When Sex Goes to School: Warring Views on Sex since the Sixties Book

First, my critiques

1-LGBT voices and discussions are absent. The book was published in the early 2000's. In 2014, it is already out of date. Gay marriage and the major shift in attitudes toward LGBT identities means the dialog over sex ed has also had also undergone a shift. We know LGBT teams are at a much higher risk of bullying and suicide. Gay marriage is becoming more common as more states adopt marriage equality-something that has pucked up speed in the last two in particular. The debate over sex ed now also includes attempts to include and/or ban books that include gay characters. So by ignoring attitudes toward the LGBT community-apart from choosing to discuss sex ed purely from a hetero viewpoint -the book is an incomplete and outdated information source.

2-Along with that, framing the sex ed debate as about the role of women is disingenuous. It is about the role of middle class heterosexual white women. Her choice to pick the communities she did meant that she could limit the study to that demographic.

I believe if she had included gay men and trans individuals she would argue it's not so much about the role of women but about keeping those who transgress the norms of straight white middle class. If she had chosen more racially diverse communities, she would have had to examine regressive race-based sexual stereotypes like the aggressive black male, the submissive Asian female, and the spicy Latina among others. choosing a white community means that these were never once mentioned. This is a glaring omission caused by white privilege--that white kids don't need to sit around debating race and sex. Every person of color must confront the sexual stereotypes assigned to their appearance (appearance and ethnicity are not always the same thing) while white kids are taught colorblindness with no admission or discussion of rave and sex beyond that.

3-Choosing towns 1 hour out of cities not only allows her to pick white middle class communities, it means her study is almost useless within the context of a major city. Boston, Chicago and LA are going to set sex ed policy in a very different way than a small sleeper community would. Even if it were a brief discussion, it would be interesting to hear if the massive size of districts like Boston Public allow some degree of freedom on the part of the administration that a small district like those in the book don't have.

4-I don't think the book made me any more open minded or empathetic to abstinence only types (what she labels sexual conservatives). If anything it only further solidified my already concrete position as a sexual liberal and strong supporter of comprehensive sex ed. In part this is due to her framing sex ed as a debate over the role of women-as a committed feminist, this made the sexual conservative position more disturbing and upsetting.

The good

1-While I'm not the least more open to the sexual conservative position, I think the basis of their position is laid out well here (minus the lgbt and racial s)absences ).

2-The subject is interesting (although the book does bog down down) .

3-The author does a good job of presenting the sides dispassionately. That she didn't convince me doesn't mean she didn't do it well.