When I was growing up, sex was everywhere in the household, except that the word ‘sex’ was never mentioned. Books about violent crimes against women were littered around the house and I read every one of them, thinking to some degree that I was reading – and learning – about sex. Living with a single mother who loved salacious stories about illicit affairs and rape but who at the same time warned my sister and myself against getting pregnant without telling us how meant that the voyage to sexual discovery was a lonely one.
Sadly, many other Malaysians are made to go ignorant about their bodies far into adulthood. Today’s article at the Nut Graph (generously excerpted below) reveals the sexual ignorance in Malaysia of both endemic and appalling proportions (a survey found that there are young adults who think that a woman can get pregnant just from sleeping in the same bed with a man) and asks why there is so much foot-dragging in implementing sex education in school.
Before we go to the excerpted article, I wish to ask you, dear readers, where did you get your sex education from? And whether it’s true that knowledge fuels curiosity even more?
Let’s talk about sex … and how ignorant our youth are about it.
Anyone remember the Malaysian science syllabus in secondary school? The chapter with diagrams of male and female genitalia, and little explanation about what to do with them? Perhaps you had a teacher who, with a deadpan face, stuck strictly to the scientific facts about the diagrams and said nothing else about hormones or feelings or sexual intercourse.
Perhaps no one, neither your parents nor teachers told you what sex is for, why people do it, how it is done, when you should have sex, who you should have it with, and the emotional and medical consequences.
Little wonder then that reports about incest and abandoned babies in school toilets or garbage dumpsites have been regular features in our newspapers. Heart-breaking too, are stories of young women who face arrest and prison simply because they “didn’t know what to do” with their dead newborn.
The Nut Graph is both intrigued and appalled by a 30 Aug 2009 New Straits Times report that cited surveys to demonstrate just how uneducated our youths are about sex.
In one survey, conducted by the National Population and Family Development Board, some of the things youths were clueless about were where a foetus develops, and what the male and female reproductive organs are.
In another survey, conducted by Universiti Malaya, there were youths who thought that a woman could get pregnant just by sharing a bed with a man.
At the same time, youths are found to be more sexually active than ever. So, if many youths are exploring something they have little knowledge about, not to mention the maturity to handle, we shouldn’t blame them if they don’t behave responsibly.
Malaysia is still ambivalent on having formal sex education in schools. Till today, there is no formal syllabus. Instead, it is incorporated into subjects like Moral Studies, Islamic Studies, and Biology, says the Education Ministry.
Past government attempts to introduce sex education in schools have seen much tip-toeing around the topic. The government chose to weave sex education into other subjects or tried to deal with it solely in the context of HIV/AIDS. Such measures are of course inadequate.
In the 1990s, there was even debate as to whether the term “sex education” should be used for fear of misunderstanding. The official term accepted then was “family health education”, underlying the patriarchal value that having sex is only for pro-creation and not for pleasure.
But sex education could be so much more than about reproducing to start a family or to stem a disease like HIV/AIDS. Teaching youngsters about sex should involve teaching them about self-respect, responsibility, choice and consequences. A girl must know she has the right to say “no” and a boy must know that girls are not sex objects. Comprehensive sex education could go beyond the scientific and medical facts to address other dimensions like gender equality and sexual diversity, morality, culture and human rights.
Because, beyond the headlines about baby-dumping are larger stakes if sex education is ignored. Our society is already grappling with rising crime, including domestic violence and sexual crimes. There is also rising healthcare costs to consider. Sexually transmitted diseases happen because people don’t know how to take precautions to protect themselves, resulting in additional burdens to the public health care system and a loss in working hours. There is also gender and sexual discrimination which can be addressed through sex education.
It’s hard to fathom just what the authorities are afraid of in the words “sex education” and in teaching the subject itself. Greater knowledge about sexuality does not automatically lead to higher incidences of teenage sex. Ignoring sex education does not mean youths will not have sex, either. The common parental wisdom when dealing with teens, that they’ll do anyway what you tell them not to, is worth remembering. That being the case, isn’t it better for youths to be equipped with knowledge?
