Running Head: SEX EDUCATION 1

Andy Klage

Sex Education

Sex education continues to be a growing issue in modern society. As education continues

to expand beyond the traditional curricula, sex education, among other “morality-based”

education, has become less optional than it once was, especially as reflected in public education

laws and mandates. The school now is often the greater source of an education in morality than

in the past, times in which other spheres of influence, such as the household and religion, played

greater roles. Teachers have a larger responsibility than ever to educate students not just in

subjects like math, science, and history, but also in how to be morally upright citizens in a

flourishing American democracy. Sexual education is a crucial part of this morality-based

education, given that issues of sexuality and gender are deeply concerned with ethics and

morality. The question that then arises is what method of teaching sexual education, among them

abstinence-based education and a more comprehensive system, is the most adequate for students

in an ever more complex society? In light of modern issues of sexuality and gender and their

deep connection with morality, teaching sex education in the form of a more comprehensive

approach is certainly the most suitable. Critically thinking about and discussing the wide array of

issues and potential problems with sexuality and gender present in the world, including the social

forces at play, enable students to tackle future circumstances head-on as democratic citizens with

a strong ethical and moral background, achieving the primary purpose of modern education.

The purpose of education in a modern American democracy is different from what it once

was. Whereas in the past, the methods were largely focused on teachers educating students

directly about traditional subjects only, it’s evident that this isn’t expansive enough for today’s

much more complex society. Education today must also engage students in a civic or democratic
SEX EDUCATION 2

education that is grounded in moral and ethical standards, because for many students, the school

is their only source of learning such standards. Issues of morality in terms of sexuality and

gender are highly prominent in modern society, making it crucial for students to enter that

society with a strong foundation of ethics and morals that will enable them to actively pursue

equity and justice for all. Althof Wolfgang and Martin Berkowitz, in their 2006 periodical for

Journal for Moral Education, explore both moral and character education in a modern

democracy. They define moral education as “the attempt to promote the development of

children’s and adolescents’ moral cognitive structures (moral reasoning stages) in school

settings” (Wolfgang & Berkowitz, 2006, p. 496). Character education focuses more on habits,

decision-making, and ethics in a modern society (Wolfgang & Berkowitz, 2006, p. 499-500).

Both moral and character education are critically important to students if they are to be

adequately prepared democratic citizens. Democracy as a system of government carries with it

an inherent need to be selfless. Wolfgang and Berkowitz write that “a key aspect of democratic

citizenship is the capacity to ‘move beyond one’s individual self-interest and to be committed to

the well-being of some larger group of which one is a member” (Wolfgang & Berkowitz, 2006,

p. 500-01). Civic and sexual education should be inherently linked and not separated,

considering the amount of moral decisions that come with being an active democratic citizen,

such as in voting, governmental participation, or even through career choices, especially ones

that directly influence and impact others, such as education. Character education must

“incorporate empowerment, debate and critical reflection about both the existing society and the

core virtues and values of civic life”, with these values encompassing “freedom, equality,

rationality… tolerance and respect, impartiality and concern for the rights, an ethic of care and

responsibility… diversity”, among others (Wolfgang & Berkowitz, 2006, p. 508-09). If students
SEX EDUCATION 3

are to be adequately prepared to participate in a democracy and directly engage in key issues,

including those of sexuality and gender, they must be able to learn through a civic education that

is grounded in ideas of character and moral education, such as “empowerment, open discourse,

promotion of critical thinking and the development of moral communities in classrooms and

schools” (Wolfgang & Berkowitz, 2006, p. 512). Part of the democratic education founded in

morality that students must receive certainly needs to encompass sex education, given that

sexuality and gender are deeply interwoven with morality, so it’s crucial that it’s taught in the

right way.

