car sex ed
it’s the talk of the town, i’m told, but what town, why haven’t i heard or read of it elsewhere, how can i be so out of touch, nothing on twitter, well, i follow just 16 people, haha, and nothing from 150 or so facebook friends, so we’re from another place altogether?
Tired of all these sex talks
The hot topic in my part of town is the death of a young couple, a 15 year old girl and an 18 year old boy, caught inside the boy’s (?) car in post-coital slumber, with the car aircon left turned on. There must have been a leak somewhere enough for the trapped carbon monoxide to drive them to unconsciousness and deliver them to eternal sleep. Reports say a guard discovered them after wondering what a car with its silver cover was doing for such an irregularly long time at the parking lot. The story is at once tragic and hilarious.
This tragedy should not be a subject of laughter, of course, except that people can’t help commenting at the great irony, at how, in the young lovers’ effort to hide the deed from their families, they ended up being discovered, their secret tryst broadcast around the world. The whole idea may yet spell a double tragedy on their families, who are now left to deal with the shame even when they have yet to deal with the pain of sudden loss.
I bring up the topic because it has a connection with the day’s burning issue that I have pointedly avoid to tackle because I thought the usual exchange of accusations is ridiculous, bordering on the pathetic. It’s the same old tiring refrain of two contending parties presuming malice on both sides, a very offensive scenario for me. One side seems to presume the other to have the agenda of ruining the young, tempting them with illicit sex at such a young age. The other side, in their usual uncouth language, resorts to namecalling: religious nutters, hate-filled medievals, religious bigots, etc. I’ve often caught myself in the middle of that fray, and I want out.
That little news of the young lovers’ dying in tight embrace and totally naked tempts me to a comeback, because it may easily be related to how the new Department of Education head reacted to a media question on the matter. Responding to a radio reporter’s question on his position on sex education, he was said to answer “unbecomingly,” “I won’t answer that. You in the media are of no help.” Ouch. Insulting words, surely. He could’ve insulted trimedia more diplomatically.
Maybe Sec. Armin Luistro has also been dead-tired of it all. He might have been referring to the usual nasty exchange that brings everybody nowhere.
I can only imagine what’s going on in the former La Salle president-brother’s head right now: “Oh, wow, here’s the belligerent enemy once again, ready to pounce on a little quote, publish it out of context in a writeup with a mocking tone that suggests I am automatically taking the side of the priests who claim against all reason that sex education will only make the young even more promiscuous. Like it’s that simple. Could it be that the CBCP have noble motives too? Is it all about firming up their grip on earthly power whenever they open their traps?
“First, it must be clear what both sides are saying exactly, and what exactly they want to happen. If the other side says sex education should be offered to the kinder grade so they could learn how to use a condomand how to have sex with the same gender or another so as not to catch premature AIDS, that’s certainly out of the question. Age-appropriate is the word. Maybe we should review what the existing law says and what the current practices are (or have been for years).
“There is no question that kids need to have sex education. It’s unfair to accuse the Catholic Church of not wanting to touch sex, conveniently not mentioning John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.” I think what the bishops are contending rests on who has the primary authority and responsibility in teaching sex to the kids, the parents or the school, and waht topics exactly are to be taught. That’s the major conflict, as I understand it, and surely a compromise can be struck. For example, a parent must be given the freedom to tell her kid to opt out if she doesn’t believe in the sex ed lessons due to religious beliefs. After all, we offer that option to the Sabadistas (Seventh-Day Adventists), right, who can opt out not to undergo Citizen’s Military Training because it is viewed by their religion as verboten or something, never mind the citizen’s duty to defend his own country when necessary?
“Next, we need to consider the available studies (those that are unbiased and authoritative, of course) on the effects, if any, of sex education on the kids’ sexual behavior later on in life.
“And so on, ad nauseam.”
Maybe that’s where all the animus of the La Salle Brother is coming from? Whatever. I hate to be in DepEd Sec. Armin’s Luistro’s shoes. It’s a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t situation. I prefer to keep my mouth shut on this one and watch how the events will play out. I just wish we transcend our differences and work on a compromise. Meanwhile, our kids continue to have secret sex inside cars and in other poorly ventilated corners at an age they have no business having sex, bear or abort unwanted children, catch AIDS, or much worse. And both contending parties stand to point an accusingfinger on their favorite enemy. Ho-hum.
how awful for the two kids. how painful for their parents, families. and what a lesson for all sexually active kids about a heretofore unknown risk re car sex. no doubt about it, sex ed is a must, from puberty on. and it should include not just a sense of the proper time, but the proper place, for sex.
update. philippine star carried the story pala last tuesday. Teen lovers found dead in car.