Alicia Izharuddin 
I was raised in the US. Like you, sex was everywhere–books, magazines, television–but never mentioned at home. My mom gave me a book on sexual health when I was about 11 or 12. She encouraged no dialogue about what I had read. I came away understanding my body and its functioning, but I had no desire to have sex. That came later when I was about 16, but I waited until I was 20.
My high school didn’t teach sex education; it taught health and sexual health was included. There was a lot of attention paid to anatomy and functioning, puberty, and understanding prevention of STI’s. My education about sex didn’t make me want to have sex, it helped me understand sex. I wanted to have sex because of the feelings I had for another person.
What’s unfortunate for most youth in the US, identity, feelings/emotions, relationships, etc., are not taught. It wasn’t included in my high school class. I learned through a lot of trial and error.
So, I agree that youths should be equipped with comprehensive sexual health education. Knowledge helps with making more informed decisions about life and one’s future.
When I was 9, my friend told a joke: “What is the opposite of ‘near queen’?” I said, “far king.” “YOU SAID A BAD WORD!”
So I asked my dad, and he laughed, and said, very sensibly, “that is when the kuu-kuu-ciao is introduced to the poh-pot.”
“EW!” I said, and the only other time it came up was when I told it to another friend, with my dad present, too, and my dad laughed, “now her mom’s going to have a poor time explaining it to her.”
When I was 11, I started reading romance novels from Novel House. My brother and I took a few with us to a trip to the States to read on the plane. It was a bit of a competition, to see who could read faster. It was my informal introduction to sex. I had a lot of expectations of it then.
Much of these expectations were disabused when, while browsing around MPH, my brother, Dad and I came across Sex For Dummies. Dad read the bit about breasts and he laughed and said, “OK, we’re buying this, it’s very funny.”
Didn’t really fuel my curiousity, since I really wanted to Get It Done with One Special Person and was holding out for some guy in secondary school who I never even ended up talking to once. Oh high school crushes.
So yeah. This whole “if you tell them, they will get curious and want to do it” thing? I think it’s bunk. SURE, maybe the odd kid or two wants to really figure out the whole “is the vagina really moist” or “does the penis really spit upon orgasm” thing for themselves, but that’s probably not going to be everybody! XD
You ought to read the more thought provoking articles by this fella. There is one titled almost offensively “P.ki Mah” on his website which deals with the totally divergent perceptions and uses of words in contexts so diametrically opposed to each other.
Perhaps the best blogger aorund. Go navigate his site.
http://takemon.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/zorro-truly-unmasked/
My students are encouraged to read his writings. So too should you be.
AC
Alan,
I hope your students are not studying Gender Theory, because his writings on western feminism show plenty of ponderous nothings. When he comments in his highly intellectual tone about feminism as simply theories – out of touch with reality in his view – he is simply displaying his male privilege of denying the many hardships of the female experience. Feminist theories are there to make sense of the social and political structures that systematically put women at a disadvantage. For me, a fundamental understanding of feminism is important if one is attempting to intellectually engage with subjects like rape and colloquial terms for vagina. If you can’t get your feminism right, you can’t get the rest right.
I think he is an idiot.
Gopal Raj Kumar’s blog is ridiculous, so I hope Alan’s students aren’t paying money for this kind of advice. The Gopal Raj Kumar blog is very wordy, but it is just a veneer of learning; it is all words and no meaning. Students should read something with a little depth. “So too should you be.”
I don’t understand how an attack article on a personality has any bearing on this thread, apart from the fact that he may be peripherally linked to sex education (one peripheral mention in paragraph 15, and that’s it).
I don’t know who GRK is, but it’s readily apparently that he’s got incredible political bias; I don’t know if he’s designed to provoke thinking or outrage.
Yet again, I don’t understand how this fellow has anything to do with sex education.