The methods by which sex education have been taught in the United States have changed

over the years, and there has long been a debate of abstinence-only education versus a more

comprehensive sex education. Nancy Kendall defines the ethos of the Abstinence Only Until

Marriage Education (AOUME) group as “the belief that sex is private and sacred and that

abstinence is the only morally correct option for unmarried people” (Kendall, 2012, p. 1-2). The

Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) group believes that “sex is a natural act and that people are

empowered by receiving complete and correct information they can use to improve their sexual

decision-making and, by extension, their health” (Kendall, 2012, p. 2). While there is great

debate over what method should be taught, it is clear that in today’s society, which is now much

more expansive in terms of sexuality and gender, including greater awareness of sexually-

transmitted diseases, LGBTQ issues, etc., a comprehensive-based approach to sex education is

the most adequate path for students. If students are to leave schools and enter society as effective

democratic citizens who can navigate ethical issues with a strong moral foundation, they need to

have a greater awareness of the rising tide of issues of sexuality and gender, especially the

societal forces at play behind these issues.

SEX EDUCATION 4

Abstinence-only educational methods certainly have foundations in character and moral

education, founded largely on religious principles that used to dominate schools in the United

States to a greater extent than they do today. The issue is that while it may have once fit with a

considerably less complex society in terms of gender and sexuality issues, the simple-minded

approach of AOUME doesn’t effectively address the broader sphere of gender and sexuality

present today. AOUME approaches are largely objective and static, not adapting to new issues

that may arise. Sharon Lamb writes in her 2013 periodical article for Educational Theory that

abstinence-only education focuses on the idea that “abstinence from sexual activity outside

marriage is the expected standard… the only certain way to avoid pregnancy and STIs, and that a

mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard

of sexual activity” (Lamb, 2013, p. 446).

Abstinence from a moral perspective is certainly valuable, especially if students practice

it as part of their religious beliefs or backgrounds. However, for it to be taught as the norm for all

students in public education is too narrowly focused and fails to address other issues of sexuality

and gender. AOUME largely ignores issues of homosexuality, transgenderism, or the public

rights of LGBTQ people, about which Lamb asserts “is unethical to withhold information from

students that would benefit their health and well-being” (Lamb, 2013, p. 449). AOUME

approaches often present data and “facts” that support specific agendas (Lamb, 2013, p. 451).

This reinforces what Lamb considers a “hegemonic normalization that makes invisible those

facts that do not fit into the model of sex or sexuality that is presented in such a neutral or

scientific way”, such as other sexualities or identities that are considered “deviant” (Lamb, 2013,

p. 451).
SEX EDUCATION 5

AOUME approaches, as detailed previously, assume too much objectivity. Since sexual

education is such a broad and complex issue based in character and moral education, the style in

which it is taught is crucial. Sex education must be based more on “problem-posing” discourse

and discussion between students and the teacher, and not taught from a “banking concept”

method. Paulo Freire, in Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2000), describes the banking concept as

“narration sickness” (Freire, 2000, p. 243-44), in which the teacher simply feeds students

information as entirely fact, expecting the students to fully understand and comprehend the

information without any room for questions, critical thought, or input from the students. The

problem-posing method, on the other hand, is founded on discourse and dialogue between both

students themselves and with the teacher. Freire writes that the teacher and the students “become

jointly responsible for a process in which all grow” (Freire, 2000, p. 249-50). AOUME

approaches are taught in a banking concept format as opposed to the problem-posing format.

“Facts” are presented that may not examine the wider context of gender and sexual issues

(Lamb). Teaching from an AOUME perspective hails the teacher (and the curriculum they’re

required to teach) as the only source of true knowledge on what is an amazingly complex moral

issue. Students aren’t given any room to engage in discourse, collaborate, and learn from one

another’s experiences and opinions as they would be in a problem-posing method that

incorporates a comprehensive sex education, thus not benefiting them in any way as active

critical thinkers and deliberators. These are key qualities all effective citizens should have in a

democratic society, which is the primary benchmark for students to reach in education above all

else (Wolfgang & Berkowitz).

