“Taught” and Propaedeutic Sexualities:

Some Thoughts on the Contemporary Western Case

 

Paper read at the “Cultural Aspects of Sex/Sexuality Education” One-day Conference at the Institute of Education, University of London, 25 May, 2005

 

(slightly revised)

 

[download me in PDF]

Diederik F. Janssen, MD

diederikjanssen@gmail.com

 

ABSTRACT. Departing from a large cross-cultural review effort (2002-5), this paper will situate contemporary pedagogical discourses of sexuality in the West using a broad anthropological scope. This is aided by introducing and elaborating a disciplinary reading of the concept of sexual ‘curriculum’. ‘Sexual curricula’ or careers here are understood as confluences of local, reciprocally implicated disciplinary ethnotheories integrating notions of chronology (a logic of sequentiality, timing and chronic segmentation), content (ontology, teleology, deontology; substance, purpose, trope), and governance (age/phase stratification, inauguration, poesis). An analysis of discursive routines reveals a number of rhetorical instances that appear to serve as pedagogical restraints on erotic agency and plurality. This invites a critical reflection on the ethnohistorical problems and deep ambiguity of sex as ‘educated’. How is intimacy being reduced to its teachability, to pedagogical canon, to state policy, to the entitlement to informed consensuality? Is a dialectic (“reduction”) approach commensurable with a “performance” approach, or “negotiation” approach of sex education? For instance, Western society takes a ‘tolerance’ crusade, ‘education’ contemporarily being informed by ideas about ‘healthy’, atraumatic, and ‘unhurried’ ‘developments’. These ramifications are progressively informing a post-1970s anti-deconstructionist bulwark, partly academic, re-privileging a rhetoric of the normal, the universal, the essential, the necessary, the global, the real, the inevitable, and the appropriate. I will suggest that experimental ethnography might open up ways to map, deconstruct and resist biomedical and psychological regimentation of pedagogical rationales of emergent sexualities.

 

1.

To ramify the pedagogical status of today’s post-industrial, high modern, and consumer sexualities seems to be a preposterous ambition because of the self-consciously pluralist aesthetic through which they have come to be theorised in late 20th century. This is not to say, however, that educationalists can not profit from an ethnohistorical localisation of their praxis. With ‘localisation’ I do not want to convey a realist message of sexualities as stable centres around and about which cultural practices and attitudes change and err: the substrates of sex education as seen in a comprehensive cartographic approach (Janssen, 2002-5, I) are unitary nor uniform. As for the Occidental status quo, I guess it is fair to begin with the observation that healthy genders, bodies and identities have become paradigmatic products in several ways, and that their education is usually identified as a salient aspect of, critical arena, or ultimate framework for gender/body/identity development and its politicisation (at least for its politicisers). ‘Western’ sex curricula, then, are commonly related to their substrate (variably: sexuality, health behaviour vs. risk behaviour, relations, intimacies) in three metaphors. One is partiality, according to which Curriculum is a part of autobiographical sexuality, for instance as a ‘necessary’ or ‘essential’ or ‘absent’ plot in the chapter of its ‘final’ inauguration. Another would be spatiality: Curriculum is a locus of sexual politics, and a site for its academic digestion or activist intervention. A last metaphor is perspective: Curriculum is a way of looking at, operationalising and understanding sexualities. What I want to argue today is that these cultural tropes articulate the various ways of discursive subjugation of ‘pre-adult’ bodies that halts a deconstruction of curriculum as a key mode of control.

This curricular control appears to be ‘cultural’ (hence, relevant to anthropologists) in three ways. First, curriculum regiments eventual bodies to their culturally legitimate biographical themes, plots, tropes, and genres. Secondly, curriculum both denotes and connotes a social stratification the rigidity and legitimacy of which is accomplished through cultures of negotiation. Thirdly, hegemonic curricula discipline ‘Other’, foreign, subaltern pedagogies. I want to suggest that in an increasingly deconstructionist society, the expectation (and perhaps: policy) should be that all mentioned tropes are being problematised before, during, and after their implementation. Hence the curricularised child will ask: What part?, What space? and What perspective? sex education takes. The immediacy of this foreseeable crisis of authority I propose can be assessed using a critical ethnographic approach to body curricula in postmodern settings, to situate bodies in curricula, as curricula and against curricula (and, perhaps, post curricula). This entails not the hegemonic centralisation of curricular themes themselves (gender, health, erotic orientation) but instead their developmental fit and necessity, their appropriate timing, their stratifying properties. Studying curriculum critically requires specific attention for epistemological and methodical manoeuvres necessary to expose and deconstruct the chronometric grid by which such research is implicated. Illustratively, this pertains to the fieldwork roles that co-produce the frameworks of curriculum ethnographies. For instance, Debbie Epstein (1998) discussed what she calls a ‘least adult’ option necessitated by her small-scale ethnographic study of gender and sexuality in a primary school, while Mary Jane Kehily described her research experiences as that of a ‘grown-up girl’ (2004, p. 368). Clearly, we are dealing with a methodological problem hinted at by the late Havelock Ellis, however enigmatically:

 

‘[U]ntil we have cleared away the elaborate structures of childhood sexuality erected on the adult pattern by adults who seem to have lost all memory of youth, we shall wander among vain shadows in this field. Here certainly is a kingdom of knowledge into which only those can enter who become as little children’ (Ellis, 1954, p. 73).

