1 month ago
19
There is a video going around decrying the comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) provision of a proposed law that addresses our high rates of teenage pregnancy. The video, featuring several talking heads mostly from Christian organizations, is full of errors and disinformation.
It also ascribes so much ill-intent to the proponents of CSE. I tried to think about a term that could be used for ascribing bad motives to people who have none, and I decided that “conspiracy theorists” or “paranoia” were too extreme. I did not want to fall into the trap of extremist descriptions that is in that video. They may not have raised their voices but I hope to show that they were nonetheless cynical and extremist.
Let us begin with disinformation.
Former chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, chair of a coalition behind Project Dalisay, starts the video by referring to CSE programs being primarily promoted by UNESCO, UNFPA and the UNICEF. They then proceed to cite (cherry pick, as I will prove shortly) some document on CSE standards. I looked in the UNESCO, UNFPA, and UNICEF standards and could not find the document cited. Someone kindly sent me the document cited but not properly referenced in the video.
The document is one released by the WHO Regional Office for Europe and BZgA entitled “Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe: A framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists.”
Standards for Europe
At this point I can actually end my argument. The video misinforms because it does not allow the viewer to read the document being criticized and judge for themselves.
For one thing the mere title makes clear that the standards being set are for Europe. Those who wish to access the document will notice that it is a long report, that talks about age-appropriate and culturally sensitive standards for Europe. Any thinking person would realize it is not a program being pushed for the Philippines.
Let us also talk about the difference between former CJ Sereno’s use of the word “program” as opposed to the correct word “standards.” I have no idea how lawyers understand “standards” as opposed to “programs.” In the health professions “standards” are never imposed. They are seen more as guidelines or suggestions.
Across the literature on CSE, such standards are to be framed with the words “age-appropriate” and “culturally-appropriate” in mind. So, does this document they are all agog about, impose these standards on the Philippines? Read the title again please, it says “for Europe”.
If the European Regional Office of the WHO and The Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA), state that their CSE standards should be age-appropriate and culturally-appropriate, will those standards and recommendations be a basis for criticizing what is to be taught in the Philippines? Of course not! The cynicism, both in their ascription of bad intent and the withholding of access to the document they are patent.
New definition of sexuality
Because what is pertinent for the Philippines in that document is the framework (note that this word is in the title again) that we are to apply to sexuality and sexual rights.
It is the 21st century, dear readers. In 2006 the WHO proposed a new definition of sexuality as being “a central aspect of being human throughout life” that includes so many factors including the “religious and spiritual.” The WHO definition and the European standards are clear: sexuality isn’t just about genital sexual relations. It is about our perceptions of our physical sense and our body, about warmth and intimacy, about relationships and about how these are shaped by our social world and other factors. These include factors stated in WHO’s definition of sexuality — “ biological, psychological, social, economic, political, cultural, legal, historical, religious and spiritual…”
From their reactions the people in the Project Dalisay video seemed shocked that there are standards from 0-4.
Their subsequent interpretations of those standards make me conclude that their definition of sexuality is old and outdated. It would seem that they believe sexuality is only about pleasures related to our genitals and specially related to intercourse. It would also seem that they do not accept that babies are capable of pleasures and intimacy.
Thus when Sereno says that the standards “hypersexualize” children, it is only true if your definition is the outdated one focused only on sexual (genital) pleasures.
The reason I advocated and fought for the 2006 WHO definition is that I agree that we need not hypersexualize pleasures. While I take a far more sex positive approach than the people in that video, I do think our culture and mental health is better served by placing equal emphasis on other aspect of pleasure like parenting, friendship, good health, solitude, communion, altruism and solidarity — all of which are also pleasures. And I can name a multitude of other pleasures — food which means food security for all, peace which means also the absence of domestic violence in the home, a place to rest which means also adequate housing for all.
This is the framework which my organization Likhaan brought to bear when we worked with educational experts across the Philippines, several of whom were from the Department of Education, when we produced our proposal for CSE in the Philippines in 2016. I suggest to the people behind the video that they criticize this document instead. The starting point is from Grade 3 and contains such sexual things as teaching children to guard against abuse and teaching them that bullying is wrong. I expect some will zero in again on those few standards that refer to body parts including the male and female sexual parts, missing the whole picture, because their eyes are… hypersexualized.
Hypersexualizing
Which brings me to the hypersexualized gaze the video brings to the European standards.