The last clear problem with AOUME approaches is that it focuses too much on the

individual and not enough on social forces present in sexuality and gender. AOUME examines
SEX EDUCATION 6

healthy individual choices and personally responsibility, while failing to address the ways that

socialization and biological effects can influence one’s identity and sexuality. Expanding an

argument made by Lamb, while promoting healthy sexual choices is sound, how are young

women, for example, supposed to make a healthy sexual choice if they are forcibly taken

advantage of and raped (Lamb, 2013, p. 444-445)? Issues like these, as well as scientific data

that Lamb presents, revealing that AOUME isn’t any more effective than CSE approaches,

illuminate the fact that AOUME is far too simple-minded to be used in schools today. It certainly

promotes strong foundations in character and moral education, but doesn’t do nearly enough in

preparing citizens to effectively tackle complex issues of morality, including those dealing with

sexuality and gender, as they become active participants in democracy, the primary purpose of

education.

CSE methods taught in the United States are the most effective as opposed to AOUME

approaches, as detailed by Lamb, but still need to be broadened in order to fully equip students

with the knowledge of as many ethical issues of sex and gender as possible in order that they are

well-rounded moral democratic citizens. Lamb explores the current system of sex education in

the United States and effectively points out discrepancies and ways in which it should expand in

the future. For one, CSE methods need to tackle the societal forces more directly at play in issues

of gender and sexuality in order that students can have a greater knowledge of how society

connects to morality at large, with Lamb writing that “civic education in public school must

include examination of systemic or social issues, including power relations” (Lamb, 2013, p.

459-60). These societal forces often take place within schools, both through curriculum and

social practices and norms between students. Lamb argues that students “ought to learn to reflect

on their own practices, through which they sometimes promote the status quo and regressive
SEX EDUCATION 7

discourses, but also have the potential to create new counter discourses” (Lamb, 2013, p. 459).

By learning about how social forces reinforce sexual norms and standards that unfairly

marginalize groups, students will learn how to think more critically and find solutions for these

issues that they can address as effective democratic citizens.

Social forces, including those involving communication and language, certainly influence

sexuality and gender, and students should learn how these forces impact them. Elizabeth

Armstrong analyzes “slut discourse” in schools in her 2014 periodical for Social Psychology

Quarterly. She argues that the concept of “slut shaming” in schools, in which certain groups of

girls will look down on others, exclude them, and call them “sluts” because of their behavior

around men, their clothing, or their friend groups, is directly related to social class. Armstrong

writes, based on her studies, that “Women enforced moral boundaries on uneven ground. Most

cases of conflict occurred when low-status women—lured by the promise of fun, status, and

belonging—attempted to interact with high status women, especially in the party scene”

(Armstrong et al., 2014, p. 114). The class boundaries that women draw are one in the same as

their moral boundaries, making it crucial that teachers and students engage in discourse

regarding this issue in schools that teach students that morality isn’t actually based on social

class. This would thus fit a CSE approach of sexual education based around making students

more moral and ethical democratic citizens.

A similar situation occurs among school-aged boys and their use of the word, “faggot”.

C.J. Pascoe analyzes the common use of the word in schools in Dude, You’re A Fag:

Masculinity and Sexuality in High School (2007), concluding that the word is a way in which

boys discipline themselves and one another. The use of the word is more than just an object of

homophobia, but, as Pascoe argues, is also a discourse in which “masculinity… becomes the
SEX EDUCATION 8

daily interactional work of repudiating the threatening specter of the fag” (Pascoe, 2007, p. 81).

Using the word is a common practice by which men reinforce established notions of masculinity.

If someone isn’t acting in a more “traditional” masculine way, then the f-word is used to inform

that person and “hold them accountable”, in a way (Pascoe, 2007). By calling each other the f-

word, boys signal to other boys that they are being more masculine and that the other needs to

improve at “performing masculinity” (Pascoe, 2007). In analyzing the discourse and complexity

of the word and considering the wide and common use of it both in schools and among men in

society, it’s crucial that, just as with slut discourse, teachers engage and discuss with their

students about the term and how it is a force in society that reinforces false or unfair sexual or

gendered stereotypes and prejudices.

