse until marriage. Declarations by
the Eagle Forum are typical: "A lot of people are using panic about AIDS to force
offensive practices, facilities and instruction on public school children. We feel that it
is urgent that the public schools teach sexual abstinence until marriage and fidelity to
your spouse after you are married. There isn't any other healthy behavior that can be
recommended by the public schools." (Pacifica National Programs 1994). This strategy
has proven untenable. The popular Mexican saying "no puedes tapar el sol con un
dedo" (you can't block the sun with a finger) vividly depicts the unrealistic
position of the abstinence-until-marriage approach. U.S. researcher and sex educator
Marianne Whatley dispels any expectations of adolescent chastity by reminding us that
adolescent sexuality cannot be blocked from view through wishful thinking:
Students are sexually active in every way possible,
with themselves and with others, feel sexual desires, are sexually exploited, become
pregnant, cause pregnancy, have abortions, have babies, catch diseases, explore their own
sexuality, explore and exploit others' sexuality, are sexually violent, wrestle with
issues of power and control. What does a lecture on the dangers of premarital intercourse
say to them? (1992, 80)
An opposing view argues that adolescents don't know
enough and hence act out of ignorance. The so-called "contraception" or liberal
approach argues that teenagers will engage in sexual intercourse no matter what grownups
say to them and that the only realistic preventive strategy is to facilitate both
information on and access to contraceptives--the emphasis is also solely on females--and
letting adolescents decide for themselves. Thus, one of the more influential institutions
advocates the acquisition of "sexual literacy"; the Society for the Scientific
Study of Sex (SSS) states that "sexual literacy" includes "the basic sexual
information and skills to thrive in a modern world" (Scales 1989, 172). At its core,
this view seeks to encourage a "guilt-free" sexuality and in general promotes a
pro-sex attitude. While this approach has made its advocates easy targets for
conservatives and religious anti-sex advocates who point to the lack of limits, others
raise the more reasonable question as to whether adolescents are ready for and capable of
making wise decisions concerning their sexual behavior.
A third approach encourages the development of
skills and wise decision making. Its promoters, commonly known as "smart sex"
educators, seek a more comprehensive focus of sex education, arguing that teenagers are
vulnerable to exploitation and cannot be left alone to decide. But this view also
advocates clear, honest and direct information on sexuality. It enlarges the concept of
sexuality to encompass much more than sexual intercourse and includes values,
relationships, and sexual responsibility as well as intimacy, body image, and a critique
of gender roles as being crucial to the formation of healthy sexual adolescents. It is not
directed only at females; quite the contrary. The view firmly places male adolescents at
the center of adolescent sexuality and its dilemmas. While this view also sees the
futility of covering the sun with a finger, it differs from the contraception approach in
that it offers concrete guidelines, in symbolic language, for sparing adolescents the
sunburn while allowing them to enjoy the positive rays of the sun.
The "Abstinence" Advocates
The "abstinence until marriage" view
is moralistic in tone and is characterized by an extreme fear of the dissemination of
knowledge about sexuality. Recently, one group in Mexico City denounced and demanded the
immediate removal of a textbook on adolescent sexuality co-edited by a state branch of the
Ministry of Education, a book that was scheduled to be taught in the public schools in
1994. The book, entitled Sexuality: All that Teenagers Should Know (Sexualidad: Todo lo
que un adolescente debe saber), is a bold attempt to grapple with some of the most
controversial sexual topics by presenting both the positive and negative consequences of
engaging in sexual behavior in early adolescence. The content is presented in the form of
letters written back and forth between adolescents and trusted adults and among
adolescents themselves. In these letters, students are invited to explore the issues of
contraception, abortion, masturbation, and homosexuality in a direct, respectful, and
succinct manner. Immediately after the publication of the book, one of the conservative
groups most vocal on these issue,4 the National Union of Parents (Union
Nacional de Padres de Familia), immediately denounced the textbook claiming that sexuality
should be practiced "at the right time" and "within marriage", and
that it was unwise to subject teens to the risk of contracting venereal diseases and AIDS.
In a statement that closely depicts the reaction of this type of group to sex education in
the public schools, one of its exponents argued that "It is we [the family] who have
the right to educate our kids, in accordance with our own values" (Excelsior 1994).
Some of the most influential Mexico City newspapers published the views of the parents'
union and, without further debate or public airing, the book was never used or distributed
among the public schools.
Many of the arguments used by anti-sex education
groups are distorted and use inflammatory statements. In the article cited above, one of
the members claimed that policy on sex education is imposed by international agencies who
seek to "destroy the family and promote sexual promiscuity." Other examples of
critiques which exaggerate and distort are often expressed in the U.S. through the Eagle
Forum. Consider the charge recently delivered by one of its members evaluating new sex
education curricula:
A typical sex education course will teach children
that any type of sexual activity is socially acceptable so long as it doesn't produce a
baby. Some courses teach these children that promiscuity is alright, that alternatives to
marriage include group marriage, open marriage and homosexuality. We think such teaching
is wrong for the schools to engage in and is a violation of the constitutional rights of
those who believe that pre-marital sex is wrong. (Pacifica Radio Programs 1994).
In fact, today there are very few sex education
programs in the U.S. that don't emphasize abstinence for teenagers and insist on the
benefits of delayed intercourse. However, as sociologist Douglas Kirby points out,
"most good sex education programs will then talk about the variety of different kinds
of birth control, talk about relationships and talk about a much wider number of topics
involving sexuality" (Pacifica Radio Programs). The reality is that any inclusion of
contraception in sex education programs is decried, by conservative groups, as teaching
"genital activity and likely to increase pregnacy" (Whatley 1992, 328).
Perhaps the most common appeals concern
"invasion of privacy," parental rights, and (in the U.S.) First Amendment
transgressions by sex education programs. Thus, the terms of the debate are posed as a
battle between the rights of public school children against those of their parents. While
some of the concerns of these groups are legitimate, it is important for those seeking to
influence the content of sex education in the schools to separate the extremists and
religious crusaders from those who raise reasonable questions (Scales 1981). Furthermore,
in the United States, it has long been established that parents have the constitutional
right to excuse their children from sex education classes or classes which they find are
offensive to their religious beliefs.
