Sex education in the United States as we know it today is a political and ideological battle over whether comprehensive sex education that includes information on contraception and abstinence, or abstinence-only-until-marriage education is what is best for the nation’s youth. What about the history of sex education has led us to where we are today? How did the notion of sex education in schools come about, and why is this important in understanding our current sex education debates in the U.S.? I will attempt to answer these questions and fulfill my own curiosity about this controversial topic.
As expected, the majority of sources I was able to find on the topic focused on male sexuality and male experiences in sex education. This reflects the historical perspectives of gender and sexuality during the time sex education was emerging. Starting in the late nineteenth century through 1920, sex was still thought of in moral terms and followed the notions of purity, chastity, and sexual repression of the Victorian era (Rury, 1987; Strong, 1972). The formal sex education movement in the U.S. arose from a growing concern over venereal disease (VD) and prostitution as a threat to the American family and the nation, and to a lesser extent, growing concern over declining birthrates among middle and upper class white women (Carter, 2001; Luker, 2006; Rury, 1987, Strong, 1972). In 1905, Dr. Prince Morrow organized the American Society for Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis, which was the first to rally for sex education in schools as a means to eradicate venereal disease and other “diseases of the social order” (Carrera, 1971; Strong, 1972). Around this same time, Margaret Sanger began her pioneering work dispensing birth control information to young women in New York City (Kutler ed., 2003).
Sex education in schools gained popularity as the Social Hygiene movement of the Progressive era grew, specifically in 1913 with the establishment of the American Social Hygiene Association (ASHA) (Luker, 2006; Strong, 1972). The association was organized by then president of Harvard University, Charles Eliot, and Miss Grace Dodge among many others, who all believed that sex education in schools could help solve the “social” issues confronting a changing America (Luker, 2006). ASHA was persuasive in getting funders and the public to believe that taking sex education from the home to the schools was necessary and gained financial support from the likes of John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil), Julius Rosenwald (Sears, Roebuck) and Henry C. Frick (Carnegie Steel), in addition to public support from the YMCA, General Federation of Women’s Clubs, and eventually the National Congress of Parents and Teachers (PTA), the National Educational Association (NEA) and the federal government (sex education of soldiers was one of the first programs implemented) (Carter, 2001; Luker, 2006; Strong, 1972).
When it comes to the content of the programs in sex education classrooms Carter (2001) recognized the ambivalence about sexual knowledge presented in these courses and among its supporters and educators. The primary goal of sex education was not to talk to youth about sex and how it works, but to teach them about sexual morality (Carter, 2001; Strong, 1972). In this case, in order to eradicate VD, prostitution, and premarital sex, youth should be taught to remain abstinent until marriage because the purpose of sex was procreation and any sense of pleasure one might feel during sex was only an accident (Strong, 1972).
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, ideas of male and female sexuality were distinct and different. Men were assumed to have a natural sex drive that should be contained and controlled by abstinence and sexual repression. A popular theory disguised as science said that when a mature man refrained from sexual activity the semen was absorbed through the blood and was carried to the brain where new thoughts and ideas would come to fruition, which “was necessary in order that society might have a constant source of ideals and inventions” (Strong, 1972, p. 130). This way of thinking that connected men’s sexual repression to the vitality of the nation was consistent through the early twentieth century (Strong, 1972). Women’s sexuality was often thought to be nonexistent. Women were not seen as having a sex drive but were passive receivers in the sex act (Carter, 2001; Rury, 1987; Strong, 1972). These perceived differences between men and women, boys and girls, made it so that most sex education classes were divided by gender until the 1940’s- 50’s so as not to “contaminate” the opposite sex (Luker, 2006; Rury, 1987; Strong, 1972).
