Customer Reviews

When Sex Goes to School: Warring Views on Sex--And Sex Education--Since the Sixties

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This was an engaging book to read and it was also well researched. I had Kristen Luker as a professor and true to form, she is fair in her research and portrays both sides of an issue so that each makes sense to the reader. She is a very talented sociologist and unlike some sociologists, she's also manages to write an interesting book. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the debate over sex education.

I was pleasantly surprised by the generally fair presentation by Dr. Luker in "When Sex Goes to School". Given that she is a feminist sociologist at UC Berkeley, I had expected a very biased treatment of those holding traditional views of sexuality. However, she demonstrated a real understanding of the issues, particularly in how conservatives are not "anti-sex" (the typical liberal claim) but in actuality value sex very highly as something sacred. The whole battle stems from the two sides holding fundamentally different views of sexuality: something "natural" vs. something sacred.

The one thing that annoyed me about the book was Dr. Luker's stereotypes about conservative women. She portrays them all as less interested in education & career and believers in patriarchy. We may be traditional in certain areas, but that doesn't mean we're traditional in *everything*. We may be bright & ambitious, feel that men & women are equal (although not identical), and still hold that the proper place for sex is between a husband & wife.

Kristin Luker has chosen a curious method to produce a strange amalgam of a book: she talks to local extremists so she can use sex education as a prism for understanding sex in America.

While the political battles over sex education might deserve a book unto themselves, and while sex education certainly can't be divorced from our culture's shifting notions about sexuality, Luker's method leaves one wondering how much one has actually learned about either from reading the book.

As Luker acknowledges in passing, her method of choosing subjects to interview leaves out the entire sensible center, if such there be, on debates about sex education. And as she makes clear, passionate extremists on both sides of the fights generally have difficulty articulating their reasons clearly, and they generally don't understand each other very well. Luker provides on her interviewees' behalfs the articulation they can't provide for themselves. Curious research method, don't you think?

Luker offers that the warring camps fall into the "sacralists" versus the "secularists." I suspect readers will differ on how adequate they find these grossly simplified generalizations. I find some value, in sort of a quick-sketch-on-the-back-of-a-napkin sense, in drawing the contrasts as Luker draws them.

But I'm not entirely enthusiastic about Luker's belief that she's found a good prism for viewing sex in America. Local extremists all worked up about school curricula may not be the most representative sample on the broader issue of sex in our society.

Luker's structure for understanding the debate on sex in America (it's in the subtitle) is extremely limited. It's overwhelmingly (altho not exclusively) white, heterocentric (that is pretty much exclusively) and suburban/small town. If I thought she understood there was a problem with not discussing the treatment of homosexuality when discussing sex education in America (because she mostly ignores it), it might bother me less, but she's so focused on understanding the different gender roles, she's locked into the conservatives duality. As usual, as a sociologist, her lack of historical perspective undermines her argument. Worse, her assertion about the "original" definition of "hierarchy" is just wrong, and in bending over backwards to avoid words like "patriarchy" and "oppression", she signs off on previous generations' enforcement of cultural norms at the expense of minorities and other groups with little power.

If I thought I could trust the rest of the work, these might be issues I could work around. But there are instances of circular argument; she quotes conservative activists repeatedly without acknowledging bias without doing the same for liberals; she repeatedly misrepresents "sexual liberals" and persists in misunderstanding what her interviewees were telling her.

Her background and credentials suggests she's doing this to "prove" that she's being "fair" to the conservatives. In practice, I kept thinking that she'd be a conservative herself, except for the niggling little problem that she'd have to give up her position unless she could also magically become a man (because doing it through surgery would surely be unacceptable to the conservatives!).

I wish I knew of a better book on the topic.