In the United States, abstinence advocates have been
increasingly vocal and have widely publicized their "Just Say No" campaign as
well as the widely distributed "Sex Respect" curricular materials which, with
their strategy of abstinence until marriage, have had increasing influence on the content
of sex education in the public schools. The approach has gained momentum as its members
have gone from vocally critiquing sex education programs to influencing their content. The
result has been a steady increase in abstinence-until-marriage messages. SIECUS estimates
that 85 percent of the state curricula discuss abstinence while only 9 percent offer
appropriate information on safer sex. Another group of researchers concluded that state
curricula on sex education in American public schools "place(s) greater emphasis on
the negative outcomes of sex (such as STDs and AIDS) and on abstinence than on the
prevention of pregnancy" (Kenney et al. 1989, 59).
Influential figures have fueled and strengthened
religious and conservative groups when they have coincided with the right's moralistic
stance on sexuality. William Bennett, Secretary of Education during the Reagan government,
argued in 1988 that sex education in the schools should be conducted in the "old
fashioned way" by teaching children sexual restraint, upholding the institution of
the family, and speaking of sex in the context of the institution of marriage: "We
should speak of the fidelity, commitment, and maturity of successful marriages as
something for which our students should strive" (Bennett 1988, 11). This position
has, of course, a longer history in Mexico as the Catholic hierarchy has always held such
a stance, perhaps even using the same language. The Mexican Bishop Felipe Aguirre Franco
is perhaps most illustrative of this position when he is asked whether he agrees with the
use of contraceptives: "The goal is not sexual satisfaction. Sex should be a function
of a more noble goal, larger and transcendent." He argues that men and women cannot
decide on their own what is good for them and use contraceptives.
All that brings with it a sexual chaos, a crumbling
of customs and we are going to live, no doubt, in a place where the only thing that is
sought after is the enjoyment of pleasure and not the transcendental values which are what
give value to society and to the person. (Pick de Weiss 1991, 21)
Few sex educators would disagree with the benefits
of delayed sexual intercourse for adolescents. The point is that positing abstinence as
the single-minded goal to be achieved by putting a brake on sexuality is difficult to
accept. It is especially difficult when media images and peer pressure constantly urge
adolescents to use their sexuality. Given all the attention bestowed on abstinence it is
pertinent perhaps to ask: exactly what does abstinence mean? And abstinence from what? If
it is abstinence from sex, what part of sex are teenagers to abstain from? Intercourse,
fondling, kissing, hugging? What are the limits and the criteria that are being used in
defining these limits? Indeed, at what point in a relationship is it time to "just
say no?" The fact is, abstinence is posed as a monumental and transcendental goal
with no alternative to intercourse or variation possible.
Many authors have questioned the pervasive
assumption in sex education literature that equates sex to intercourse. Joseph Diorio
comments that, "By failing to consider sexual activity as anything but copulation,
sex education literature and programs reinforce not only the tendency to think of sex in
those limited terms, but the survival of arguably oppressive political practices and
structures as well" (1985). The tone of sex education programs has focused primarily
on avoiding intercourse to the exclusion of all other forms of erotic behavior. Solomon
comments that:
Sexuality, while having a certain structure that
confines it, can take any number of forms. It is a language we first learn on the
borderlines of sex, in shaking hands, standing with our hands on our hips, letting a
cigarette droop from our lips in junior high school... Like dancing, sexuality is an
extension and fine development of everyday movements, capable of open-ended refinement and
individual variation, as poetry of the body. (1975, 281)
When viewed in this more ample light, sexuality
takes on an altogether richer meaning.
Because of the contradictions inherent in the
abstinence-only approach, it is difficult not to suspect that, as Michelle Fine has
argued, at the heart of these conservative movements is the intent to suppress exploration
of sexuality and desire. Fine asks:
If these programs were designed primarily to prevent
(adolescent) pregnancy... wouldn't there be more discussions of both the pleasures and
relatively fewer risks of disease or pregnancy associated with lesbian relationships and
protected sexual intercourse, or of the risk-free pleasures of masturbation and fantasy?
(1988, 42)
While the move to suppress sexuality may not be
always a concerted effort nor a well thought-out conspiracy, it shows a close association
with powerful religious and fundamentalist groups.
The "Contraception" Advocates
The dominant view has not gone unchallenged. The
"contraception" approach promotes contraception information freely, assuming
that teenagers will have sex no matter what grownups want or tell them. While also
supporting abstinence for teenagers, the contraceptionists realize acutely the futility of
covering the sun with a finger. The wide spectrum of contraception advocates runs the
gamut from family planning experts and psychotherapists to curriculum specialists and
health professionals. These sex educators are strongly influenced by a movement that began
in the 1980s advocating a non-judgmental, individualistic type of sex education with a
strong emphasis on individual growth and sexual fulfillment, and the teaching of the range
and types of sexual behavior, contraception, and alternative lifestyles. In essence it
sought to promote guilt-free sexuality. The methods utilized differed significantly and
challenged traditional ways of teaching by promoting student discussions and role playing
(Pendland 1981, 305). The contraception approach has been less dominant in the public
school system and, although it has been influential as a movement, the approach has taken
place primarily in the non-formal and non-governmental sectors. In the U.S., sex education
has been influenced mostly by the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex (SSS) whose
membership is dominated by scholars from psychology, psychiatry, and medicine. This
academic vein of the contraception movement uses scientific theories in an attempt to
rationalize sexuality. While it is highly debatable whether the language of science can be
used to describe pleasure, pain, and intimacy, it is nonetheless important to see the
emergence of this movement in the context of the existing view dominated by the
conservative religious and quasi-political groups such as the Eagle Forum and Citizens for
Decency or their conservative counterparts in Mexico. A prominent non-formal and activist
organization influenced by the "sexual literacy" effort of the SSS is the
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which is very influential at the
policy level. In Mexico, as in other developing countries, IPPF works mostly through
non-formal education channels.
In Mexico, there is a much weaker connection between
the formal and non-formal sectors. Within the non-formal sector, perhaps the most
intellectually influential center has been the Instituto Mexicano de Sexología (Mexican
Institute of Sexology), a non-formal non-profit institution that, while academically
inclined, has also actively targeted diverse groups including medical schools, teacher
institutions, and has offered continuous courses directed to adolescents and children.
Other groups have emerged or broken off from the main branch of this institute.5
Throughout their existence, these groups have waged a continuous war with conservative
groups and have significantly advanced the understanding and study of sex education in
their national contexts. "Gente Joven" (Young People), a program for adolescents
which emerged from Mexfam (the Mexican Family Planning Foundation, an affiliate of IPPF),
has been instrumental in disseminating information on contraception and sex education. For
the contraception advocates, dispensing "sexual literacy" and contraceptives in
an objective way is the cornerstone of sex education.
