There's a fascinating article in the latest issue of O Magazine on the new trend in Adult Sex Education. Yep, that's right, churches in particular, and plenty of other institutions, are starting to teach adults about sex. Michael Tino, a Unitarian Universalist minister, one of the authors of such a curriculum told O:
You can have the best high school sexuality curriculum in the world, but a lot of critical issues are not going to be addressed in those classes: How do I enjoy my sexuality if I've lost a breast to cancer? How do I manage being a parent and a sexual person? Can I feel sexually satisfied if I don't have a life partner?
It makes so much sense. It also made me slap my forehead and wonder, "Why haven't we thought of this before?" It's nice to see something coming out of the church community with such a holistic view of human health and wellness. It's not just innovative; it's radical. This lil' exchange between two middle-aged women was enough to convince me that the classes are awesome:
Judith admits that she can think of a few good things that result from getting older. "My husband of 13 years always accused me of being frigid because I never had an orgasm with him," she says. "After we split up, I definitely learned I wasn't frigid. Which was a relief. Which was fun."The women marvel that virtually all of them have had distressful sexual experiences. One says her sex life was "messy," explaining that she means nonlinear. "I was always a little ashamed because I didn't do the perfect progression of first kiss, go steady, first love, first sex," she says. "It's nice to see that all the women were a little out of order."
And then Larry goes and explains why he signed up for the course with his wife of 15 years: "We're past the Kama Sutra part of life. You want to--you need to--broaden the definition of sex. Like the other night, my wife was singing to me, and I said, 'Oh, you're making love to me.'"
Okay, you may not be at the singing=sex stage, but you have to admit that expanding our definitions of appropriate or normal sexual behavior in loving relationships, or solo, later in life is a great thing for everybody. Other women report realizing that there is no "normal" when it comes to genitalia. One woman realized that it was okay that she had a stronger libido than her husband--something she'd always felt shame about. Another finally talked to her husband about his masturbation habits and started to get more comfortable with non-exploitative porn.
My only quips with the piece were that a) there was nothing about sexual assault, which I found really hard to believe and b) the author didn't differentiate the government role in all of this very well. She mentioned the $150 million annually for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood initiatives, but to my understanding, the majority of this money is not going towards expanding the definition of healthy sexuality but narrowing it.
Speaking of adult sex, Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards (of Manifesta, Grassroots etc.) are chipping away at a new book, this one focused on sex after kids. If you've got some--kids--and are or aren't getting some, then go fill out their survey here. They explain:
In 1957, Betty Friedan and several of her classmates from Smith College created a reunion questionnaire. The responses were so illuminating that Friedan turned it into her ground-breaking 1963 best-seller The Feminine Mystique. Fifty-one years later, we revisited Friedan's original questions to create our own questionnaire in the hopes of shining a light on our generation--and specifically our sex lives and how they do/don't change or evolve once kids enter our lives. We hope you will share and help us to understand our generation as parents.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Adult Sex Education .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14813
Umm... do you even go to church? AFAIK this type of thing has been going on for a very long time. Well as long as we get our information about the religious community from Oprah, I see no problems.
It must be new. I mean if Oprah says so, it must be. After all, Christians are a bunch of strait-laced prudes who are "finally" gaining a "holistic view of human health and wellness".
Please. Could you be a little less patronizing. After all, you are clearly not an expert on the "church community" and what is coming out of it. Or is it okay to marginalize another community because of our own narrow views?
Speaking of patronizing...
No, I don't go to church, but I don't think that means I can't celebrate when I see something that seems awesome coming out of one. I had no intention of being patronizing. Am I an asshole simply for learning something for the first time?
Hey I never called you an asshole, Courtney! I just kind of remember having the same attitude as you once-upon-a-time, and I know how it can sound. That's all. I'm sorry if I came off as patronizing.
To give you some perspective, I wrote more below. Thanks. Again, I apologize for coming off the way I did.
Thanks for the apology. I guess it's hard when I earnestly discover something and then write about it and feel like people think I'm a jerk. I also grew up in Colorado Springs, Colorado--epicenter of very anti-feminist version of Christianity, so I carry that baggage. Thanks for the dialogue.
I can relate, Courtney. I can relate.