And, in the other threads, feminism in general. It’s one guy slagging off another guy. What’s so important about that?
i guess my story is similar to yours in that i lived in a house with lots of older cousins who loved reading Mills & Boon. i was (and still am) curious but they always told me not to read their books as i was ‘too young’. despite my aunts’ warning i started reading M&Bs at a young age (11) and i did not understand what was happening during the sex scenes. i just read them understanding that these stuff were ‘bad’. furthermore i grew up in house with TV and i guess been around older women, everyone forgot i was in the room during sex scenes in movies. then i did not understand what the characters were doing and noone bothered to explain to me.
in the catholic boarding school i went to as a teenager, there were sex education classes once in a blue moon, usually when the teachers caught students fooling around beneath the stairs. once, evening classes were cancelled and we were segregated by sex with all the girls in a year going to an empty classroom with some female teachers and vice versa for the boys. all we were told was basically to be ‘good girls’ and remain virgins till we got married. a younger female teacher tried to talk about her experiences losing her virginity but was hastly silenced by an older middle-aged teacher.
another time, a student’s mother who was a doctor came to give us a talk/presentation about STDs and venereal diseases. this was in West Africa and even though we were taught in detail about sex, we were taught about AIDS and unwanted pregnancies, we did not know much about condoms though.
now as a 20 year old woman, i know a lot more about sex, i suppose the teachers back in Nigeria did what they had to do. the Nigerian attitude is disappointing though because though almost everyone is having sex, no one wants to talk about it. sorry for the long comment!
*we were taught in detail should be ‘we were not taught in detail’
perhaps the responses of Gareth and Cycads here reinforce the point I think Gopal is trying to make. There is no value in anything absolute especially if it is theoretical.
he may be ‘very wordy’ but thats better than the MTV type of one liners many write on blogs these days being smart.
he has raised many valid points and the fact of an imperialistic approach of western feminist theories is not something either of you have or can claim any moral or academic ascendency to, sufficient to condemn him in the fashion you have.
Your views in fact support the view that a failure or lack of understanding of certain critical concepts and values in non Anglo Celtic societies that go to the root of any criticsm of gender theory and feminism. Not enough of cross cultural references. Absolutist theories exactly in the mould of American and other Eurropean colonial mindsets.
The referencce to his being an idiot can be countered with reminding Cycad that perhaps Borat was right. Squirrel brain!
Alan,
Wow, Gareth and I don’t have any moral or academic ascendency to critique his writings. Cool. I suppose we just need to be as uncritically agreeable and as pompous as you are to have this kind of ascendency like you.
Gopal Raj Kumar writes about culture and the polarity of cultures in an outdated and pompous fashion. While cultural imperialism still persists, cultural theories that are affected by migration and social mobility, among other things, are constantly being developed to reflect the world we live in today. Culture, in its broadest sense, exists in a continuum. Not as plain and simple as West vs East as Gopal purports. And similarly, to have good ideas and to transmit them cannot be reduced to the framework of MTV vs. wordiness.
Alan,
I am an academic in Gender Studies at SOAS in London. I STUDY the cross-cultural nature of feminism, and I can tell you feminism is not the static imperialist ideology that is incompatible with non-White European societies you’re made to believe. That does not necessarily make me a world expert or have the moral or academic ascendency to condemn Gopal’s hollow rhetoric, but simply being an Asian Muslim woman in the global north makes my views valid.
Oh no, not again.
perhaps the responses of Gareth and Cycads here reinforce the point I think Gopal is trying to make. There is no value in anything absolute especially if it is theoretical.
Shorter Alan: cycads and Gareth do not agree, so they exemplify the wrongness that Mr. Kumar is trying to illustrate. Ergo, they are wrong.
he has raised many valid points and the fact of an imperialistic approach of western feminist theories is not something either of you have or can claim any moral or academic ascendency to, sufficient to condemn him in the fashion you have.
Actually, I can’t do anything to this – the phrase “moral of academic ascendency” explains away Mr Chow’s position: your life as a member of the group being discussed is not valid enough to counter the ponderous thoughts of an ivory-tower [male] academic.
