What do you think?
Rate this book
When Sex Goes to School: Warring Views on Sex--and Sex Education--Since the Sixties
A chronicle of the two decades that noted sociologist Kristin Luker spent following parents in four America communities engaged in a passionate war of ideas and values, When Sex Goes to School explores a conflict with stakes that are deceptively simple and painfully personal. For these parents, the question of how their children should be taught about sex cuts far deeper than politics, religion, or even friendship.
"The drama of this book comes from watching the exceptionally thoughtful Luker try to figure [sex education] out" (Judith Shulevitz, New York Times Book Review). In doing so, Luker also traces the origins of sex education from the turn-of-the-century hygienist movement to the marriage-obsessed 1950s and the sexual and gender upheavals of the 1960s. Her unexpected conclusions make it impossible to look at the intersections of the private and the political in the same way.
"The drama of this book comes from watching the exceptionally thoughtful Luker try to figure [sex education] out" (Judith Shulevitz, New York Times Book Review). In doing so, Luker also traces the origins of sex education from the turn-of-the-century hygienist movement to the marriage-obsessed 1950s and the sexual and gender upheavals of the 1960s. Her unexpected conclusions make it impossible to look at the intersections of the private and the political in the same way.
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
13 people are currently reading
493 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
October 24, 2014
I thought this book would be more history-driven, as in information on what sex education has been like over the various decades, but instead, it is basically a long, repetitive research paper on the difference factions in America who are pro and against comprehensive sex education and why they each feel the way they do. It was very dry and academic in diction. The best part of the whole book was when the author briefly commented about a trip overseas to find out how Sweden and France handled sex education, and when she asked why the teenagers in Sweden, who have comprehensive sex education as part of their compulsory schooling from elementary school on, are so different and less embarrassed when it comes to talking about sex, the Swedish teacher answered, "They're just being Swedish". Overall, I can't say that I learned much or that what I read challenged any viewpoints that I have, nor can I say that I would recommend this book to anyone other than someone who may be studying the differences in viewpoints about sex in liberals vs. conservatives. Disappointing, but not totally terrible. Two stars.
January 31, 2014
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.
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.
February 6, 2008
This was a slow read that draws a very unrealistic conclusion. I was surprised to see her (modest) support of abstinence-only programs and befuddled by her expectations that sex ed. curricula (which she admits are fragmented in nature and implementation generally) would expand to include the history of the 60s-70s women's movement & sexual revolution. I can't imagine this being a successful point of compromise. Also, frustratingly, this book focuses almost exclusively on heterosexual marriage and has a tendency to mention homosexuality in the same sentence as AIDS. Boo, Luker.
September 26, 2007
This book, while it covers the history of sex education in the schools since the early 20th century, is more about the players on both sides of the issue, about how and why they believe as they do. Luker frames the debate as one between conservatives and liberals, though, in my view, I'd say it's more of a debate between libertarians and authoritarians, as this topic doesn't always fall neatly along a liberal/conservative continnuum. But for the purposes of this review, I'll use Luker's categories of liberals and conservative.
Liberals advocate comprehensive sex education; that is, providing matter of fact information about the "plumbing", contraception and abortion, and alternative sexual lifestyles. Conservatives, on the other hand, are for "abstinence only" sex education; that is, providing basic information about the "plumbing", with no information about contraception, abortion, or alternative lifestyles, stressing that one must be abstinent until they are legally married.
In general, sexual liberals:
* Believe that sex is "natural"
* Are pluralists; that marriage is one of several valid sexual options, along with alternative sexual expressions of various kinds
* Believe that moral sex is consensual and careful (safer sex)
* Believe in contraception and legal abortion
* Believe that sexual pleasure is worthy in its own right
* Believe that more information is better; knowledge is power
* Believe that morality is relative, adaptive, based on context
* Believe that a moral person takes responsibility for their actions
* Believe in egalitarian relationships between men and women
In general, sexual conservatives:
* Believe that sex is "sacred"
* Are exclusivists and believe the only proper place for sex is within a legal, heterosexual, monogamous marriage. They believe homosexuality in particular is a threat to the idea of "sacred sex within marriage"
* Believe that moral sex is only within marriage
* Are against abortion; and contraception for unmarried people
* Believe that sex should be reserved solely for expressing love within marriage and that its primary purpose is reproduction
* Believe that too much information too early confuses children and teens
* Believe that morality is absolute and unchanging, without exception
* Believes that a moral person obeys the rules
* Believes in heirarchal, "traditional" relationships between men and women
This book is valuable not only for information about sex education in the schools, but is even more so for giving us a detailed look in how liberals and conservatives, sexual and otherwise, think. Luker conducted interviews with many people on both sides of the issue to properly present both sides of the story.