 

This problem has two major ontological facets. First, curriculum as a pedagogical instrument partakes in a culture (and economy) of theorising and politicising social chronologies. Hence, understanding sex education curricula requires a localisation in the discursive milieu in which they operate. Second, ‘curriculum’ as a political trope requires a positioning of the analyst in terms of the framework in which actions are (in a textualist option) read. For instance, the analyst can assess sexual curricula on the basis of their own (or some external) goals. This approach assumes locality, where assessment is a procedure that does not question spatial tropes. The analyst can also study curricula on the basis of some auctorial (anthropological, structural or internal) logic. This approach introduces locality, since it describes the workings of curriculum in terms of known tropes derived from known disciplines. Lastly, and more interestingly, the analyst can situate curricula in their discursive and ontological commitments. Here, cultural locality is analysed for the first time, and as it occurs to people.

Our ‘preposterous ambition’, then, will be a critical cartography of teacher position-taking and student position-taking within, against and outside curricula in the strict sense of the word. I propose to elaborate these issues of position and locus below, by redefining ‘curriculum’ in terms of its wider cultural locality.

 

2.

I mean to address the finding that in contemporary societies education-controlled timing of sexuality is ubiquitously experienced as an important concern, but also the (paradoxical) observation that concerns for social and personal productivity (inherent in the notion of psychosexual development) has reached paradigmatic proportions. In the U.S. this amounts to a peculiar schism between adult sexuality’s daily managerialism (e.g. Tyler, 2004) and a concurrent anti-interventionalist pedagogy of delay. To put it this way: what can be construed as ‘adult’ sexualities seem to have become eventualist, and what can be construed as ‘developmental’ sexualities are increasingly imagined as ideally uneventful (abstinent, non-traumatic, nulligravida). In fact—as far as sexualities go we might speak of a pedagogical anti-eventualism. As for a quick contrast: Nkole (Uganda) mothers reportedly are ‘very anxious to observe penile erections of their sons to assure themselves that the little ones are potent. Should erections be absent on several mornings, not only the mother but also the father will begin to search for a remedy’ (Mushanga, 1973, p. 181). This brings us to the problem of sex education as a curriculum: its politics of eventuality. For instance, in unselfconsciously functionalist sex education materials, the concept of ‘playful sex’ is chronologically disciplined as a necessary childhood event, then as an essential adolescent event, and ultimately as a componential (or pathetic or succeeded or fashionable or therapeutic) adult event. Thus, adults can play, but impossibly outside fore-play, regression, fixation, role-playing, and fun ‘learning’ exercises (cf. Janssen, 2005b).

 

The above example hints at a cultural tendency to reduce sexual eventualities to their propagandised trajectorial status. My argument, then, feeds into an enlarging corpus of materials that imagines post-modern states of curricula (e.g. MacDonald, 2003) and post-curricular states. However, sexual intimacy has largely been absent from critical curriculum studies, even from Foucaultian applications on educational research (briefly reviewed in Peters, 2004; cf. Janssen, 2004). What, then, should our object of focus be?

 

3.

A disciplinary reading of late 20th century ‘sex education’ is nothing new of course (Thorogood, 1992, 2000. Cf. Middleton, 1998; Johnson, 1996; Monk, 1998; Harrison and Hillier, 1999; Irvine, 2000) though cross-cultural applications are merely emerging (consider Herdt, 2004). However, few authors have centralised the issue of curricular bodies as such, that is to say, apart from tuning in on specific content features in specific curricula (which one might summarise as being preoccupied with student/teacher genders, sexual orientations and reproductive/pleasure bodies). Any political reading of sex education, of course, requires a sensible definitional appropriation. Anthropologically, sexual body ‘curricula’ or ‘careers’ can be understood as <<confluences of local, reciprocally implicated disciplinary ethnotheories integrating notions of social chronology (a logic of sequentiality, timing and chronic segmentation), substrate (ontology, teleology, deontology; substance, purpose, trope), and governance (age/phase stratification, inauguration, poesis)>>. I specifically want to stress the productivity in seeing that these notions feed into each other. With this inclusive definition, we can ask what the scenario of curricular sex education entails in our society. In short: what factors are being construed as legitimate modifiers of sexual chronology?