In analyzing slut and fag discourse, it’s clear to see how crucial it is that a more

expensive method of CSE is needed in schools than what is used currently. Sex education is

much more than learning facts and statistics regarding abstinence from the teacher in a banking

concept of teaching. Rather, by learning about various social forces, such as both slut and fag

discourse, and engaging in a dialogue through the problem-posing method about how they are

prevalent in their own individual lives, students will gain a greater understanding of the larger

framework that surrounds them (Armstrong). It’s imperative that a comprehensive method is

used over the abstinence method, as Lamb calls for, so that students can more fully realize that

social forces are just as much of a factor in sexual decisions and issues as their own individual

decisions are. By understanding the larger social framework around them, students will be able

to recognize the morality involved in such complex issues and be able to tackle questions and

find solutions as adequately prepared democratic citizens, achieving the purpose of education.
SEX EDUCATION 9

One final way in which gender and sexuality pervades the classroom that must be

addressed is gender normativity. Cris Mayo explores this notion extensively in LBTQ Youth and

Education: Policies and Practices (2001). Common school practices, such as the segregation of

boys and girls in class activities, serve to reinforce a notion of what society considers to be the

standard in terms of gender and sexuality (Mayo, 2001). There is an implicit pressure

communicated by both students and school officials to conform to gender and sex norms through

the practices and policies of schools, which make the issues of gender and sexuality seem less

complex than they really are (Mayo, 2001). Mayo calls for teachers and students to constantly

engage with people who have been marginalized through school practices in order that they can

re-think their biases and assumptions about gender and sexuality, writing that they should “show

not only interest and desire to learn but a clear sense of what criticality might bring to the

projects of sexuality and gender” (Pascoe, 2001, p. 49). By doing this, students and teachers,

through a problem-posing style of discourse and discussion, will gain a greater understanding of

how gender and sexuality are prevalent in society than they would through an AOUME

approach. Students will learn how gender and sexuality are founded in morality and character,

carrying this knowledge with them as they leave schools and enter society as more fully prepared

democratic citizens.

Cleary, sexuality and gender are very complex and ever-growing concepts that are

present in both schools and society in a much greater capacity than they once were. Abstinence-

only educational methods aren’t enough to make students effectively equipped democratic

citizens who have a strong foundation of morality and character, which is what all schools should

pursue when considering their educational mission. Schools should incorporate a more expansive

and comprehensive sex education method of teaching so that students can best understand how
SEX EDUCATION 10

social forces contribute to norms and standards that may marginalize or oppress groups of

people. Through this, they will understand the deep roots of morality present in issues of gender

and sexuality, thus being more prepared as democratic citizens who can use their voices and

power to identify and fight problems if and when they arise.

SEX EDUCATION 11

References

Althof, W., & Berkowitz, M.W. (2006) Moral education and character education:

their relationship and roles in citizenship education, Journal of Moral Education, 35

(4), 495-518, DOI: 10.1080/03057240601012204

Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L. T., Armstrong, E. M., & Seeley, J. L. (2014). "Good Girls":

Gender, Social Class, and Slut Discourse on Campus. Social Psychology Quarterly,

77(2), 100-122.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. 30th anniversary ed. New York: Continuum.

Kendall, N. (2012). Ch. 1. In Sex education debates (pp. 1-10). Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Lamb, S. (2013). Just the Facts? The Separation of Sex Education from Moral Education.

Educational Theory, 63(5), 443-460.

Mayo, C. (2014). Ch. 2. In LGBTQ youth and education: Policies and practices (pp. 35-49).

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Ch. 3. In Dude, you're a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school (pp.

52-83). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.