In Mexico, the contraception movement has made less
of a dent, but its presence is apparent nonetheless. The recent curriculum reform,
"The Modernization of Education," begun during the Salinas administration and
fully implemented in 1994, is couched in strict scientific language. My review of the
primary and secondary curricula in Mexican public schools shows that only until the
seventh grade, and included as a sub-section on human evolution and genetics, human
reproduction is elaborated with its similarities and differences with the animal world.
Sexuality is limited to its reproductive function and heterosexual copulation is seen as
the natural essence of human sexual practice. An important addition, however, does include
a chapter on contraceptive methods and a discussion on the social importance of these
measures.
An important point to stress is that state
curricula, as well as state educational authorities shy away from openly and directly
addressing sexual abstinence for adolescents which shows how today the curriculum in
Mexico has indeed been influenced by the contraception approach, at least by its
scientific vein. In several interviews with Ministry of Education officials, it became
clear that any mention of abstinence was directly correlated with religious groups.
Officials went to great lengths during the interviews to distance themselves from this
position. This is probably due to the turbulent history of church-state relations in
Mexico, which have only recently been modified. At the same time, there is no
corresponding effort in the curriculum to counteract the social impact of the extremist
religious groups on society, and on adolescents in particular. Public school curriculum in
Mexico, by opting for silence on issues such as safer sex, masturbation, and
homosexuality, is ceding its position to the conservative religious groups.
The abstinence and contraception views also share
another common characteristic. One author remarked that the "litmus test for an
effective sex education program is its `effect' on the extent of adolescent heterosexual
activity, STDs and pregnancies." Because of this instrumentalist approach, research
abounds on evaluations to show the effectiveness of sex education programs implemented by
the contraceptive movement. Kirby's evaluations in 1985 demonstrate that sex education
increases the use and knowledge of contraceptives. Even under the limited definitions by
educational conservatives concerning sexual activity (i.e., sex as intercourse), it has
been shown that sex education does not instigate early adolescent intercourse. Those who
receive sex education tend to postpone heterosexual intercourse (Zabin, et al. 1986).
Rates of pregnancy do not appear to be influenced either way by exposure to sex education
(Fine 1988).
The contraception approach has focused primarily on
what is frequently referred to as "sexual literacy," defined by one group as
"the basic information and skills to thrive in a modern world." It is a rational
view that relies primarily on scientific explanations that envelope the study of human
sexuality in a cloak of objectivity. Much of the focus is on anatomy and the development
of skills and information. While page after page of the anatomy and physiology of
reproduction may have served the purposes of both giving the study of sexuality a
respectable scientific outlook and counteracting the moralistic tone of the abstinence
approach, it barely begins to scratch the surface of the real issues involved in
adolescent sexuality. One author argues that this type of instruction "turns out to
be nothing more than a brief bout with a swimming-sperm and Fallopian-tube course that has
put students to sleep for generations" (Leo 1987, 139). It is a language mostly
devoid of sexual feeling, pleasure, and intimacy; it is also devoid of the language of
ethics in sexual relationships and the consequences of sexual behavior.
The sole emphasis on facts is not an isolated
phenomenon divorced from the general trend characterizing school curriculum, nor is it
limited to sex education itself. Influential curriculum theorists in the United States
have raised questions concerning the validity of using the scientific method, which
rejects any normative stance under the assertion of being objective in nature. In his
critique of the traditional curriculum model, Giroux notes that its pivotal force is the
claim to objectivity.
"Objectivity in this case refers to forms of
knowledge and methodological inquiry that are untouched by the untidy world of beliefs and
values." Furthermore, Giroux talks about the futility of taking scientific
objectivity to the classroom, "Schools embody collective attitudes that permeate
every aspect of their organization. In essence, they are not things, but concrete
manifestations of specific rules and social relationships. The nature of their
organization is value-based" (Giroux 1988, 14).
While the contraception movement has made crucial
advances in the field of sex education and in many ways has effectively balanced the
pervasive and growing influence of conservative and religious groups, other scholars and
activists have questioned the effectiveness of viewing sexuality through a purely
scientific lens.
The "Values and Relationships" Advocates
The harshest criticism of the advocates of
contraception has come from curriculum specialists, theorists of education, and
experienced school-based sex education teachers and researchers in the field who, though
acknowledging the need for a frank and honest depiction of sexual behavior and all matters
of reproduction and disease transmission, believe that adolescents have an inability to
perceive cause-effect relations. As sexologists, they advocate a guilt-free sexuality but,
as education specialists, they are also deeply concerned with age-appropriate information
and behavior. They charge that presenting adolescents with a range of possibilities and
alternatives is not enough. In their zeal to balance out the highly prevalent sexual guilt
so pervasive in both Mexico and the U.S., the contraceptionists have shied away from
engaging their students in ethical discussions concerning sexual behavior. Even those
educators who acknowledge the need for a frank and honest depiction of sexual behavior
including birth control, abortion, homosexuality, gynecological examinations, safer sex
practices, and contraception demand that adolescent sex education not drop these various
choices and leave the decision-making process to unfold by itself within the adolescents'
mind. Critical of the liberal/rational stance or "pedagogy of relativism"
frequently followed by the contraception advocates, educational sexologists argue that
students are left with a host of options all with equal value and weight. As Phillips and
Fine have noted:
The notion of simply offering students `the facts,'
or even `all choices,' as if they were evenly weighted options makes little sense to us
when students and teachers confront institutional and social climates that privilege
certain options and refuse to examine those privileges critically... The liberal strategy
of giving students information and a sense of entitlement, and then leaving them alone to
decide, essentially reifies an androcentric notion that development, decisions, and moral
dilemmas are worked out within the minds of isolated, autonomous individuals, rather than
in the context of relationships, responsibilities, conversations and consequences.
(Phillipps and Fine 1991, 247)
Furthermore, offering a range of choices does not
fully convey the dangers of early sexual activity. In sum, while agreeing with
contraceptionists, the educationalists focus on the appropriateness of the material and
the need for adapting the content to the different stages of cognitive and social
development of adolescents.
