Today Mon Tue
It is forcast to be Chance of Snow at 10:00 PM EST on February 12, 2012
Chance of Snow
-1°/-4°
It is forcast to be Clear at 10:00 PM EST on February 13, 2012
Clear
3°/-3°
It is forcast to be Chance of Snow at 10:00 PM EST on February 14, 2012
Chance of Snow
6°/0°

45 Comments

news

We Don’t Need No Sex Education

20080911sexed2.jpg
Photo by cl-s from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.
Sex was perhaps best summed-up by Sarah Michelle Gellar in the timeless cinematic touchstone Cruel Intentions when her character explains to Selma Blair’s that “everybody does it, it’s just that nobody talks about it.” Here to remedy that very problem is the University of Toronto’s own Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity, now the first institution in Canada to offer a graduate program in Sexual Diversity Studies.


The advent of a program like this a big deal, and the news has certainly been making headlines. The Globe and Mail, for instance, had a particularly choice one: “A PhD in Putting Out.” While the article itself (sorry, but you do have to pay five bucks if you want to read it) is for the most part well-written and thoughtful, the editor who wrote that headline added a certain tone of disrespect to the piece—a tone readily picked up on by internet commenters, whose mostly-critical responses on the semi-moderated board tended to consist of typical anti-academic bitching about wasted taxpayer dollars, useless degrees, and some pretty grade school-appropriate jokes about “oral examinations.”
Scott Rayter, acting director for the program, told us he liked the article, but agreed that the headline was slightly problematic. “It seems to make light of the work we do and feeds the kinds of criticism one saw on-line,” he said. “My sense of the criticism about the article is that it needs to be broken down. Some was just blatant homophobia, others talked about programs like this, saying they were just as useless as those about Equity or Women’s Studies.” And what about the other comments? Is it true that a Master’s in Sexual Diversity Studies is a “useless degree”? Says Rayter:

First off, respondents like this don’t see any value in learning for the sake of learning, about those who want to know about history, anthropology, sociology, who we are, where we’ve come from, how and why we do the things we do, and how art and culture are ways of addressing these kinds of questions. They fail to see that knowledge for its own sake is a worthy pursuit, and in that quest, one also acquires skills that are necessary and useful to any future employment, e.g., critical thinking, writing, and synthesizing, processing, and communicating ideas and information, to those who both share the same discourse, and to those who do not. Students of English literature and philosophy, for example, tend to do fairly well and have an advantage in writing the LSAT and getting into Law School. They acquired the tools—and have become experts—by taking courses such as ours. The other issue—again a conservative one—tends to be that education should be purely utilitarian, which leads one to ask why have universities at all, and not simply training colleges? I’ve outlined above what students get from a general BA, but would also ask, following this kind of reasoning, why watch TV, go to movies, read books, attend a play, socialize, etc? Is everything in life supposed to help you in your job? The argument strikes me as reductive & ridiculous.

Now there’s an encouraging thought for those of us who really enjoyed our Joint Specialists in English and Drama but noticed potential employers hadn’t exactly been banging down our doors. But what about the accusations of wanton hedonism? The suggestion that students will do little more “research” than watching lots of porn?

Some email responses see studying sex as simply watching porn, or engaging in various sexual practices, whereas this is obviously a misguided and limited idea of what we do here. That said, given the billions of dollars invested in pornography—indeed technological advancement in DVD culture, for example, has been driven by the porn industry—seems an important area of inquiry. Much online technology has been developed with pornography and its dissemination in mind. To take it further, how, one might ask, has porn changed the way we have come to think and feel about sex, our bodies and those of our partners? At no other time in history has our sense of sexuality (and sex, and sexual identity) been so mediated by technology and visual imagery… What do people learn about sex and about themselves when they encounter and/or watch the porn that is so readily available? What do they learn about gender, about race? Class?