If you want a better understanding of how the other side "ticks", this is the book to read. I can't recommend it highly enough.
Liberals advocate comprehensive sex education; that is, providing matter of fact information about the "plumbing", contraception and abortion, and alternative sexual lifestyles. Conservatives, on the other hand, are for "abstinence only" sex education; that is, providing basic information about the "plumbing", with no information about contraception, abortion, or alternative lifestyles, stressing that one must be abstinent until they are legally married.
In general, sexual liberals:
* Believe that sex is "natural"
* Are pluralists; that marriage is one of several valid sexual options, along with alternative sexual expressions of various kinds
* Believe that moral sex is consensual and careful (safer sex)
* Believe in contraception and legal abortion
* Believe that sexual pleasure is worthy in its own right
* Believe that more information is better; knowledge is power
* Believe that morality is relative, adaptive, based on context
* Believe that a moral person takes responsibility for their actions
* Believe in egalitarian relationships between men and women
In general, sexual conservatives:
* Believe that sex is "sacred"
* Are exclusivists and believe the only proper place for sex is within a legal, heterosexual, monogamous marriage. They believe homosexuality in particular is a threat to the idea of "sacred sex within marriage"
* Believe that moral sex is only within marriage
* Are against abortion; and contraception for unmarried people
* Believe that sex should be reserved solely for expressing love within marriage and that its primary purpose is reproduction
* Believe that too much information too early confuses children and teens
* Believe that morality is absolute and unchanging, without exception
* Believes that a moral person obeys the rules
* Believes in heirarchal, "traditional" relationships between men and women
This book is valuable not only for information about sex education in the schools, but is even more so for giving us a detailed look in how liberals and conservatives, sexual and otherwise, think. Luker conducted interviews with many people on both sides of the issue to properly present both sides of the story.
If you want a better understanding of how the other side "ticks", this is the book to read. I can't recommend it highly enough.
August 9, 2015
I'll state this from the beginning: I am very much what Kristin Luker refers to in this book as a "sexual liberal". I came into this book with the position that sex, between unmarried people or people of the same gender or even between adolescents, was not harmful or immoral provided that everyone involved was informed and consenting and conscientious. That's my conviction as much as a citizen as an educator. This book illustrates clearly that, though many people agree with me, there are many who disagree completely and who are very unlikely to change their minds, just as they are very unlikely to convince me. This is a very big problem.
The scope of the controversy in this book is actually quite narrow: acknowledging the existence of homosexuality and other dimensions to the question of sexual behaviors (though failing to even mention transgender people), the central issue under discussion is public opinion on the acceptability of heterosexual sex outside of a "traditional" marriage, and how tolerance/condemnation of that behavior is reflected in public school curriculums. This feels like a major limitation, given how visible and important more complicated questions have become in recent years (and though this book is nearly ten years old, it bears mentioning that these issues were around even then).
But even so, what an argument still rages over the question of straight premarital sex! It's enough to make me seriously doubt that any amicable compromise is possible. One viewpoint will prevail: either it is morally acceptable or it isn't. But even so, the fight may yet be eternal.
There is some excellent history in the beginning chapters about the origins of so-called "traditional marriage", and how much current right wing views on the role of sexuality and gender in marriage were shaped by the agenda of sex-ed activists in the Progressive era (a period they nominally abhor, I might point out). From there the book is mainly an examination of the constellation of values that compose these competing worldviews that underlie the debate. Despite the book's considerable limitations, there are a lot of very important points under discussion that should be considered, both by educators and the public at large.
The scope of the controversy in this book is actually quite narrow: acknowledging the existence of homosexuality and other dimensions to the question of sexual behaviors (though failing to even mention transgender people), the central issue under discussion is public opinion on the acceptability of heterosexual sex outside of a "traditional" marriage, and how tolerance/condemnation of that behavior is reflected in public school curriculums. This feels like a major limitation, given how visible and important more complicated questions have become in recent years (and though this book is nearly ten years old, it bears mentioning that these issues were around even then).