The idea that writing blogs is somehow invalid compared to writing in academia is ludicrous, dare I say classist? (Considering some of us use blogs for academic writing as well.)
here, here, Jha.
There are plenty of things that Alan is failing to understand. Working backwards, realise that ‘idiot’ has technical meaning, whereas ‘squirrel brain’ is just insulting.
There is some truth in the line that feminism has only been interested in white women’s ideas, and, yes, you can call that imperialism. However, feminism is being increasingly embraced by non-white women throughout the world as a way of combating male privilege in various different societies.
It is actually this male privilege that leads to paternalism: the Big Man knows best. And this paternalism is evident in Alan’s claim that he, Gopal or both of them possess an undefinable ‘moral or academic ascendancy’, which others lack. I certainly understand it to be a moral and academic freedom to call nonsense by what it is. A feature of paternalism is to close down debate by denying the other the ‘credentials’ to discuss the subject. If Alan feels he possesses this ‘moral or academic ascendancy’, I call him on his hand: show us exactly why you are more qualified, don’t be shy!
I think Gopal’s blog is nonsense because it abuses words to appear as if it has a rounded and considered argument. Even the term ‘Anglo Celtic’, repeated above, is meaningless. I say that as someone who could be described as ‘Anglo Celtic’, if that term made any sense here. From that blog:
OK, ‘seemingly outrageous’ is nonsense: the writer is either outraged by something or not; the use of ‘seemingly’ is an attempt to look more knowing. ‘This topic in this particular form’ is more nonsense: is he afraid to say what he is trying to write about? ‘Western values’ is a contentious term, as there is no homogeneous body of values in the West; in the same way ‘Asian values’ makes a mockery out of the subtleties of variety in Asia. ‘Social engineers’ is a disparaging term; no feminists are permitted such power or influence in our patriarchal world to be able to make real social change that decisively.
Understand that feminism is globally counter-cultural, not just against ‘Asian values’. Male privilege, and its outworking as patriarchy, is the global hegemony: it is the imperialism. The facile assumption that all ideas from North America and Europe must be the minions of imperialism just shows how tied to past imperialism the author is. The author fails to realise that the values he wishes to defend against a feared onslaught of feminism are the same ‘Victorian values’ that were taught by the imperialists of old. In our ‘post-Imperialist’ world, we should realise just how much the scars of past imperialisms still dominate our thought patterns and global outlook. Realise that feminism cannot be imperialistic if it tried, and that is why it is correct to use words such as ‘nonsense’ (it has no sense) and ‘idiot’ (one who follows their own path without knowing what they are doing) in an educated critique of the writings of Gopal Raj Kumar.
You know, if GRK needs to defend himself in being called an idiot, I’m pretty sure he can come here and do that already. Judging by his writing style, he doesn’t need anyone else to come down and defend his honor.
Your approach to feminism looks like it’s based off second-wave feminism, which had plenty of the problems you described — the white privilege, the assumption that the Western heteronormative ideal was the standard and cultural imperialism.
That was in the seventies, though. People have moved on, as far as I can see.
Just recently there was an outcry in American science fiction about the racist and imperialist attitudes of some of their biggest personalities (the Nielsen-Haydens behaved particularly atrociously during this period).
A significant number of the commentaries that came from this came from non-white and non-American commentators, who not only called out the actions of the instigators of this outrage, and provided nuanced, informationally-dense and intelligent feminist and person-of-color commentary.
Which is a far cry from commentary in this country, as a sampling from GRK’s blog can attest.
And I’ve known and spoken to a number of Malaysian people involved in pro-feminist movements here; their concerns, contrary to your assertions, were less about imperialism or “civilizing” their fellow Malaysians, but making sure that we, as a society, stop hurting 50% of the population with our policies.
Incidentally: “squirrel brain” does negate any moral or academic ascendancy you may have had. Just so you know.