Indeed, early childhood masturbation is listed (on page 38) as something on which educators in that part of the world (as a Filipina I really don’t see why I should care) must give information. Now let’s make one thing clear, children this young (not all but in significant numbers) discover masturbation. Thus, educators and parents must have the skill to address the issue.
It does not mean, as Sereno implies, that educators must teach young children to masturbate. How would I give information as a parent or even a teacher? I would emphasize that there is nothing wrong with the pleasures felt by the body (gastronomic or genital) but that masturbation should be done in private.
I will say that some people think masturbation is sinful but that I disagree with this and I will then explain my reasons. I would also add that respect for religious opinion and diversity is important. All these by the way, including the call for respect, is in most standards.
Moving right along, the same errors can be seen in Malou Salumbides’ extremely brief mention of oral and anal sex. Sereno’s take on the section on “communication and negotiation” adds to my suspicion that her definition of sexuality is out of date, and that they did not bother to read the whole document that they are criticizing.
But even if we were to grant her argument that this is about sexual intercourse, negotiating sex is not transactional. Communication and negotiation are essential to avoiding misunderstandings that can lead to a whole lot of problems that include marital rape. Wives must be able to communicate and negotiate such matters with their husbands. Condom use among those who seek to avoid infections (such as in loving couples, one of whom may be HIV positive) or among sexually active teenagers, is also a matter of communication and negotiation.
Even having sex for the purposes of having a child is subject to negotiations as many couples will tell you — number, timing, economic viability, who might need to give up on career–all are negotiations when building a family. How Sereno comes to the conclusion that this section is about teaching children that “Kaya ko pala makakuha ng favors (if I say yes)…” is beyond me.
Seeing sex everywhere
And yet the errors continue.
Jerika Ejercito Aguilar asks how experiencing bodies and pleasures through the 5 senses can be done properly in a classroom setting. (This is the only time when local DepEd guidelines are highlighted, by the way. Why?)
Anyway, I remember when our teachers taught us the basic taste sensations of sweet, salty, sour and bitter felt on the tongue (I am old, umami wasn’t a thing yet). I remember being told about the smoothness of my skin, the villi on my tongue , the moistness of my eyes. Music appreciation essentially relies on the pleasure of our sense of hearing although the beat of drums has some effect on our skin receptors.
When the age is appropriate, we must teach about what the mucus discharge of the vagina means. If I am not mistaken the Church still prefers the rhythm method as a form of contraception. How does one learn this without knowing the sensation of vaginal mucus? Only if you conceive of pleasure as sexual and that sexual is negative or sinful can you not conceive of teaching children the pleasure of their bodies.
Please stop hypersexualizing CSE.
As for sexual rights, Aguilar objects that they be taught from age 6 to 9. Has she read what sexual rights includes? It includes things like the right to bodily integrity, the right to choose not to marry, the right to be free from sexual violence, the right to say no to sexual relations the right to be free from discrimination regardless of sex and gender identity. What is wrong with teaching these things to 6 to 9 olds?
The right to say yes
The right to say no to sexual relations cannot but imply the right to say, “yes.” Duh, it’s a right, not an imposition.
But the standards also give guidance about how to deal with these for 6 to 9 year olds. Here’s one of our proposed standards (see the hyperlink link to the Likhaan proposal above): “Identify negative consequences of having sexual relationships before one is physically and emotionally mature (page 24).” Also for this age group we recommend that we teach the responsibilities of marriage and family and point out that there are equally good ways of expressing warmth and intimacy without being sexual.
PTr Benjie Cruz in the video says that “our” children do not have the capacity to make the decision over the matters discussed in the CSE. I think again he means only the matter of sexual relations narrowly confined to sexual intercourse.
CSE standards equip children as early as possible to distinguish between good and bad touches and empower them to report abuse. I certainly trusted my children to decide whether touches by adults are good and bad and to tell me. The definition of sexuality use by Cruz is a different one used by the standards they are criticizing. There is also again a mistrust here.
With adequate information about how sexual debut is better postponed until one is physically and emotionally mature I will trust my children to say “no” even if I uphold the sexual right to say “yes” It is precisely our refusal to discuss these matters when children become aware of them that leads to all the bad consequences implied in the video.
Various studies
Malou Salumbides says CSE is not effective and that it is now being scaled back in other countries. Why, she asks, are we implementing something considered “trash” by other countries. She cites one study showing that CSE’s are not effective.