There is a HUGE amount of variation among Christianity these days. At the church I went to as a teenager, youth leaders told me that because of a Bible verse telling the young pastor Timothy to treat the young women in his church like his sisters, young people should not have any more physical intimacy with their dating partners than they would with siblings. I now go to a university where there are three churches with rainbow stripes on the signs within a five-minute walk of campus. There is really very little that can be generalized to all of Christianity, especially when you accept the self-identification of everyone who describes themselves as Christian rather than defining Christianity by a specific set of doctrine.
Christians are not marginalized nor can they be marginalized in this country; they are the "normal" majority and dominate discussion in covservative camps of issues ranging from science education to abortion to gay rights. I just bet that one would find, if such research has been done, that the majority of Christians don't have such pro-sex views as the churches discussed above. Or, they may hold pro-sex views only for married couples and tsk-tsk unmarried and gay folk.
Most anti-sex, anti-birth-control rhetoric coming out of non-profit orgs is openly based on some Christian reasoning. This is not to say that all or even most Christians agree with this reasoning. But historically, Christian theology was one of the MAIN opponents of holistic views of pretty much everything - most pertinent to this discussion, it advocated a mind/body split. The very constitutive element of most churches that the body and current bodily suffering is temporary, but the spirit is eternal, immediately presents an anti-holistic mind/body split - justification to ignore the body or treat it as the seat of evil.
So I'd have to agree with Courtney that it indeed IS rather surprising - but awesome all the same.
Congratulations for downgrading the outright ad hominem attacks to just self-righteous indignation.
Christians can and do get marginalized all the time in this community. In fact, you trying to speak to what Christians do or do not believe is marginalization. But of course they're not entitled to their feelings, because you say so.
And you say Christian's beliefs "immediately present an anti-holistic mind/body split". Why? because you say so? Well, Paul said, "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."
It sounds like the information you're giving me is something someone told you about what Christians believe, rather than what Christians actually believe. Did you learn this from some book somewhere? In college? Did you ever take the time to ask a Christian what Christians believe?
And don't just take my word when I tell you that your assertion that "the majority of Christians don't have such pro-sex views as the churches discussed above" is wrong. Go find out for yourself rather than trying to tell me what I have already found to be a lie.
Darn. You caught me. I'm making this stuff up on the spot.
The quote you gave reinforces my point (we only care about the body because it "houses" the spirit).
Pretty ironic that you quote Paul, who I believe said (though I can't remember exactly) that women shouldn't speak in public, and is often pointed to as one of the biggest church misogynists.
Actually, what Paul said was "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Paul never said women shouldn't speak in public. Paul actually had favorable attitudes towards women. His misogyny is a common misconception. A lot of what is attributed to Paul was never written by Paul. In fact, nearly half of the letters attributed to him have been proven to have been written by someone else. They are "Pseudo-Pauline".
It is also common for those who superficially read the bible to take things out of context, especially to serve dubious purposes. Feminists often do this in an attempt to invalidate the Bible. Many excerpts are taken out of context. Especially Paul. Paul's epistles were letters to be considered in the context of whom they were written to. They are not to be applied to everyone. Don't feel bad, though. Your views, although uninformed and ignorant, are very common.
Oh, and BTW, you are mistaken when you state that Christians "only care about the body because it houses the spirit". Again, you are revealing your ignorance and what seems to me to be some sort of bias.
"Uninformed and ignorant"? Really? I've been studying Christianity for many years now, and I'm pretty sure that the whole mind/body dichotomy plays out in an awful lot of it. Of course, there are always other things going on, and dichotomies are rarely (if ever) absolute... but I think you may be missing something if you think that dichotomy is not at work in the faith of a whole lot of people today.
I'm saying that her mischaracterization of bible passages combined with her clear lack of knowledge regarding Paul and his epistles indicates to me that she is indeed uninformed, and therefore ignorant of the subject at hand. Plus, I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that the mind-body dichotomy is a Judeo-Christian thing. AFAIK, that's primarily a Greek and French thing postulated by philosophers trying to come to terms with their bodies, souls, and immortality.