Today's world privileges the notion of objectivity
and it is extremely difficult to engage schools and curriculum experts in a debate on
values. Values, and especially those related to the controversial topic of sex education
in the public schools, conjure up the specter of an imposition of ideas which a democratic
society is constantly on guard to prevent, but what are those values and can we
distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate ones? Some authors have made an important
distinction between moral and moralistic sex education that is perhaps important to
address. Dogmatically imposing a point of view and leaving no room for disagreement and
dialogue is clearly inappropriate for public schools. Guilgun and Gordon (1983) remark
that when a teacher proclaims, "If you have sex before marriage, you will go to
hell," he or she is imposing a moral belief that is more appropriate for religious
schools. The same authors go on to say that in sex education "a central moral dilemma
is, how can I exercise my individual liberty without harming another person or
myself?" (30)
Teaching responsibility for one's decisions
concerning sexual behavior appropriately belongs in the classroom and should not be
subverted in favor of stating only facts and available choices. Researchers Sapon-Shevin
and Goodman note that:
Sex education coursework reflects `scientific'
orientation in which biological facts and social statistics dominate what is taught.
Almost completely absent from conventional sex education is the study of social and
psychological content within which young adolescents become sexual beings. Discussions of
value laden topics such as criteria for determining acceptable types of sexual activities;
feelings of sexual arousal, desires and pleasure; dynamics of power in sexual
relationships; and reproductive control (among others) are almost totally ignored in
middle and high school sex education classes. (1992, 99)
It is these issues that the values and relationship
advocates believe should be woven into the fabric of sex education courses. As the
sociologist Giroux would say, "to separate values from facts or social inquiry from
ethical considerations is pointless" (1988, 14).
There are many aspects of sexual behavior and sexual
relations, aspects that have to do with power and control, responsibility, and
decision-making, skills that are crucially important to sexual relationships. In fact,
sexuality is about relationships. The SIECUS guidelines developed in 1993 make a
compelling case for developing personal and interpersonal skills with sexual partners and
frank discussions concerning the consequences of sexual behavior. If, for example, delayed
intercourse is settled upon as a value by an adolescent, this decision becomes a choice
which entails rewards, but it also has to do with responsibilities. Choosing abstinence
may be difficult because of sexual feelings and pressure from the partner and peers. On
the other hand, if teenagers decide to postpone intercourse and at the same time decide to
date, sex education needs to provide and develop communication skills for discussing
sexual limits with dating partners. Furthermore, classroom discussions on the advantages
and disadvantages of postponing sexual intercourse may mean that other forms of erotic
behavior suitable for adolescents will need to be included, leading to discussions of
self-eroticism and sexual fantasy which may prove embarrassing or controversial to local
sensibilities and to teachers and students themselves. By the same token, teenagers who,
despite the encouragement to delay intercourse, still decide to engage in it must also
learn to make decisions about pregnancy, STD/HIV prevention, and other unwanted
consequences (SIECUS 1993). This type of comprehensive approach to teenage sex education
in both the Mexican and U.S. public schools systems is extremely rare.
Sex Drive and Gender-Based Burdens
Curriculum specialists and researchers argue
that working to promote contraception and a guilt-free sexuality does not necessarily need
to be separate from complex discussions of sexual feelings or sexual values nor from
teaching skills for wiser decision-making in matters of sexuality. In fact, it is crucial
to conduct discussion of the various outcomes, consequences, and responsibilities attached
to sexual behavior, but can we really talk about responsibilities and consequences as if
these affected everyone in the same way? Who is responsible when pregnancy occurs? Or upon
whom is the responsibility enforced? Inevitably, addressing these issues brings up the
unequal reality experienced by female adolescents. In a cross-cultural analysis of
adolescent sexuality, one study shows a remarkable similarity among adolescent youths
concerning attitudes toward responsibility and sexual behavior: women were held
responsible for contraception by both males and females (Spencer 1984; Lees 1993).
Marianne Whatley has also come to the same conclusion for North American youth. Both the
abstinence and contraception advocates collude by placing the major responsibility for
both delayed intercourse and contraception on adolescent girls.
In sum, the abstinence view situates adolescents in
a contradictory crossfire: on one hand, the realities of peer pressure and media
encouragement and, on the other, parents pushing to "just say no." The
contraception approach freely hands out knowledge and information as well as
contraceptives and stops there. This leaves the decision to the adolescent without helping
them develop the skills needed to negotiate relationship limits, the knowledge of
consequences for self and others, and the abilities needed to arrive at wise
decision-making. Comprehensive sex education encourages adolescents to delay sexual
intercourse while developing the necessary skills for future sexual relationships. At the
same time, it seeks to provide honest and candid information on the physiological and
intimacy aspects of sexuality as well as other pertinent information and free access to
contraceptives. Both the abstinence and contraception veins of sex education share the
approach that all campaigns and educational efforts be directed exclusively towards women.
While we may speak of differences in culture and
values as well as gross asymmetries in wealth between Mexico and the U.S., it is more
common to find similarities in the way early adolescent sexual activity affects young men
and women. Both in Mexico and in the U.S., engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse at
an early age has consequences for both sexes. However, some consequences are much more
serious for girls than for boys. One sex educator and writer draws the distinction
dramatically in reference to teenage pregnancy:
Boys are less likely to be ostracized as
immoral, are not forced to leave school, are less likely to suffer the shame and cost of
seeking a clandestine abortion and often bear little or no economic or social
responsibility for childrearing. Therefore, from an early age, males take less
responsibility for contraception, sometimes even blocking use by their female partners. In
addition to these gender-based burdens, women suffer the physical risks of pregnancy and
early childbirth. Further, when children beget children, rates of illness and mortality
are significantly higher for both mothers and their infants than for most older mothers,
especially when prenatal care is lacking. (Paxman 1993, 2)
Teenage pregnancy is not only a problem of
significant proportion, but the problem is also skewed toward female adolescents. While
this reality may be obvious to the adolescents themselves, it is surprising how sex
education in general has failed to address these gender-based burdens. It is only very
recently that institutions and schools have begun to analyze the impact of gender on
sexual behavior.
In scholarly research, gender and sexuality often
operate on "separate tracks" and are addressed by different specialists. In the
United States, for example, sex equity and sex education specialists rarely coincide.
Those authors who address gender and sexuality straightforwardly argue that the
interaction between gender and sexuality is often detrimental to both males and females.