All new disciplines of study receive criticism when they first get added to university course calendars—it’s practically a rite of passage. But it’s upsetting to see so many close-minded responses to a university program that is arguably one of the most relevant to every person on the planet. Sex is the reason we were all born. Sex is the reason many of us will die. Most of us have sex. All of us, whether we want to admit it or not, have a sexuality. The real question people should be asking about the concept of Sexual Diversity Studies is not “why?” but “what took so long?” And maybe “why do you have to wait until university to take it?” And that’s a question the graduate students of this program just might be able to answer. One of the 12 students enrolled in the program’s inaugural year is writing her thesis on revamping our somewhat-pathetic public school sex ed curriculum. Here’s to a new generation of tolerant, educated and sex-savvy teens. May they roll their eyes at Cruel Intentions.

Comments

  • PickleToes

    While I don’t see any problem with programs like these, they get really annoying when someone starts discussing how some token sexual minority is so “disadvantaged” or “oppressed”. The whole thing turns into a Marxist love affair that really turns those right of the centre off.

  • Gloria

    Good post. Related to the topic of the virtues of learning, knowledge, and arts, one might look at the article published a short while ago by the Star on this year’s top high school grads in the GTA, and the comments. Plenty of people still believe that the humanities are a completely useless pursuit, and that life is only worth “improving” upon materially, not studying and understanding.

  • wanderoo

    Pickletoes, you use the epithet “Marxist” to describe the act of questioning why people treat each other the way they do. If discussion of advantage versus disadvantage or oppressors versus the oppressed is Marxist, then Aristotle was a total Marxist.
    Are you really philosophy student?

  • Gauldar

    “The whole thing turns into a Marxist love affair that really turns those right of the centre off.”
    I seriously don’t know what the problem is. Whats not to love about Groucho Marx? You all offended about his phallic shaped cigar?

  • wardnikoff

    Pickletoes paranoia of Marxist oppression has finally become a self-fufilled prophacy.
    “While I don’t see any problem with programs like these, they get really annoying ..” – he doesnt even agee with himself anymore…

  • Johnnie Walker

    I’m not going to take the bait and get drawn into a conversation about “sexual minorities.” The program is called Sexual Diversity Studies: that means everyone. Minorities, majorities, gay, straight, kinky, vanilla, porn stars and nuns. Even Conservatives.

  • PickleToes

    wardnikoff: Congratulations on taking me out of context.

  • accozzaglia

    PickleToes, stick it. Unless you’ve been there, then crack open an ice cold, refreshing can of STFU™ and chug it to quench your loud thirst.
    Johnnie Walker: you got it, yo.
    [And, uh, Marx has nothing practical to do with sexual diversity studies. Seriously. Try Foucault and power relations instead. Hell, I'd even throw Baudrillard's Simulation & Simulacrum in there for good measure. Go read a little, you aspiring philosopher.]

  • PickleToes

    accozzaglia: I’m definitely no expert in Sexuality and Gender studies, but I do have some experience with a few of the philosophers in that area. Of course I know that Marx did not write about sexual diversity studies. But that’s not what I wrote. What I meant is that the Marxist method is often adapted and applied by intellectuals who write about this topic. Beauvoir’s “Second Sex”, among other works, is a good example of that; sometimes she even explicitly refers to Marx. Whether correct or not, any talk or reference about that man, if even just implicit, tends to turn capitalists off.
    Again, I think I’ll mention how much I miss the old accozzaglia. You’re obviously a smart person, but amongst all the insults it can sometimes be hard to harvest the high quality points from all the venomous garbage you’ve been spewing lately. I would think that such an intelligent university educated individual such as yourself would be able to write persuasively without the aid of insults.

  • accozzaglia

    No sweetheart, I’m the same I was a few weeks ago. What changed for you is that I simply lost my patience with your naïve, trollish petulance and penchant for commenting like Torontoist is a bee hive in need of a good, unfocussed swatting. You’re not even a talented troll. That’s what makes it annoying.