From what I understand, it's all of the above... it has been influenced and newly constructed by other philosophies at every step along the way, but it's also heavily intertwined with Christianity. Also, I don't think we should ignore the fact that theologies that seriously reconsider the mind/body dichotomy remain unfortunately rare among mainstream Christians.
Yeah. I think I get you point. You're probably right.
Actually, what Paul said was "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Paul never said women shouldn't speak in public. Paul actually had favorable attitudes towards women. His misogyny is a common misconception. A lot of what is attributed to Paul was never written by Paul. In fact, nearly half of the letters attributed to him have been proven to have been written by someone else. They are "Pseudo-Pauline".
It is also common for those who superficially read the bible to take things out of context, especially to serve dubious purposes. Feminists often do this in an attempt to invalidate the Bible. Many excerpts are taken out of context. Especially Paul. Paul's epistles were letters to be considered in the context of whom they were written to. They are not to be applied to everyone. Don't feel bad, though. Your views, although uninformed and ignorant, are very common.
Oh, and BTW, you are mistaken when you state that Christians "only care about the body because it houses the spirit". Again, you are revealing your ignorance and what seems to me to be some sort of bias.
Darn. You caught me. I'm making this stuff up on the spot.
The quote you gave reinforces my point (we only care about the body because it "houses" the spirit).
Pretty ironic that you quote Paul, who I believe said (though I can't remember exactly) that women shouldn't speak in public, and is often pointed to as one of the biggest church misogynists.
Darn. You caught me. I'm making this stuff up on the spot.
The quote you gave reinforces my point (we only care about the body because it "houses" the spirit).
Pretty ironic that you quote Paul, who I believe said (though I can't remember exactly) that women shouldn't speak in public, and is often pointed to as one of the biggest church misogynists.
Actually, what Paul said was "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Paul never said women shouldn't speak in public. Paul actually had favorable attitudes towards women. His misogyny is a common misconception. A lot of what is attributed to Paul was never written by Paul. In fact, nearly half of the letters attributed to him have been proven to have been written by someone else. They are "Pseudo-Pauline".
It is also common for those who superficially read the bible to take things out of context, especially to serve dubious purposes. Feminists often do this in an attempt to invalidate the Bible. Many excerpts are taken out of context. Especially Paul. Paul's epistles were letters to be considered in the context of whom they were written to. They are not to be applied to everyone. Don't feel bad, though. Your views, although uninformed and ignorant, are very common.
Oh, and BTW, you are mistaken when you state that Christians "only care about the body because it houses the spirit". Again, you are revealing your ignorance and what seems to me to be some sort of bias.
"Paul actually had favorable attitudes towards women. His misogyny is a common misconception. A lot of what is attributed to Paul was never written by Paul. In fact, nearly half of the letters attributed to him have been proven to have been written by someone else."
If you are going to make such claims, please can you provide a reference for this 'proof' that Paul's letters were in fact written by someone else? And even if they *were* written by someone else, why does Paul have greater authority than this person/people?
"It is also common for those who superficially read the bible to take things out of context, especially to serve dubious purposes. Feminists often do this in an attempt to invalidate the Bible. Many excerpts are taken out of context."
Oh, so it is feminists who take things out of context! That's interesting. So, the Christians that cherry-pick all the nice things out of the Bible and ignore where it sanctions slavery, genocide, incest, polygamy, the stoning of non-virgins, animal and human sacrifice, and so on ad infinitum... they don't take anything out of context. No sir.
Feminists don't need to attempt to invalidate the Bible. The Bible does this very well by itself. It is a mish-mash of contradictory tales cobbled together hundreds, even thousands of years ago by... well, who knows? Unless you have a working time machine you can't prove who actually wrote it. It should be taken on its merits. And on this basis, it fails as a moral guide quite spectacularly.
Just because a Church starts doing sex education lessons, doesn't mean that there is nothing to criticise about religion, or indeed that a god exists. The people doing this good work are not doing it because god has told them to... most likely, they saw a need for it with their own human brains! Needless to say, most sex education is provided by non-religious institutions, and in general it has been opposed most vociferously by the Christian Right.
Like I said, it's common for people to take the bible out of context to serve dubious purposes. Feminists included.
And as far as providing references concerning my claims that Paul didn't write many of the texts attributed to him, try asking *any* actual bible scholar. In fact, go to Wikipedia. It's well documented there.