One author notes that both society and schools tend to divide adolescents into a dichotomy
of "womanhood" and "manhood": "Two separate but unequal sexual
worlds--the male world of sexual power and prowess that devalues sensitivity and
introspection and the female world of sexual passivity and shame that stymies sexual
curiosity and inhibits sexual knowledge" (Sears 1992, 85). The contradictory social
forces which girls must contend with in sexuality matters and the danger it entails to
their lives and to those of others has been evident to activists working in the field with
adolescents.
In Mexico, Mexfam (the Mexican Family Planning
Foundation), concerned with the low impact of their contraceptive programs, carried out a
study on AIDS prevention and found that gender variables played an important part in
preventing the use of condoms. While girls acknowledged the need to protect themselves,
they hesitated to suggest condom use to their partners because of the fear of seeming
sexually experienced (Marques 1993, 16). Other girls assumed that they would be
"taken care of" and that it was the male's role to prevent pregnancy.
Health and sex education programs in Mexico, the
U.S., and other countries, in their zeal to protect youths from contracting HIV, tend to
focus both programs and promotion campaigns exclusively on women, overlooking the meaning
that contraceptive use has for women. Study in Mexico confirms that women would mention
any contraceptive method except the condom since the latter insinuated the practice of
occasional sex and promiscuous behavior; on the other hand, if the male brought the
condom, his initiative would be viewed in the positive light of the sexually experienced
male (Figueroa Perea 1993, 6). One author sums up the experience with adolescents:
Often, a girl fears even bringing the issue up: if
she appears to be too familiar with and eager to use contraceptives, the boy may conclude
that she is too experienced. (Bruce 1993, 23)
Here we see it clearly. Because girls are trained in
passivity in sexual matters, they relinquish responsibility for practicing safer sex to
the male partner who, at the same time, is under the impression that women will take care
of contraceptive use. This is characteristic not only of women in third world countries; a
scholar doing research on British youths and their failure to engage in safer sex
behavior, particularly the use of condoms, sums up the double-edged sword that women must
endure:
For young women to carry condoms around implies
pre-meditated sex, which conflicts with popular ideas of romantic spontaneity and
implicitly labels them as `slags' [sexually promiscuous]. The operation of the double
standard condemns a girl as irresponsible if she does not use contraception and
unrespectable if she does. (Lees 1993, 199)
Females across socio-economic lines will point to
others, particularly their male partners, as reasons for engaging in unprotected sexual
intercourse. Fine (1988) documents how young black U.S. adolescent females, in their quest
to protect the egos of their male counterparts, refrain from using a condom: "If I
ask him to use a condom, he won't feel like a man" (adolescent female, quoted in Fine
1988, 36). Some studies already suggest that the role assigned to female adolescents
within sexual relationships is not limited to lower socio-economic sectors. Young Mexican
women of high educational and socio-economic levels believe that male sexual needs are
greater than women's (see Figueroa Perea 1993, 9). The same study reports that 75 percent
of urban women, even those with higher levels of education and reproductive knowledge,
expressed a belief that due to "nature" and the male "temperament,"
sexuality was "more necessary" to men and of lesser importance to women.
The myth that it is men who have the greater sexual
needs and that these needs drive men to sometimes uncontrollable situations permeates
large sectors of both modern and traditional societies. It should not come as a surprise,
then, that this assumption is one of the strongholds of adolescent belief systems. What is
surprising is that curriculum and sex education textbooks also portray this image. In her
research of U.S. curricula, Marianne Whatley found that:
The recurring theme in [sex education] texts and
curricular materials is that there is a powerful, innate, hormonally determined sex drive
in men, with very little indication that there might be some equivalent in women. The
message is that women, having little trouble overcoming their weak libidos, are
responsible for saying `no' to men, who ideally should learn `proper control' but are
often too strongly hormonally driven to be able to stop on their own. The responsibility
for men's sexuality clearly falls on the woman, as she must be careful never to `lead him
on,' to always resist his advances, and if unsuccessful, to ensure that contraception is
used. Many teenage men and women readily support this view of women's responsibility for
men's sexual behavior: if he is sexually aggressive, it is her fault for dressing,
walking, speaking, or acting in a way that triggered his uncontrollable drive. (1992, 104)
Again, in most sex education programs none of this
is explicitly talked about nor questioned.
Notions of "manhood" and how it is
constructed by society to present males as being at the mercy of biology is not only a
burden for women but it is also stressful for many boys. The fact that males perceive
themselves as being subject to "raging hormones" removes responsibility for
self-control; it also creates feelings of inadequacy when the hormonal drive is not
forthcoming. A few researchers have reported relatively high stress experienced by males
as they are constantly encouraged to measure up against each other by comparing sexual
prowess. Sex education until now has failed to address some of the most important and
destructive aspects of the male ideal. As one author notes: "While progressive
educators [seem] sensitive to allaying anxieties about appropriate erections, wet dreams
and penis size, they [ignore] issues of power and control--exemplified in such recurring
themes as sexuality as conquest and women as trophies" (Whatley 1992, 81). Notions of
manhood also affect other areas of a boys' sexuality. Male virginity, for example, in both
U.S. and Mexican societies is considered highly abnormal and is sometimes prematurely
ended by a visit to a prostitute at a very early age. Furthermore, boys grow up with a
fear of being feminized that is at times pathological. Being feminized is equal to being
gay and gays are considered as having lesser masculine features or being more like women
(see Whatley 1991, 119-43). If notions of manhood are acquired in opposition to females,
it is no wonder that alienation exists between males and females. This alienation is
reflected in the lack of communication between adolescents that is so essential to sexual
health.
Overemphasis of male biological imperatives is
coupled with an underemphasis of equivalent biological impulses in women. Many sex
education researchers have reported how the female sexual impulse is rendered invisible.
Concepts such as female eroticism and desire are ignored in sex education in the school
curriculum. In her insightful study entitled Sexuality, Schooling and Adolescent Females: The
Missing Discourse of Desire (1988), Michelle Fine uncovers the hidden meaning within
school curricula which "represents females as the actual and potential victims of
male desire" and "portrays males as potential predators and females as
victims." Denying female desire to engage in sexual activity is not only negating a
reality but it also reduces their sexual responsibility. Fine is perhaps most eloquent on
the topic when she argues for widespread availability of family planning counseling,
and/or contraception through school-based clinics that target adolescent women:
The availability of such services may enable
females to feel they are sexual agents, entitled and therefore responsible, rather than at
the constant and terrifying mercy of a young man's pressure to `give in' or of a parent's
demands to `save yourself.' With a sense of sexual agency and not necessarily urgency,
teen girls may be less likely to use or be used by pregnancy. (1988, 6)
While Fine's study is focused on finding strategies
to avoid teenage pregnancy, her conclusions are also pertinent for adolescent sexual
activity in general. The notion of sexual agency and the fact that women are denied this
role in sexual relationships is at the very core of female and male heterosexual
relationships. Sapon-Shevin recalls that, "Girls weren't supposed to get aroused; we
were supposed to repress not only our own sexual inclinations, but also those of boys.