According to Carter (2001), two main goals of sex education were to dispel myths that he calls the “doctrine of necessity”, the belief that sex was a biological necessity for young men and the belief that venereal disease was not particularly harmful (p. 218). Before the 1920’s, the most common forms of sex education, which Carter (2001) calls the knowledge of contagion, elicited fear and disgust about venereal disease, so much so that sex educators sometimes led people to believe that any contact with another person could be fatal. The ambivalence about “scientific truth” in this context is seen again here, where it is more important for youth to get the message “don’t touch” than it is to be accurate in disseminating information about how venereal disease is transmitted (Carter, 2001). This also reflects the current atmosphere regarding abstinence-only education as a fear-based curriculum that misinforms youth. The argument against using the knowledge of contagion was that it would instill so much fear in girls that they would view sex as degrading, dangerous, and dirty and would drive them into a life of celibacy or lesbianism (Carter, 2001). The new way of approaching sex education formed in response to this was what Carter (2001) calls the “doctrine of development”, where “eons of development in reproductive methods had culminated in monogamous, loving marriage and parenthood” (p. 218). This view was taken on by the social hygienists and sex education started encouraging the positive rather than negative aspects of sex, as long as it was contained in a heterosexual marriage relationship (Carter, 2001; Luker, 2006; Strong, 1972). This also began to replace the notion that the purpose of sex was to reproduce and began to allow sex for pleasure within marriage as an acceptable and even necessary part of human relationships, and became the primary form of sex education between the 1920’s and 1950’s (carter, 2001; Luker, 2006). This was also a time when writers like Freud, Kinsey and others were beginning to write about sexuality from a psychological perspective, influencing ideas about sex education (Freeman, 2008).
This new way of teaching sex education placed sex as the origin of life in a larger context of the natural world (Carter, 2001). Reproduction was taught as “the birds and the bees” using plants and animals (not mammals) to show reproduction safely without ever mentioning the act of human intercourse so as not to give youth any ideas that may make them curious about having sex themselves (Carter, 2001; Strong, 1972). Language was often vague and misleading so as not to address sex and intercourse directly. The main idea was to make sex synonymous with birth and life (Carter, 2001). During the 1920’s through the 1950’s the names of sex education programs reflected the changes in priorities to “family life education”, “life problems”, and “human science” (Freeman, 2008).
Both Luker (2006) and Freeman (2008) argue that sex education as it developed in the 1940’s-50’s , actually gave room for challenges to gender roles and stereotypes, especially through the youth pedagogy that had become common in sex education classrooms during this time. The “open discussion” and less intimidating classrooms where students sat in a circle, gave way for a more frank discussion of gender and sex (Freeman, 2008). The importance of the sex educator has been questioned throughout the history of sex education. From the inception of sex education, many believed that the sex educator had to be a certain type of person with special education on how to teach the material in a moral way (Strong, 1972). Currently, personality traits are more stressed than educational background in effectiveness of a sex educator (Carrera, 1971). Though individual programs and teachers allowed for differing perspectives (possibly more liberal ones), there was still a general consensus on the purpose of sex education during the 1940’s-50’s. Some topics discussed in a San Diego program in 1944 were “difficulties commonly involved when marriage is made between differing races, religions, and nationalities; family harmony; budgeting; respect for the opposite sex; role of both sexes in family life” (Luker, 2006, p. 61). As seen here, steps were being made towards breaking down gender roles at the same time as reinforcing them as well as reinforcing traditional ideas of mixed marriages needing to be prevented. Only after the sexual revolution of the 1960’s (which Luker (2006) would argue was the 2nd sexual revolution, the social hygiene movement being the first) did public attitudes and policies start to change about sex education and fact-based information about sex, reproduction and contraception really begin to be included in the classroom (Luker, 2006). This was when sex education became “emergency” sex education in that its focus was not stopping youth from having pre-marital sex, but reducing their risk of VD and pregnancy (Luker, 2006).
Sex education was a response to rising sexual activity not the cause (Luker, 2006), yet this is the perceived notion of many proponents of abstinence-only education today. The early foundation of sex education is based on morals, marriage and beliefs about gender (Carter, 2001; Luker, 2006). Abstinence and morality was not about protecting young people, but was seen as a way of maintaining the values and purity of the American family, thereby the nation, by giving them knowledge that would lead to morally upright action (as they believed ignorance would lead to illicit, immoral behavior) (Carter, 2001; Luker, 2006; Strong, 1972). This in turn would eliminate pre-marital sex, prostitution and venereal disease, since sex was only pure within the context of marriage (Carter, 2001; Strong, 1972). Seeing the early history of sex education in the U.S. sheds light on our current debate about this topic. Abstinence-only-until-marriage education has been the primary form of sex education since the beginning of the century (with some exceptions since there has never been a federal mandate or standardized curriculum). This history of sexual repression and (religious) morality within our society helps show us why our government is still funding abstinence-only programs, and why the current debate will always be an argument over values, not facts.
Pingback: Why You Should Market Your App to Moms and How to Do It | Vnturous
Pingback: Why You Should Market Your App to Moms and How to Do It | Sell App Source Code