Thanks Jha,
What’s with these uppity people anyway? I don’t mind if they want to pontificate their days away about rocks, trees, or numbers, but when they think that they’re the only ones with the moral (I wonder how this works) AND academic qualifications to talk about feminist theories, they are seriously missing the point. Do they really think that us as Asian women are not qualified to talk about our own experiences in profound terms?
You’re spot on about classism there. I’m sure that Alan correlates big but shallow words with worth and value, because hey, most people who write blogs are not educated enough and are not able construct long sentences the way Gopal does. I would not recommend anybody to read his blog. Reading his blog posts makes me puke in my mouth.
My first exposure to sex was the Rand-McNally’s Atlas of the Human Body, age 11. No wait, maybe earlier. Memory’s not my strongest point.
Thing is, the copy at our house had everything you wanted to know about human reproduction, including the bit about how the sperm cell sheds its outer covering and tail once it passes through an egg cell’s membrane–
But not a word on sex.
Later on, when I was 13, I found a copy of the same book — apparently what was missing from our copy was a page titled “Coitus and orgasm”.
It’s been a long journey. I really wish it hadn’t been a lonely one.
I will try to bring an end to this somewhat unproductive debate by responding to T-Boy. You are quite right to assume that the article by GRK is provocative. It does provoke the diverse responses you are witness to on this blog.
Sex education and feminism are to a large extent taboo subjects in the non Anglo Celtic world (even if that word does not form part of an accepted academic syntax or vocabulary on this forum).
Acceptance and rejection of writing styles and styles of argument here are a cheap attempt at eltism. It is so because they the critics appear not to have sufficient ideas to debate whats said on GRK’s article. So the Lowest Common Denominator steps in to the rescue.
Whats important is that the point I believe he GKR is trying to make is that it is unfair to impose thoughts or values on others we consider lesser (that includes goups with less power than we have).
Feminists are no different to any other political animals or institutions. Remember Bella Abzug under Jimmy Carter removing the Palestinian representative from the Kenyan conference on women in 1979-1980? that was for purely political reasons. The Palestinian somehow did not have rights then as a woman and western women controlled that forum.
There are a number of schools of feminist ideology and not all of them aspire to or aplpy the same methods of reaching a common objective if there is one in their ideology.
There are glaring omisions in terms of representation of non Anglo Celtic thought on this subject (and I repeat the term Anglo Celtic to be provocative as it is really not the subject of this discussion but collateral to it perhaps and provocative enough for some to hone in on it and make it the core of this discussion). Sex education and feminism
have a common nexus.
At another level, I do not particularly dislike GRK’s style of long writing. A teacher once told us that writers of short sentences have short concentration spans. You may not agree with it but thats a point of view I subscribe to. Thats also part of the great diversity of our world.
The fact remains that GRK has created some interest on a subject so volatile and divisive that it requires discussion and not insults or personal attacks which reinforce the basic thrust of his argument. Elitism and exclusion.
That’s what critics of Anglo Celtic feminism often are subject to. It supports the theories that that they more often than not seek to impose their views and thoeries in its western form on others without proper debate or discussion. Without these critics of the west becoming angry and engaging in personal attacks on others they disagree with there may not be such a slow take up of the benefits of feminism if there are any.
I don’t have to be female to reject or criticise any aspect of feminist theories and discussions of sex education on the internet or elsewhere do I? (anyway how would you know whether I am female or male? or whether I am Alan Chow or Nancy Kwan?)
Oh, look, he’s decided to respond to me, the one man who hasn’t responded to his comment with scathing anger.
At least you paragraph and refrain from emotes. That’s something. I have low standards, really.
That wasn’t my original query; my comment on GRK’s post on how inflammatory it was was an aside to the fact that, uh, I don’t understand how this blog post relates to Cycad’s original post.
GRK’s article was an attack piece on a personage I don’t know, and I personally don’t give two shits about. Sorry, that’s the way it is. Who the hell’s this Bernard fella? I don’t know, I don’t care.