  • PickleToes

    accozzaglia: I’m not a troll, but if I was I think I’d be a pretty good one. I seem to get people pretty riled up. Anyway, its unfortunate you see me that way. I don’t care if you disagree with me but maybe you should be a little more tactful, or you’ll begin to fit the definition of troll even better than I apparently to.
    Johnnie Walker: I wasn’t trying to criticize the morality of atypical genders or sexualities. I was just describing how academic discussions of sexuality as a whole tend to alienate those on the right. I hope you understand that.

  • accozzaglia

    And in your alienated “right”, whither do conservative queers fit in your unresearched reasoning? Do they not exist to you?

  • PickleToes

    Conservatism is more ideologically diverse than the outcry of right-wing Christians would have you believe. A great many who call themselves conservatives believe in social liberty. There’s room for the LGBTQ community if they don’t unjustly form a stereotype of the entire right wing based upon a few of its moral crusaders.

  • accozzaglia

    Amazing reasoning. Try applying it to other wings of the bird. You’ll fly far.

  • PickleToes

    Am I being naïve again?

  • antiboy

    The saddest thing is that you can’t even call people like PickleToes “trolls” anymore. They’re just plain ol’ cantankerous jerks that unfortunately learned how to use the internet.

  • PickleToes

    antiboy: I’m a jerk because I disagree? Perhaps you’re the cantankerous one.

  • Gauldar

    Antiboy, now that is going too far. I consider myself an online cantankerous jerk, and I am appalled with this association with PickleToes. He is not being a jerk, he is just a victim. A victim to all of us “Marxist-Pinko-Commie-Leftist-Secular Humanist-Judy-Kathy-Horny-Etc” Liberals and he is crying out in order to save us with his ways. Why else would he constantly post on a clearly “left-leaning” site? He needs to be the minority so he can show us how “disadvantaged” or “oppressed” he really is.

  • bbpsi

    PickleToes has already demonstrated in other threads that he doesn’t like the homos. Or at least, we’re okay, as long as we sit down, shut up and don’t do anything that might make people realize we’re gay.

  • PickleToes

    bbpsi: Thank you, but I think I’ll speak for myself.

  • rek

    He’s a troll, what’s to discuss? No matter the topic he lays out bait by accusing someone of being a Communist or Marxist; every contribution of his takes potshots at his socialist strawmen, rinse and repeat in the next thread.

  • Johnnie Walker

    At first, it seems exciting when one of your posts is heavily commented on. Until you realize the majority of those comments are part of a completely off-topic character study of that angry little apple from Innisfil. It’s against my better judgment to leave any more comments on this post at all, but in an attempt to steer this discussion back toward the actual topic, I’m gonna respond to the last thing PickleToes said to me.
    “Johnnie Walker: I wasn’t trying to criticize the morality of atypical genders or sexualities. I was just describing how academic discussions of sexuality as a whole tend to alienate those on the right. I hope you understand that.”
    Again, I’m not interested in taking the bait. When did anyone, you or I, use the word “morality”? All I was attempting to do was help you overcome the common misconception that Sexual Diversity Studies means “Gay People Studies” or “Sodomite Communist Studies” or whatever “People Who Definitely Are Not Me Studies” you have assumed it to be. Its students study all kinds of human sexuality, without exception, so unless you do not consider yourself to be human, this includes yours, PickleToes.
    As to your explanation that “academic discussions of sexuality as a whole tend to alienate those on the right,” all I can say is that I’m terribly sorry if the University of Toronto has upset your delicate sensibilities. Discussions of sex in a university classroom? How uncouth! Let’s ban the department, and while we’re at it, let’s get rid of med school too, the sight of blood makes me terribly squeamish!
    Grow up, PickleToes. If you think this program alienates you, how about you protest by not enrolling in it? Although, maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea for you to consider auditing one of the introductory undergraduate courses they offer. I have a feeling there’s a lot you could learn.

  • PickleToes

    Johnnie: Everybody assumes that just because I’m a conservative I hate the LGBTQ community. So I thought you assumed I was trying to turn this article into a forum where I could rant against LGBTQs. That’s what spurred me to qualify myself and explictly state the meaning behind my posts; and so I used the word “morality”. You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill, I was merely outlining what I wasn’t trying to say with my comments. Has it sunk in yet?
    All I was attempting to do was help you overcome the common misconception that Sexual Diversity Studies means “Gay People Studies” or “Sodomite Communist Studies” or whatever “People Who Definitely Are Not Me Studies” you have assumed it to be. Its students study all kinds of human sexuality, without exception, so unless you do not consider yourself to be human, this includes yours, PickleToes.
    While I never tried to define Sexual Diversity Studies I don’t have much experience with that subject so thank you for fleshing out its contents for me. As far as I can tell this area of study includes the kind of thought I described but as per your comment it obviously has a much wider scope than what you assumed I thought it had.
    As to your explanation that “academic discussions of sexuality as a whole tend to alienate those on the right,” all I can say is that I’m terribly sorry if the University of Toronto has upset your delicate sensibilities. Discussions of sex in a university classroom? How uncouth! Let’s ban the department, and while we’re at it, let’s get rid of med school too, the sight of blood makes me terribly squeamish!
    It’s obvious that you find my opinions to be reprehensible so I’ll assume good faith and that instead of purposely misrepresenting my arguments you just failed to properly read them. I have no issue with the subject matter of this program. Sex and sexuality is something that definitely should be an object of study in academia. However, the methods and portrayals used to analyze it can sometimes alienate conservatives. There you go, I even typed in bold lettering so you can acutally read my point this time. You can thank me later.
    Grow up, PickleToes. If you think this program alienates you, how about you protest by not enrolling in it? Although, maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea for you to consider auditing one of the introductory undergraduate courses they offer. I have a feeling there’s a lot you could learn.
    I said that it could alienate conservatives. That doesn’t mean it alienates this one. Please stop stereotyping us. Just as there is ideological diversity on the left, so is there some on the right as well. As for your suggestion, I’m trying to increase my knowledge of sexuality and gender through my course selections this year. No doubt I will learn something.

  • Gauldar

    How does it alienate conservatives? Just curious if it has to do with the whole family values mind set and the requirements of a heterosexual man and woman to actual be a legit one?

  • accozzaglia

    The “stereotyping” was raised in comment #1 of this thread. Turns out that first comment was written by the very person now crying about stereotypes. Endgame.

  • PickleToes

    I didn’t say that Gender and Sexuality studies was entirely focused upon LGBTQs, although it does inevitably represent at least part of the subject matter. I wasn’t stereotyping the discipline, but merely discussing one particular aspect.
    But if you were talking about my assertion that those who aren’t heterosexual constitute a minority, then I stand by that opinion. I have no idea how many people are LGBTQ and how many are heterosexual, but even if heterosexuals make up less than half the total population then surely LGBTQs are minorities at least in practice. I speak with regards to a society that doesn’t seem to accommodate them, with examples ranging from bathrooms to their portrayal in the media. Thus, I consider them to be a minority even if they form a majority of the population.
    Uh oh, I’m starting to sound like a pinko…

  • Gauldar

    What does being a “Pinko” have anything to do with that statement? I can’t seem to see any connection. Just because you have an opinion that isn’t centered on yourself doesn’t make you a Pinko. You should really look into that aspect of the need to throw labels on people to objectify them and prevent yourself with connecting with other people. I recommend group therapy.

  • PickleToes

    Gauldar: It was just a joke based upon rek’s earlier post.

  • accozzaglia

    I don’t find it peculiar how those Torontoist threads which address stories or issues with even the slightest echo (historic or contemporary) of being a hot-button topic end up being all about PickleToes, PickleToes, and a kid from Innisfil with a grumpy red delicious disgusting apple avatar and studying philosophy at the UofT who behaves as if the world is a big bi-polar soirée: left and right and nothing else.

  • Gauldar

    I liked Selma Blair in Hellboy & Hellboy 2.

  • David Topping

    @accozzaglia: comment threads like these would not go the way this one did if the people who find PickleToes and his ideas so reprehensible simply didn’t bother addressing him or them.

  • PickleToes

    The funny thing is that I didn’t describe my ideas. I merely described the opinions of others. How many times do I have to repeat myself. Wow!

  • Gauldar

    While I don’t see any problem with programs like these, they get really annoying when someone starts discussing how some token sexual minority is so “disadvantaged” or “oppressed”. The whole thing turns into a Marxist love affair that really turns those right of the centre off.
    Really? Then who’s opinion is that?

  • accozzaglia

    His ideas aren’t reprehensible, David. His evident naïveté, coupled with an arrogance to hesitate to listen and learn from others — or just ask inquisitive questions to understand that which is unfamiliar (even if or when he has no reason to agree with those responses) — is the crux of the obstacle here.
    His ideas, when expressed from his own perspective — and not regurgitating autopiloted dogma easily found by turning to FOX News, The Toronto Sun, and the like — is something that I welcome. PickleToes has expressed glimmers of this on a handful of instances. The rule, however, overwhelms these illuminating exceptions. Of course I (and other readers) might not see eye-to-eye with his original ideas, but just to see those glimmers in him is refreshing and welcome. Indeed, it’s welcome with anyone out there.
    By contrast, the rehashing and regurgitation of that naïve behaviour just tries people’s patience and fails to introduce a bona fide discussion. Yanno?

  • andrew

    I’m not clear on why there’s a need to study sexual diversity apart from researching sexuality…is whatever department that previously studied how people got it on, why they got it on, how they used technology to get it on, whether the phrase “get it on” pisses them off when used to describe the academy’s study of getting it on, and with whom they got it on, now defunct? Was it so moribund that there was no point in reforming it? Is it cheaper and easier to begin a new department?
    I am all for it. Great. Talk about sex, baby. I’m just interested in the logistics.

  • accozzaglia

    @andrew: Perhaps I’m way off on this, but my understanding of SDS versus sexuality (as a discipline) is drawn along the following: sexuality may dominantly examine science areas such as biology and psychology, whereas SDS as an interdisciplinary programme broadens the scope along a social science foundation of culture, communication theory, intersections with ethnicity and belief systems, culture overall, articulations and sociological concerns, and the like.

  • PickleToes

    Gauldar: Yes, I do find it annoying because alienates such a large portion of the population from the discussion.

  • Johnnie Walker

    Interesting question, Andrew! Thrilled to be back on topic. Accozzaglia definitely has the right idea. Sexology, as it is sometimes called, is the science side of sexuality, which comes up in biology, psychology, anthropology, criminology, etc. SDS is, as Accozzaglia implies, more of a humanities-based discipline. Although it definitely does also involve the science of sex, the study tends to focus on the cultural/historical implications of sex and sexuality, representations in various art forms, etc.
    The only false assumption either of you have made is the notion that UofT must have already had Department of Sexuality… it didn’t. As I said in the post, the SDS grad program at UofT is the first of it’s kind in the country, and their undergrad program has only been around since 1998. The fact is, Universities can be very stuffy places, and new disciplines sometimes take a long time to become integrated into the school system. Right now, only a handful of schools in North America (there are maybe 5 in the States) offer an undergraduate major in SDS or a similar program. Now, there are other departments at UofT with some overlap. The Institute for Women and Gender Studies, for instance, has been around in some form or another since the 1970s, and is currently in the process of creating its own graduate program.
    It would be disingenuous to say that SDS doesn’t have roots in the queer rights movement; it unabashedly does. Similar programs at other schools sometimes go by names like Queer Studies, LGBTQ Studies, Gay & Lesbian Studies (and occasionally the more inclusive Human Sexuality Studies). So yes, queer identity is a big part of the program, and many of the students and profs in these kinds of programs are going to be queer-identified. But calling the program Sexual Diversity Studies instead of Queer Studies is a specific choice and is meant to communicate inclusiveness, and indeed plain old heterosexuality is an important point of discussion for SDS.
    So, to get back to your question, Andrew, why SDS instead of just Sexuality Studies? Well, one reason is that the gays got around to starting the discipline before the straights did. But beyond that, is there a necessity to have queer-focused courses, say, as opposed to more general sexuality courses that apply to everyone? Do these sorts of courses “alienate,” as some people seem to be fond of saying, people whose sexuality they do not represent? I would argue that they do not, but I don’t actually believe it’s a fair question. Is it the University’s job to create programs and courses that study discipline that directly apply to every student’s life? Is it even possible? We have Carribean Studies, and yet not everyone is Caribbean. We have East Asian Studies, and yet not everyone is East Asian. In this day and age, the queer community has developed a history, culture, a canon of films, literature and visual arts and many ways can be studies in a similar manner to a group of people connected by religion or nationality. Queer culture is as worthy a topic of scholarly attention as any other. SDS just happens to one-up that by widening the focus to include all forms of sexuality, so it is, as I said in my post, relevant to every person on the planet, whether they want it to be or not.
    Sorry if that was a bit long-winded, but I hope it sheds a bit of light on the topic.

  • Gauldar

    Again, I ask, HOW? Sure, it’s great that your taking part in the discussion, but can you actually give some points? You do understand how discussion works, it goes both ways.

  • PickleToes

    Gauldar: Remember that I brought up the example of Beauvoir’s “Second Sex”? There are others, but this is a piece of literature which I’ve been examining lately so its fresh in my memory. Well a reading of that yields many references to Marx and words like “bourgeois”. It doesn’t seem like a big deal to you and me, because it really isn’t, but there are a lot of conservatives that would choose to ignore this material immediately upon seeing it. I only mention it because language can discourage and isolate people from discussions which would benefit from being as inclusive as possible. Indubitably those offended conservatives would have a lot to learn from the conversation, and maybe they could even contribute some knowledge of their own. Basically all I mean is that a sizable portion of committed members of the right-wing don’t pay much attention to works that quote so-called “liberal thinkers”; and this could have an adverse affect on any SDS conversations that quote these authors.
    I know I haven’t exactly worded my comments diplomatically but I think that what I’m saying is pretty simple and obvious.

  • accozzaglia

    When someone declares an abstract concept to be “simple”, it’s typically anything but. And were it “obvious”, then there really wouldn’t be a need to open disciplines on the academic oeuvres.

  • Gauldar

    So you mean to say that all this time it’s just been an argument about semantics and a particular writer not so much the topic? I guess I just brushed by the comment you made earilier and thought nothing of it because it didn’t seem of any signifigance; if I had read that sentence I would have probibly rolled my eyes, but to be offended takes some serious ridgidness. People have a right to be offended, but it’s their own eyes and ears they are covering. I don’t know if you have read anything about Christopher Hitchens but he is against censorship of any kind. If someone has an opinion about the most disgusting, repulstive, and hatefull mindset, by squelching that person to the point where they have no right to speak, we deprive ourselves from learning something. It may be flat out wrong what that person is saying, but we should not fool ourselves into the idea that is doesn’t exist and deny others the same rights we enjoy.

  • andrew

    Hm. I think the Univeristy should have just cracked down on whatever Department/Faculty had the study of sexuality mostly under their purview, and said “look, widen your field or we’ll start a new department and give them all the sexy funding and letterhead.” Or maybe that’s what happened, and some stuffy greybeard thought the Admin was bluffing.
    I am irritated by “new” departments, Ministries, Faculties, products, and all things that could have been simpler had the original thing [the "old" thing] been modified. Cheaper. Easier. Faster. Stronger, better, daft punkier.

  • Gauldar

    I guess educational departments don’t agree with each other. Peeps gota stick to their own dawg. If educational spending was done properly it wouldn’t be so damn expensive.

  • accozzaglia

    andrew, without meaning to sound like a tired adage, the only constant in life is change.
    Gauldar: education costs are indexed as a commodity to the value a degree commands in the professional milieu. Once upon a time, one could conceivably advance with on-the-job, ground-up experience and/or a storied portfolio — in lieu of a university degree. This is no longer the case. Now, the new bachelor’s degree is the master’s degree, ideally in a professional/business stream. :/