Let me cite a later and more comprehensive study showing that CSE works here. The article she cites by the way does not say anything about whether CSE’s are being scaled back. They are not. And let me remind her how science works. It is always easy to find a scientific finding that goes against the majority of findings. Most scientific research areas are like that. But the trick is to look at as many studies as you can and draw from these the conclusions supported by most of the data.
When scientific bodies like the WHO issues scientific guidelines a panel of experts from various regions and relevant disciplines is convened. They then do a comprehensive study of the scientific literature and then formulate the guidelines on the basis of the best available evidence. I teach my students that citing one study that goes against most data without at the very least saying that this is in fact the outlier study, is a form of disinformation.
Dr. Samuel Sumaong asks, why the rush to implement? What is the agenda? Why impose a Western set of standards?
The truth is CSE is in the RH Law, which came into effect in 2014 after the Supreme Court upheld it (including the CSE portions) as constitutional. Certainly, implementation now, a decade after, is no rush. The DepEd order cited in the video is from 2018. I can only say his definition of “rush” is different from mine. My sense is laws should be implemented with more alacrity in this country.
As for it being foreign, please see our proposed 2016 standards as mentioned above. As for the agenda? It is not merely to reduce teenage pregnancy but to deliver optimum reproductive and sexual health for all as a contribution to the well-being of women and their families. It is a way to achieve national development. That is what it says in the RH Law. If there is an agenda it is a pro-Filipino one that is enshrined in our laws.
Who is imposing on whom?
May I remind Sumaong that that law was debated for at least a decade. Debates that reached the general population. It garnered large majorities of support based on well-run surveys across all sectors including religious groups. Support was not just for the bill in general but even for specific provisions of the bill.
The arguments against CSE are long past. Thus when Sereno says parents were not consulted and faith communities were not consulted I wonder whether she was abroad during the decades of debate that led to the passage of the RH Bill. Merely as a heuristic, may I ask whose agenda it is to overturn the will of the people as expressed in a law that was advocated by so many sectors and eventually supported by the majority of our people?
Strangely despite referring to CSE as the trash of other nations and an imposition from outside the Philippines, the group refers to Singapore’s CSE. Their point is that CSE should not be integrated into the curriculum and be confined to one subject. Such an approach is not in line with the majority of the literature and expert recommendations.
What Singapore is implementing and what Project Dalisay is advocating is sex education and not comprehensive sexuality education. I hope that my continued explanation about how sexuality is defined, how it is to be taught and why it is in fact more respectful than the propositions of Sereno and her group is a good case for integration in several subjects. That is what our local experts also recommended when we proposed our 2016 guidelines.
Slur vs good civil servants
Speaking of local experts, my heart bleeds for our Department of Education personnel who have been designing, pre-testing and piloting CSE modules including getting feedback from parents, teachers and community leaders since 2018.
My understanding is that these modules are non-controversial and well-appreciated. To be accused of bad intent, malicious agendas, acceptance of Western standards and “trash,” immorality is patently unfair. I stand by our experts and the enlightened dedicated staff of our Department of Education!
My last objection is the wording by which CJ Sereno translates the access of sexually active teenagers to reproductive health services as proposed in the bill for the prevention of teenage pregnancy. Here is what she says, “Pag sexually active hindi na pwedeng sabihan ang parents.” The bill actually says that when a teen is sexually active, services can be given without seeking parental consent. The proper translation is “hindi na kailangan sabihan” rather than “hindi na pwede.”
In our clinics, we always try to work with the parents/family/partners whether our patients are minors or not. But there are instances when seeking parental consent causes delays that lead to bad outcomes. But this is my problem with the video. It is so extreme. Nothing is nuanced. Black and white. Good versus evil.
I am so disappointed to say the least. These are powerful and well-educated people who look like, from what I see of their houses, they are members of the elite. I also expect more from those who claim to be spiritual and religious leaders. I find their evocations of religious freedom problematic and their claim to representing Filipino morals an overreach. Many Christians do not agree with their ideas on sexuality. I am a Christian and do not agree with their propositions that community standards of morality are similar to what they claim in the video.
But unlike them I will not accuse those with whom I have severe disagreements of bad intent. But I believe they are wrong. So very wrong. – Rappler.com
Sylvia Estrada Claudio is a doctor of medicine who also has a PhD in psychology. She is Professor Emerita of the University of the Philippines, Diliman.