And, most difficult of all, we were supposed to accomplish all of this with a minimum of
sexual knowledge and explicitness (quoted in Sears 1992, 21).
The notions of manhood are more straightforward and
less contradictory than the social messages that women are asked to juggle. In general,
males are allowed to make sexual decisions more often than women but without the
responsibility inherent in all decision-making. On the other hand, females lack this
permission to decide and are raised to be passive, while being at the same time
responsible for controlling male sexual behavior and for any consequences arising from
premature sexual intercourse, particularly pregnancy. Accepting responsibility for others'
behavior is not the only role assigned to women, however. The "I decide but you're
responsible" message is transmitted to females and males at the same time as another
contrary message: that being capable of eliciting desire in males is somehow powerful. One
author comments perceptively on her own experience:
The power differential between boys and girls was...
clear: boys did the asking, girls the waiting; boys did the leading, girls the following;
boys wanted sex, girls were supposed to resist. Yet I was told that I was somehow
powerful, since I could get boys 'worked up' so that they were out
of control. I was both dependent and powerless, ignorant yet unwittingly powerful, and I
was in charge of keeping things under control--a heavy burden to
bear in ignorance. (Sapon-Shevin and Goodman 1992, 95)
A Body for Others
The reasons adolescent females decide to engage
in early adolescent intercourse can be found in the different roles that women are
assigned within their cultures. In Mexico, the common fear of being viewed as promiscuous
may in itself be a reason for hesitating to use a condom on the part of young women. But
this reason must be viewed in the wider context of women's future prospects, which in
Mexico are closely linked to the prospects of motherhood. Teenagers correctly perceive
that, for Mexican society, to become a mother is to become a woman (Ehrenfeld 1989). At
the same time, mothers are portrayed, particularly in the media, as highly devoted to
their families and almost asexual. In fact, motherhood images are frequently posited
against promiscuous or "loose" women.
In the Mexican Ministry of Health study by Ehrenfeld
cited above, the differences in perceptions, attitudes, and behavior concerning sexuality
and reproductive health of adolescents explores some pertinent issues. The study suggests
that young Mexican females react positively to having children and becoming mothers
because motherhood is a sign of prestige in Mexico. By the same token, the childless woman
encounters significant social stigma. As many as 28 percent of the women in one study
believe that it is a legitimate reason for partners to leave women if they are unable to
procreate (Figueroa Perea 1993, 11). But the research also indicates that one of the main
reasons that women choose to adopt maternity early on was that they saw other options as
being limited or closed. Indeed, the exclusive emphasis on motherhood and family leads
women to organize their behavior to fit these expectations while experiencing frustration
or marginalization when they fail to fulfill the role.
A striking pattern in the answers of the women
interviewed for this study shows that women point to "others" as the reasons for
which they became pregnant or practiced contraceptive use or, in general, made decisions
over their own body. The authors of the Mexican Ministry of Health study cite Basaglia
(1980) who has argued that the female body has been considered a "body for
others" since the family, pregnancy, and childrearing are the most valued roles
assigned to Mexican and, in general, Latin American women. Latin American feminists
Lagarde and Basaglia have argued that "women's work continues to be a personal
project as a function of others, beginning from others and constructed around others"
(cited in Figueroa Perea 1993, 15). For example, one of the results of this study is that
54 percent of the women who did not work but who used to, cited the need to care for their
children as the main reason for not working at the time. Also, almost half of the women
interviewed (47 percent) interrupted their career at marriage. For all the numerous
suggestions of this study to women and to policy makers to get women to
"re-think" and "worry" about their own sexuality, there is no attempt
made to question the understandings and belief systems of men and how these may possibly
be subject to change.
Paradoxically, questioning gender assumptions may be
an easier task in Mexico than it would be in the United States due to the fact that gender
distinctions in Mexico exist more explicitly. The "division of labor" in which
men take care of financial as well as sexual matters in heterosexual relationships and the
concurrent female role of raising children is very strong and widely accepted among the
population. Hence, the problems arising from this arrangement, exemplified throughout this
paper, are equally acknowledged and made explicit. This additional step of re-focusing
attention on males and their sexuality is scant but exists and has been addressed by some
institutions. An example is evident in a project on sexual and reproductive health at the
National Autonomous University of Mexico. This project was initiated by five
non-governmental institutions6 and was begun in 1994. It seeks to target at
least six thousand students between 15 and 18 years of age. Interestingly, one of their
main goals is to: "reflect on masculinity, to revise gender, and investigate the
construction of male identity that tends be linked to the exercise of power and
violence" (Lagunes 1994, 6).
In the United States, questioning arbitrary gender
arrangements may be more difficult given that gender roles are, at least cosmetically,
interchangeable. Camouflaged in a cloak of equal opportunity for both sexes, the
inequalities and power dynamics between men and women are many times rendered invisible.
The meaning of being a woman in the United States is quite different from that which is
encouraged in Mexican culture. Motherhood is less valued for adolescents, and media images
and social pressure tend to propel girls toward feelings of inadequacy if their image
contrasts with the slick and sophisticated ideal of a "liberated" woman
constructed by the media. This result is aptly depicted in Byrne's article entitled
"The Embarrassed Virgins" where the author depicts how "the teenage girl is
pressured by her culture and peers to be sexy, to have a boyfriend (a measure of status)
and `to do it' in order to become a woman" (1979, 28). A similar situation is also
characteristic of British female adolescents (Lees 1993). Nonetheless, contrary to Mexico,
there are a few outstanding examples of sex education courses in the U.S. that confront
these issues directly and explicitly, and obtain high rates of success. Some of the more
committed sex education advocates have exercised their influence to shift the focus from
women, re-directing it toward the dynamics between males and females. However, they are
controversial and frequently banned. One example of such curricular material is
"Mutual Sharing, Mutual Caring" (Thompson 1987), which portrays a positive view
of sexuality, advocates tolerance of different sexual preferences, and questions sex
stereotypes. Some of the more successful programs address these issues from the point of
view of the adolescent by using media images such as mainstream movies followed by
discussions critiquing the received stereotypes and harmful clichés that usually go
unexamined.