It’s not that we don’t have sufficient ideas to debate GRK’s post. It’s just that we don’t have sufficient motivation. Like I said, who cares what two grown men who hate each other on the Internet (or at least one grown man who hates the other person by implying that he’s a Communist and child-abuser)?
If I cared about what two grown men did to each other I’d read slash. I hear Zachary Quinto / Chris Pine is real hot property these days.
So that’s why you posted that link?
…
That’s a bit of a stretch. Sorry, I don’t have moral or academic qualifications, see, but I thought the original post was about The Horrible Person Bernard What’s-His-Face, Former Whatever Brother and now Some Kind of Big Poo-Bah.
What we’re talking about here, I thought (but see, no moral or academic qualifications, so what do I know eh), was teaching people how to deal with sex. Sex education. Not, I dunno, imposing thoughts and values to people who have lesser power than we have.
Of course you could argue that that’s what sex education is, of course… but then again, that’s what all education is, to some degree. Imparting values and knowledge, isn’t it? That’s what you do to the young?
Yes. Again, this was in the 70s. Second-wave feminism. Andrea Dworkin, Gloria Steinem, the whole crew. All white women, talking as if they could represent all of womankind via the experiences of a privileged minority. Things were different back then. You know what was different during this time too? The Soviet Union was still around, and there was a Doomsday Clock.
Of course feminists are no different from any other political animal, institution or movement! They’re being run by people, aren’t they? They get influenced, they make mistakes, they act in malice, this sort of shit happens. Are you telling me that you’re coming from an “objective” standpoint?
…
You are, aren’t you.
Okay, I’m holding on to my wallet.
You seem to be talking about a feminism that is monolithic, couched strongly in a Western (see, I prefer not making a fuss unnecessarily) paradigm, and obviously an ancillary arm to Western Imperialism.
It looks like you’ve disregarded movements that occur after the Cold War — no mention of third-wave feminism, nothing about feminism on the Internet, nothing about sex-positive feminism, sex worker rights, LGBT rights, intersectionality, movements stemming from the riot grrl movement…
I don’t have to be female to find your arguments somewhat problematic and note that you’ve ignored what other people are talking to each other about feminism, especially on the public Internet. I mean, your examples are relatively old, and pretty crude.
Have you got anything recent that would indicate some kind of concerted effort by these mysterious feminists who are of one mind and are in essence trying to oppress us poor brown people?
Because like all political movements, feminism can change and reinvent itself. I think it’s done it four or five times. I even remember someone talking about replacing the phrase “patriarchy” with “kyriarchy” (from the Greek word kyrios, which means kebab — ha ha, no, it means lord). That’s one example.
…
Do you even know anyone working in a feminist organization, or an organization devoted to the cause of empowering women? Have you heard them talk? Two come to mind for me — both on, very possibly, opposite ends of the political spectrum. I have a hard time seeing them as sinister pawns of cultural and thought oppression.
See, I made the assumption that you weren’t a liar. Is your name really Nancy?
Yeah, I never understand these “how do you know I am who I say I am” arguments. It’s like these fellas don’t want us to take their arguments in good faith, and then get mad if we don’t.
By gloating that you have complete anonymity and still take potshots at fellow commenters here not only shows that you refuse to take responsibility for your words but also shows your lack of credibility as well. You are also a coward who hides behind a name that you even refuse to claim as your own (nickname or otherwise) and think you’re immune to the implications of your comments. You are the lowest of the low in the online world.
You are not wanted here, Alan Chow.
Can I respond to him anyway? I wrote up a very nice long post in response to him, in nice long sentences, with many clauses and properly academic writing (punctuated, of course, with my Lowest Common Denominator one-liners). All for the benefit of his vast cavity of a brain, of course.
You, madam, are one kind of masochist only.
*sigh* If you wish, Jha.
Well I always thought /b/ was the lowest common denominator.
Here’s a math question for you? What’s the lowest common denominator for One Internet?
/b/.
Ahh, I shan’t, then. An unenthusiastic “yes” is not a “yes.”