But even so, what an argument still rages over the question of straight premarital sex! It's enough to make me seriously doubt that any amicable compromise is possible. One viewpoint will prevail: either it is morally acceptable or it isn't. But even so, the fight may yet be eternal.
There is some excellent history in the beginning chapters about the origins of so-called "traditional marriage", and how much current right wing views on the role of sexuality and gender in marriage were shaped by the agenda of sex-ed activists in the Progressive era (a period they nominally abhor, I might point out). From there the book is mainly an examination of the constellation of values that compose these competing worldviews that underlie the debate. Despite the book's considerable limitations, there are a lot of very important points under discussion that should be considered, both by educators and the public at large.
August 25, 2009
Luker doesn't bother to ask any whether or not sexuality is “actually” good or bad, or whether pregnancy is, or even whether protection is. The main point of this book is that sex education in the U.S. is necessarily diverse (as we are diverse), and decisions about sex ed are moral and political decisions. To make an argument that pregnancy might be positive for Latinas because it motivates them in school is as useless as the myriad arguments that have already made their way through about the efficacy of condoms against AIDS. Although Luker's attention is almost exclusively on white parents participation in the sex education debate, this is a crucial message for me as I begin my research. In addition to trying to do work that is applicable on the ground and theoretically interesting, Luker has shown how it must also be considered with regard to its larger political and moral message. What she neglects is to consider the effects that these political decisions have on people of color and where their place in the debate is.
In addition the this message, I learned some important things about the history of sex education that I need to keep in mind as I do my work. Specifically, that the '60s played a crucial role in drawing the line between sexual conservatives and sexual liberals, that sexual conservatives necessarily lose something they value (marriage as the only socially legitimate place for sex) if a sexually liberal message is taught in school, and that “for liberals, responsibility is planning ahead, but for conservatives, it is accountability, not preventing the consequences but living with them.” (193) Furthermore, regarding the construction of sex education curricula, she repeats what I already learned about gender roles and conservatives, but shed new light on the importance of gender roles for liberals.
In addition the this message, I learned some important things about the history of sex education that I need to keep in mind as I do my work. Specifically, that the '60s played a crucial role in drawing the line between sexual conservatives and sexual liberals, that sexual conservatives necessarily lose something they value (marriage as the only socially legitimate place for sex) if a sexually liberal message is taught in school, and that “for liberals, responsibility is planning ahead, but for conservatives, it is accountability, not preventing the consequences but living with them.” (193) Furthermore, regarding the construction of sex education curricula, she repeats what I already learned about gender roles and conservatives, but shed new light on the importance of gender roles for liberals.
April 1, 2010
Rather more interesting that I expected. Luker uses academic language to describe her survey and its results but in a surprisingly accessible way.
Well-balanced analysis granting all the different sides in the debate legitimacy. I mean by the time I finished the book I could understand, even if I didn't agree with, the ones arguing against any sex-ed, limited sex-ed, and comprehensive sex-ed.
I think Luker makes a very good case that part of the reason the battles get so heated with such little agreement is that the sides are actually arguing about different things and from very different philosophies.
For sexual conservatives it's a matter of parental authority and a resistance to someone else (teachers, the school board, etc) meddling in their parent-child relationship. The sexual conservatives resent someone else dictating the amount and type of information, the manner, and the timing of its delivery. They also believe that humans are naturally inclined to do immoral things and require a strong moral code imposed by society to prevent individuals from acting immorally. (So there needs to be lots of very strong, very clear "thou shalt not"s.)
For sexual liberals it's a matter of freedom and making good choices. And one of the first requirements for making good decisions is good information. If teenagers don't *know* about sex, then how can they make a good decision as to when they're ready or how to protect themselves if and when they take that step? Liberals also believe that people are basically good and that morality in daily life is complicated.
So, like I said, a more interesting book than I expected. *grin* I think I understand the different positions better, and I'm sure I have more charity for the positions I don't agree with.
Well-balanced analysis granting all the different sides in the debate legitimacy. I mean by the time I finished the book I could understand, even if I didn't agree with, the ones arguing against any sex-ed, limited sex-ed, and comprehensive sex-ed.