In both the Mexican and U.S. contexts, the reasons
women have for engaging in unprotected intercourse are a result of social pressure--a
"decision of others" and not arrived at through personal decision- making.
Lifting the Burden of Ignorance
The need for comprehensive sex education cannot be
posited solely in terms of the dangers inherent in early adolescent sexual activity. While
there is unquestionably a place in sex education for preventing teenage pregnancy, sexual
disease, and HIV, this approach alone will be unsuccessful if other variables,
particularly the deep-seated gender arrangement system that exists, go unaddressed.
Furthermore, I have argued that sex education can and should be developed in school
curriculum. It has been summed up bluntly that, as it is now, "The school leaves the
discussion of sexuality to the family, because parents often find these subjects
`controversial,' but parents usually do not deal with them, for the same reason"
(Stromquist 1992, 72). Having said this, it is nonetheless true that sex education by
itself is not enough. It has been warned that sex education "cannot become the
dumping ground for problems the wider society has been unable to solve." Both the
problem and the solution are multi-faceted and depend on many factors to effectively
prevent the negative outcomes of early adolescent sexual activity. As several studies have
noted, it is in "conjunction with material opportunities for enhanced life
options...[that] sex education...can help to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy among
teens" (Dryfoos and National Research Council cited in Fine 1988, 44). Indeed,
increased options for adolescents, including access to education and employment, have been
shown to be the most powerful contraceptives of all.
It is now widely acknowledged in both Mexico and the
U.S., in spite of vociferous opponents, that there is a great need for sex education that
provides solid biological and physiological data to educate teenagers in reproduction and
disease transmission; but this is not enough. Sexual relationships are complex concepts
involving social, cultural, and psychological factors, such as gender-role behavior and
sex drive. And even though there are emerging efforts to conceive of sex education not
only as biology but also as having to do with power dynamics between males and females,
the interaction between sexuality and gender has yet to be fully incorporated. In sum,
three important aspects have been emphasized throughout this paper.
First, sex education can empower women through
knowledge as well as provide access to the necessary means for contraception and disease
prevention. Insisting on the assumption of equal responsibility by men for contraception
and disease prevention means that knowledge and access be made available to males as well
as to females and that promotion campaigns also appeal to and compel males' sense of
responsibility. This may mean that sex education will have to be made available in the
location most commonly frequented by adolescents--the public schools. Fine (1988) has made
a compelling case for incorporating information about and access to contraception as well
as for sex education in school-based clinics.
Second, there is a great need for a healthy, frank,
and honest depiction of the arbitrariness of gender arrangements. Questioning and
challenging gender roles needs to take center stage in all sexuality courses. While today
some courses have focused on women's beliefs concerning gender roles, there is almost a
total lack of a concrete strategy to question the constructed meanings of adolescent
males. This may mean surpassing what has been done until now, namely, going beyond
biology. Challenging gender roles also may mean that there is a recognition on the part of
males and females that female pleasure and desire are equal to and as valid as that of
males. In this sense, insisting on male and female similarities may begin to lift the
burden off of women by increasing the responsibility of males within sexual relationships.
Third, there is a need for promoting widespread
communication between female and male adolescents. Mexfam's "Gente Joven"
(Young People), evaluated its sexuality courses and decided to improve them. Finding that
gender was important in shaping values and adolescent sexual conduct, the program now
places special emphasis on communication between adolescent boys and girls. Acknowledging
the difficulty of taking on this task, one of the directors at "Gente Joven"
noted that in Mexico, "men talk to men, women talk to women, but when we ask them to
talk to each other as couples, before having sex or to talk about prevention, it is as if
you are demanding the impossible" (Marques 1993, 18). Nonetheless, sex educators in
both Mexico and the U.S. have recognized the need for open and frank communication between
the sexes as a crucial variable in attaining healthy sexual lives.
*Barbara Bayardo has a Ph.D. in
international development education from Stanford University. She is interested in health
education and does comparative research on sex education in schools. She has participated
in workshops at the Institute of Sexuality in Mexico City and has done research on
teachers' status and the politics of the teaching profession in Mexico. She is currently
on the Board of Directors of the Hesperian Foundation in California.1
NOTES
1. I am indebted to my friend Peg Sutton for
her help and relentless encouragement. Many ideas in this article have resulted from an
ongoing dialogue with my friend and co-author Mary Ann Burris. I am also grateful to Noemi
Ehrenfeld in Mexico for her insightful comments and for sharing important information and
sources.
2. This study was the result of a survey done in
Mexico City and in several provincial cities conducted by the Mexican Institute of
Research on the Family and Population-Instituto Mexicano de Investigación de Familia y
Población (IMIFAP). The result of the 800 surveys was reported in Este País,
November 1991.
3. The Revolutionary Institutional Party (Partido
Revolucionario Institucional--PRI) has been in power for almost sixty years in Mexico.
4. Some informal educational groups have sprung
from the initial efforts of the Instituto Mexicano de Sexología. Among them, Asociación
Mexicana de Educación Sexual (Mexican Asociation of Sexual Education) and GIS (Grupo
Interdisciplinario de Sexología--Interdisciplinary Group on Sexology).
5. The five non-governmental institutions are:
Women's Integrated Health (Salud Integral para la Mujer, SIPAM), Popular Action for Social
Integration (Acción Popular de Integración Social, APIS), Interdisciplinary Group on
Sexology (Grupo Interdisciplinario de Seología, GIS), Men's Collective for Humanitarian
Relations (Colectivo de Hombres por Relaciones Humanitarias, CHRH) and Collective to
Combat Violence Towards Women (Colectivo de Lucha contra la Violencia hacia las Mujeres,
COVAC).
REFERENCES
Bennet, William. 1988. "Sex and the Education
of Our Children." Curriculum Review January-February.
Bruce, Judith. 1993. Afterword in "Gente
Joven/Young People: A Dialogue on Sexuality with Adolescents in Mexico." Quality/Calidad/Qualité
5.