And as far as the bible "failing as a moral guide quite spectacularly", well that's just preposterous. The bible fosters every good moral you practice. Have people used it to rationalize their terrible deeds? Yes they have. Again, it's common for people to take the bible out of context to serve dubious purposes.
O Magazine ... *titter*
Sorry. Sixth grade sense of humor.
I'd like to address the use of the term "church community." That's a broad, broad term. Not all churches approach sexuality or sex education the same way. This program came out of Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) and the United Church of Christ (UCC). I don't know much about the Church of Christ, but Unitarians are well known for their progressive views on sex education. They've been doing holistic for longer than Feministing has, making the statement about how "nice" it is more than a little condescending.
True. I'd like to add that I've attended services at many different Christian churches (African Methodist Episcopal, Church of Christ, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Unitarian, Greek Orthodox, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Fundamentalist, Seventh Day Adventist, McChurches, etc.), and although Unitarians are "progressive", they certainly don't have a monopoly on sex education and holistic. It certainly has been an eye-opening experience that I would recommend to anyone in this community. It has truly shattered my preconceived ideas and prejudices concerning Christianity and Christians. Preconceived ideas and prejudices that I see getting passed around among us in feminist and liberal communities.
United Church of Christ =/= Church of Christ
The Church of Christ is conservative and evangelical (in the vein of Disciples of Christ), while the UCC is mainline and many congregations are really liberal.
Just want to make sure you know that Disciples of Christ is NOT like Church of Christ. As a denomination we (disciples of christ) are generally considered more liberal. And United Church of Christ is our partner, often referred to as our "sister denomination"
Foiled by Wikipedia again!
I grew up UCC and know how annoying it was when people would confuse Church of Christ and United Church of Christ.
I'm so sorry to perpetuated confusion.
Well I for one say "Kudos Courtney" for posting this! I didn't know about this, and have been considering a bit of a change in my life (was raised Roman Catholic but there's a huge disconnect for me and I have been very drawn to the Unitarian church for some time). And this couldn't have come at a better time.
I can't believe people mistook this as patronizing... =/
I was really skeptical when I first read that this was coming out of the religious community. The church I used to attend would have NEVER done anything like this. But, after reading this, the idea is NOTHING I expected. Very cool!
Thanks for posting about this!
I think adult sex education is vital, and if the only way that some people have access to or are comfortable with this resource is through a church, then it's certainly better than nothing!
While I agree that the curriculum could use some major expansion, so could, well, the survey. For 1957, this was obviously revolutionary, and I don't think there's anything wrong with these questions now, but they don't allow for expansion. I have a son, but my current long term sex partner is not my son's father, and it's through this relationship that I've learned the most about my sexuality as a parent. While I added the information that I could into the comments section of the survey, it seems to assume that you're having sex or in a relationship with the father of your child.
(And, well, that you're straight).
Sexual education needs to be expanded in far more ways that this!
If you want more information about the programming specifically, here's the link: http://www.uua.org/religiouseducation/curricula/ourwhole/index.shtml
I'm Unitarian Universalist and went through OWL (Our Whole Lives) grades 7-9 curriculum. Needless to say, it changed my life...it connected me to my peers, allowed me to develop self worth and love for my sexuality and my body, was inclusive in terms of identities [it wasn't only white, able-bodied, heterosexual, young, thin, men and women that were pictured and discussed], and taught me sexual health practices that I retained and still use today as I continually (and always will) explore my own sexuality.
I also plan on getting trained to teach the young adult and adult curricula this October in Ontario.
OWL is also called Lifespan Sexuality Education Curricula. On the link above, if you click on any of the grades of curricula that are hyperlinked, it will take you to where you can buy that curriculum in the UUA bookstore.
Most UU congregations offer OWL every other year for grades 7-9 (that's the most popular curriculum, as far as I know). However, more and more congregations are offering all of the curricula for all stages of life. The young adult curriculum, which Rev. Dr. Michael Tino co-authored (and who is also and incredible minister of Mt. Kisco, NY who I know, check out his blog where he posts his sermons: http://mmmmtino.livejournal.com) just came out in January 2008 so it takes a while for trainings of facilitators to cycle through and the curriculum to be distributed among our over 1,000 congregations.