I think Luker makes a very good case that part of the reason the battles get so heated with such little agreement is that the sides are actually arguing about different things and from very different philosophies.
For sexual conservatives it's a matter of parental authority and a resistance to someone else (teachers, the school board, etc) meddling in their parent-child relationship. The sexual conservatives resent someone else dictating the amount and type of information, the manner, and the timing of its delivery. They also believe that humans are naturally inclined to do immoral things and require a strong moral code imposed by society to prevent individuals from acting immorally. (So there needs to be lots of very strong, very clear "thou shalt not"s.)
For sexual liberals it's a matter of freedom and making good choices. And one of the first requirements for making good decisions is good information. If teenagers don't *know* about sex, then how can they make a good decision as to when they're ready or how to protect themselves if and when they take that step? Liberals also believe that people are basically good and that morality in daily life is complicated.
So, like I said, a more interesting book than I expected. *grin* I think I understand the different positions better, and I'm sure I have more charity for the positions I don't agree with.
October 28, 2011
Interesting history overview and anecdata, though her conclusions were really surprising. I was really confused when she said that European countries like Sweden and France might someday look to America's sex education model as the standard, especially after going over how secular they were earlier in the same chapter - even with immigrants bringing more "traditional" values to the table, the terrains are very different. Also, it seemed that the page time between those who opposed comprehensive sex ed. vs. those who didn't support sex ed/only supported abstinence-only was wildly imbalanced in favor of the latter.
October 2, 2007
hmmm.
Kristin Luker gave a talk in the east bay last friday, and I really wanted to ask her some questions about this book. (but not enough to pay $65 to get in).
Overall, this book does things I think are important. It humanizes both sides of the abstinence only vs. comprehensive sex ed debate, explaining the thought process and value systems behind each side.
The comprehensive sex ed side (in my opinion) was not as well explained, but maybe that's just because it's the side I know more about. I would love to discuss this with anyone who's read it.
Kristin Luker gave a talk in the east bay last friday, and I really wanted to ask her some questions about this book. (but not enough to pay $65 to get in).
Overall, this book does things I think are important. It humanizes both sides of the abstinence only vs. comprehensive sex ed debate, explaining the thought process and value systems behind each side.
The comprehensive sex ed side (in my opinion) was not as well explained, but maybe that's just because it's the side I know more about. I would love to discuss this with anyone who's read it.
July 9, 2007
What an interesting look into the reason we are the way we are. Throughout the entire book you will find yourself comparing your views and values to those of the authors and the interviewees. This book outlines the two sexual education movement in the US and how they affect one's belief system.
This review does not give justice to the depth that Luker goes to to uncover the controvercies of sexaul education.
This review does not give justice to the depth that Luker goes to to uncover the controvercies of sexaul education.
August 15, 2008
This book really impressed me because it looks into the root causes of peoples' differing viewpoints rather than being about actual battles over sex education in school. She sees peoples' true division as being over things such as the security a hierarchy provides versus the choices that equality opens up. Very interesting and highly recommended. Even the footnotes provide interesting theories.
August 1, 2012
This book does an excellent job laying out the various facets of the sex education debate. I appreciate the author's concluding message that being open and honest with our children in discussing the debate itself as well as the history of sexual revolution in the United States may be one of the best ways to educate them about sex.
August 4, 2014
Awesome book, but not so much about sex education as about conservative and liberal views on sex and the historical background behind them. Luker is unbiased and leaves the reader of a better understanding of both sides of the issue. Overall, an insightful book for any American to read.
July 15, 2007
The beginning of this book is interesting, but it starts to get old after the first few chapters. It would have been better as an article rather than an entire book.
Read
November 9, 2012Not too far in yet, but it is an interesting look at the history of the sex ed conversation in America
February 19, 2008
I did some research for Kristin Luker while I was at Berkeley. Very interesting for anyone interested in the subject.
March 25, 2008
I had to return this book before I read the whole thing, but I really enjoyed what I did read. Something I will read again so I can retain more than what I already did.
Read
November 4, 2012i don't have an idea
January 25, 2015
This is the book we used as our textbook for Sociology of Sexuality. It really was not a bad read and it didn't have the textbook feel to it. It told a story.
April 17, 2016
Great. Book
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews