THE VIEW FROM RIZAL
There is an ongoing public debate concerning bills passed in both houses of Congress regarding so-called “comprehensive sexuality education” (CSE). The discussion is healthy, even if it seems contentious and bitter at times.
We would have chosen to watch the debate unfold from the sidelines. “Kibitzing” is what many of us resort to when the subject matter of the public discussion is novel but not directly relevant to us. We feel, however, that we must all join the public discussion on this particular issue since it concerns our children. When our children’s welfare and well-being are involved, the country’s future is involved, too. This is especially true in our case since we are a father of two lovely daughters who are on the threshold of adulthood. We cannot afford to be indifferent.
We believe that the pending bills would not have been as controversial as they are now if the subject of the proposed legislation had stuck to the use of more familiar terms: “reproductive health” and “teen pregnancy.” These are concerns that the state, through legislation, should address and directly intervene in. When our people’s reproductive health is placed in jeopardy, that affects our nation’s interests — our collective economic productivity, our government’s expenditures on eradicating related diseases, and the like.
The same is true with “teen pregnancy.” We support the plans of some of our legislators to allocate public funds for education and other interventions in order to curb what is claimed to be an alarming increase in the number of teen pregnancies in the country. This is also a matter of national interest. This issue has to do with the overall quality of our population which, in turn, affects our life as a nation.
We are grateful for our legislators’ initiative to address these concerns.
What appears to worry many is the use of the term “comprehensive sexuality education.”
The proposed bill now pending in the Senate defines the term as “the process of acquiring complete, medically-accurate, relevant, age and development-appropriate, and culturally-sensitive information and skills on all matters relating to the reproductive system, its functions and processes, human sexuality and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy, and gender roles.”
“Sexuality” is a clearly defined term and refers to the “human capacity for sexual feelings.”
This is not to be confused with “sensuality,” which refers to the pursuit of physical, sexual pleasure.
A cursory reading of the Senate version of the bill shows that the State does not appear to be arrogating unto itself the total responsibility of forming our children’s understanding of sexuality. It appears to be expressing the concern that insufficient efforts to educate our children on this subject may be leading to unwanted teenage pregnancies, physical and sexual abuse, and violence.
We also noted that the Senate bill is a call to multisector collaboration. This is an important feature. While the authors may not have said it directly, educating our children in all aspects of life is a collaborative effort. As the saying goes, “It takes a village to raise a child.”
There is an aspect of “sexuality” that the proposed legislation does not touch upon. This is the matter of “teaching our children how to love.” Our view is that the true, authentic, and holistic approach to the topic of sex and human reproduction is to teach it from the perspective of “love.” While “sex” and “reproductive health” may be taught in classrooms and other learning venues, love is a subject that is best taught at home.
If there is to be a “curriculum” on “love” that our children can be taught, we hope it would include the following: loving oneself and having a firm foundation of self-respect; forming one’s values and principles which are based on one’s perceived mission in life; developing the ability to make clear and wise choices, including the choice of our children on who they would want to be intimate with after marriage; and, the concepts of commitment, accountability, and mutual responsibility involved in intimate relationships.
In that “curriculum” on “love” we would add the teaching of ways to resolve conflict, deal with chaotic emotions like jealousy, and develop the ability to listen and understand.
Studies done here and abroad show that most of us learn about “sex” not from the classroom but from friends. We did not learn about it from lectures. We learned about it from boisterous playground and locker room conversations, from magazines we hid under our pillows and stuck inside our notebooks, and from perilous experimentations.
If the preferred source of “sex education” is “friends,” then we believe our children must find that same friendship at home and with their parents. With friends, we can have frank, open, no-holds-barred discussions about sensitive topics. If our children see us as friends, we can also do that with parents.
In contrast, we did not learn how to love from our peers. We learned that from our parents—not through lectures but by “modeling.” They showed us how and allowed us to see both the joys and the pains of love. That was how we understood that human reproduction and the sexual processes that accompany it are but a mere component of a more important expression of our being human called love.
The teaching of love to our children cannot be aided by legislation. It is a responsibility that parents and the family must exercise.
It is a responsibility we cannot fail to perform.
(The author is the mayor of Antipolo City, former Rizal governor, DENR assistant secretary and LLDA general manager. Email: [email protected])