Crooks, Robert and Karla Bauer. 1993. Our
Sexuality. New York: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co.
de Andra, R., R. Becerra and E. Fieler. 1988.
"Sexuality, Pregnancy and Motherhood among Mexican-American Adolescents." Journal
of Adolescent Research 3.3-4: 403-411.
Diorio, J. 1985. "Contraception, Copulation
Domination, and the Theoretical Barrenness of Sex Education Literature." Educational
Theory 35: 239-254.
Ehrenfeld, Noemi. 1994. "Evaluation of a
Hospital Based Educational Program for Pregnant Adolescents on Sexual and Reproductive
Health." Salud Pública de México 36.
Fantini, Mario D. 1983. "Sex Education:
Alternative Modes of Delivery." Journal of Research and Development in Education
16.
Fine, Michelle. 1988. "Sexuality, Schooling
and Adolescent Females: The Missing Discourse of Desire." Harvard Educational
Review 58.
Gilgun, Jane and Sol Gordon. 1983. "The Role
of Values in Sex Education Programs." Journal of Research and Development in
Education 16: 27-33.
Giroux, J.F. 1990. "Schooling, Sex Education
and the Discourse of Desire." Unpublished manuscript.
Gross, Jane. "Sex Educators for Young See New
Virtue in Chastity." The New York Times 16 January 1994: A1.
Kirby, Douglas and Judith Alter. 1980. "The
Experts Rate Important Features and Outcomes of Sex Education Programs." The
Journal of School Health: 497-502.
Klein, S.S. 1987. "The Issue: Sex Equity and
Sexuality in Education." Peabody Journal of Education 64.4: 1-13.
Lagunes, Lucia. "Sexunam, un espacio para los
jovenes". Doble Jornada (a supplement of La Jornada, Mexico City) 4
abril 1994.
Lamas, Marta. 1986. "La Antropología
Feminista y la Categoría de Género." Nueva Antropologia.
Lees, Sue. 1993. Sugar and Spice: Sexuality and
Adolescent Girls. London: Penguin Books.
Leo, J. 1987. "Should Schools Offer Sex
Education?" Reader's Digest 130: 138-142.
Moy, Caryl T. 1987. "From Divergent Lifestyles
to Professional Issues: Fifteen Years with a University Sexuality Course." Teaching
Sociology 15: 263-267.
Myerson, M. 1986. "The Politics of Sexual
Knowledge: Feminism and Sexology Textbooks." Frontiers 9.1: 66-71.
Pacifica National Programs. 1994. The Birds and
the Bees.
Paxman, John M. 1993. "Gente Joven/Young
People: A Dialogue on Sexuality with Adolescents in Mexico." Quality/Calidad/Qualité
5.
Pendland, Lynn. 1981. "Sex Education in 1900,
1940 and 1980: A Historical Sketch." The Journal of School Health: 305-309.
Phillips, Lynn and Michelle Fine. 1992.
"Commentary: What's `Left' in Sex Education?" Sexuality and the Curriculum.
Ed. James Sears. New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Pick de Weiss, Susan and Martha Givaudan. 1991. Este
País: 25-27.
Portugal, Ana María. 1989. "Mujeres e
iglesia: Sexualidad y aborto en América Latina". Católicas por el derecho a
decidir. Distribuciones Fontamara.
Rogers, V., Merriam, K. and Michele Munson. 1983.
"Sex Education--Curriculum Issues." Journal of Research and Development in
Education 16.2: 27-33.
Scales, Peter. 1987. "How We Can Prevent Teen
Pregnancy (and Why It's not the Real Problem)" Journal of Sex Education and
Therapy 13.1: 12-15.
_____. 1981. "The New Opposition to Sex
Education: A Powerful Threat to a Democratic Society." The Journal of School
Health: 300-304.
Sears, James, ed. 1992. Sexuality and the
Curriculum: The Politics and Practices of Sex Education. New York and London: Teachers
College Press.
Sex Information and Education Council of the United
States (SIECUS). 1993. "Guidelines for Comprehensive Sex Education Kindergarten-12th
Grade." National Guidelines Task Force, Sex Information and Education Council of
the U.S.
Spencer, B. Young. 1984. "Men: Their Attitudes
Towards Sexuality and Birth Control." British Journal of Family Planning 10:
13-19.
Soloman, R. 1975. "Sex and Perversion."
Elliston. Philosophy and Sex. Eds. R. Baker and F. Buffalo: Prometheus. 268-302.
Stromquist, Nelly. 1992. "Global Perspectives
on Sexuality and Equity in Education." In Sex Equity and Sexuality in Education.
Ed. Susan Shurberg Klein. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Thorne, B., and Luria Z. 1986. "Sexuality and
Gender in Children's Daily Worlds." Social Problems 33.3: 176-190.
Thompson, C. 1987. Mutual Caring-Mutual Sharing:
A Sex education Unit for Adolescents. Dover: Strafford County Prenatal and Family
Planning Program.
Trudell, B., and M.H Whatley. 1992. "Sex
Equity Principles for Evaluating Sex education Materials." Sex Equity and
Sexuality in Education. Ed. S. Klein. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Valverde, M. 1989. "Beyond Gender Dangers and
Private Pleasures: Theory and Ethics in the Sex Debates." Feminist Studies
15.2: 237-254.
Vance, Carole, ed. 1980. Pleasure and Danger:
Exploring Female Sexuality. London: Pandora.
Voydanoff, P., and B. Donelly. 1990.
"Adolescent Sexuality and Pregnancy." Family Studies Text 12. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.
Whatley, M. 1987. "Biological Determinism and
Gender Issues in Sex Education." Journal of Sex Education and Therapy 13.2:
26-29.
_____. 1989. "Goals for Equitable Sex
Education." Peabody Journal of Education 64.4: 59-70.
_____. 1985. "Male and Female Hormones:
Misinterpretations of Biology in School Health and Sex Education." Women, Biology,
and Public Policy. Ed. V. Sapiro. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
_____. 1988. "Raging Hormones and Powerful
Cars: The Construction of Men's Sexuality in School Sex Education and Popular Adolescent
Films." Journal of Education 170.3: 100-121.
_____. "Whose Sexuality Is It Anyway?" Sexuality
and the Curriculum. Ed. James Sears. New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Whatley, M. and B. Trudell. 1989. "Sexual
Abuse Prevention and Sex education: Interconnecting Issues." Theory into Practice
28.3: 177-182.