If you have any questions about OWL specifically, hit reply and I can hopefully help!
Thanks so much Victoria!
Yeah, even apart from the ideology, it's bad reporting not to call attention to the contrast (contradiction!) between these different types of 'adult sex education.'
About the government-funded program: "They discuss the physical, intellectual, social, spiritual, and financial consequences of doing the steps too quickly or out of order."
When the other part of the article had women talking about nice it was to learn there's no correct order! And it's all being presented as just different places to get 'adult sex education,' which are all generally good things. Agh!
Actually, what Paul said was "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Paul never said women shouldn't speak in public. Paul actually had favorable attitudes towards women. His misogyny is a common misconception. A lot of what is attributed to Paul was never written by Paul. In fact, nearly half of the letters attributed to him have been proven to have been written by someone else. They are "Pseudo-Pauline".
It is also common for those who superficially read the bible to take things out of context, especially to serve dubious purposes. Feminists often do this in an attempt to invalidate the Bible. Many excerpts are taken out of context. Especially Paul. Paul's epistles were letters to be considered in the context of whom they were written to. They are not to be applied to everyone. Don't feel bad, though. Your views, although uninformed and ignorant, are very common.
Oh, and BTW, you are mistaken when you state that Christians "only care about the body because it houses the spirit". Again, you are revealing your ignorance and what seems to me to be some sort of bias.
Thanks Victoria for elaborating on OWL! I just wanted to add that most Unitarian Universalists do not describe themselves as Christians in our contemporary church--there are many individuals within our congregations and a few specific churches that do identify as "Christian," but UU's generally do not label themselves as exclusively Christian, rather we often gleam from many religious and philosophical traditions in order to seek our own spiritual path. Both the Unitarians and Universalist did start out as Christian denominations (the Unitarians rejecting notions of the Trinity and the Universalists rejecting the idea of Hell from Orthodox Christianity). These two separate denominations merged in the early 1960's. The Unitarians and Universalists were the first churches to ordain women, incidentally, both in the mid-19th century, and today we have a female majority ministry and our hymnals use inclusive (male and female language used for the divine and humanity) and of course, our traditions have very much been influenced by Feminism and the Feminist Spiritual Reclaimation movement. There are also many Atheists and Humanist in UU denominations, as well as Pagans, Buddhists, and of course "other." I love my church, though I know it might strike many readers as strange, but diversity of opinion, background, sexuality, etc. has always been my experience and I wouldn't trade it for anything.
Peace
p.s. Oh, and back to the wholistic human sexuality described in OWLS--this is an important aspect of our social justice vision for women, children, men, GBLTQQI individuals and sexuality (positive sexual philosophy) has been the subject of more than one sermon as well as Adult Religious Education classes!
I think I was in about 9th grade when my church's youth group invited a speaker who was also a minister to do a program with us about sex. It was actually pretty fair-minded (our youth leaders were fairly progressive in general). One of the things that stuck with me was when he said that God gave us a number of gifts, and that with each came responsibility. It wasn't "sex is EVIL!"... it was "sex is something you should respect."
(He also pointed out that, of all the hundreds of commandments and instructions in the Bible, the only one Christians have managed to follow successfully is "Be fruitful and multiply.")
The older I get, the more I understand how fortunate I was to have teachers (before my state went to abstinence-only), church youth leaders, parents and other adult figures who respected my judgment. I didn't have sex until I was well into college, and I firmly believe that it's because I wasn't treated like a walking hymen.
Hi Courtney. This is great news and you're right to be psyched. I agree with other commenters that not all churches with adult sex-ed programs are going to be as progressive as the Unitarians are. But a lot of them do have it, and while some of its egregious they're not all bad.
I've got to say if I hadn't been through the UU sex-ed curriculum in Sunday school back in the 1970s I'd almost certainly be a very different blogger. It would probably sound a little quaint today but the cool thing is they're pretty diligent about keeping it up to date.
Anyway, one cool thing about the adult curriculum would be they can consult program graduates going back 35 years or more.
figleaf
I've been teaching OWL to 7-9 grades over 8 years. It's an excellent program.