Here we might note that we are dealing with a historically atypical institute of mandatory, formal and predominantly textual (if oral) coverage, nestled within economically strained and obligatory scholastic trajectories, informing a very much individual-centred, consumerist and increasingly radical information paradigm. This paradigm plots, domesticates and naturalizes sex acts against teachable backgrounds of identities, orientations, and life styles (rarely however against much more radical backgrounds like ethnohistorical diversity in sex acts). Virginity loss, for instance, continues to be as a salient and relatively stable marker in personal trajectories, not because it still mobilizes a community of stakeholders in affiliation schemes, but because it is a potential trauma to vulnerable subjects. Subjectivities, in this orthodoxy, are not produced by change and experience, rather they resist such eventualities. This insight can be had by contrasting the Western case with many sub-Saharan ‘sex ed’ scenes whose sexualities are historically taught in much more affirmative, personalised, integrated, comprehensive, pragmatic, and managerial ways. Here, the ultrastructures of age-identified sex are acts, less the subjective platforms, psychologies, or the degrees of maturity that would contain them.

Western sex education’s institutional primacy is usually associated with a lack of ritualised chronology, or even with a chronological aesthetic that is anti-ritualist. A-personal institutionalism can be allied to the anti-trauma propaganda of a psychotherapeutic, legislative and neopolitical regimentation of sex, in terms of ‘appropriateness’, ‘consent’, ‘choice’, ‘personal integrity’, and ‘responsibility’. (I haste to note, however, that one encounters a curious reritualisation in the case of U.S. so-addressed virginity pledges.) Thus the ‘politics of timing’ within sex education discourses have usually been restricted to the chronological sub/ordination of culturally salient social milestone events (e.g., ‘sexarche’, pregnancy) to culturally salient forms of institutional immersion, participation and affiliation (schooling, consumer culture, marriage, love), or to alleged psychoneuroendocrinological realities (e.g., puberty, adrenarche).

From this perspective of competing regimental chronologies, we can distinguish three current genres of pedagogical commentary: Lamentation, Medicalisation, and Radical Deconstruction. Moral lamentation of course is a form of rationalised nostalgia in which reified and institutionalised age strata are privileged over allegedly shifting (as in Elkind, 1981), blurring and ambiguous ‘new’ chronologies. Some ‘natural’ sexual chronology is understood as being corrupted by an ‘unnatural’ one. Usually this takes the form of institution critique (privileging one, e.g., what can be construed as ‘traditional’, chronology over what can be construed as a competing one, of which either may be regarded as hegemonic). Or, most uncompromisingly, lamentation may function as culture critique. For instance, Cook and Kaiser (2004) observe the production of a ‘new’ sexologically specific age category (the tween), as ‘a market semantic space […] on the continuum of age-based goods and meanings’.  Thus the authors lament demonstrative and consumer sexualities as divorced from prospectus and telos, subject to a process of ‘anticipatory enculturation’. In an even more dystopian, Marxist register, Hymowitz (2001) observed a cultural process of teening in which, it is argued, childhood is ‘undermined’ and ‘endangered’ by encroaching stereotypes of adolescence1. Thus in our lamentationist plot, through a capitalist logic chronological ambivalences are created and sustained (cf. Rohder, 2002). I would say that while to lament this does not strike me as very productive, the observation does.

As for the second medicalisation option, Plummer (1995) summarized the ‘telling’ of 20th century American sex adequately as ‘suffering, surviving, surpassing’. Sexual histories have come to constitute the happy-again end-consumer of the psychomedical machinery around what it variably advertises as deprived, endangered and entitled sexual subjectivity. Pre-adult psychosexual trauma, par excellence, is incessantly ‘enhanced’ and elaborated through diverse forms of academic digestion and pedagogical performance, which for a large part tend to feed rather than deconstruct the bulwarks and axioms of therapeutism. The crucial sites for this deployment of disciplinary biography, as in most biopolitical schemes, are of course that of enculturated and socialised (whichever fits the discursive move) bodies, be they abused, harassed, sexualised, surgically gendered, neutered, eroticised, silenced, unheard, forgotten, misrepresented, neglected, or ‘at risk’ bodies.

With the cult of Self and agency in the technocratic postmodern West, one would expect a hegemony of our last cultural option, which would entail a radical deconstruction of institutional, legal, and biomedical chronologies that currently form the ultrastructure of pedagogical organisation.  In an emergent auto/biographical society (Plummer, 2001:ch.4) one imagines that (sexual) lives are less fulfillments of master chronologies, and more notable for their chronological peculiarity. The reverse however is seen in Sexuality Land: a militant ethic of biographical developmentalisation, and also of societal age stratification. Especially notable in U.S. clinics, journalism, schools, courtrooms, blogs, we can ask how this might be situated historically?

 

4.

 

As Foucault (1999) taught, we have gone from incest taboo to epistemophilic incest (cf. Bell, 1995), generally: from taboo to discourse. After Foucault’s sovereign and disciplinary societies, Deleuze continues, we are entering post-disciplinary post-normative worlds, and we might want to acknowledge the militancy in which pre-adult bodies can be and are being policed in terms of their (increasingly virtual) logistics and infrastructural opportunities. According to Deleuze (1990), the new pedagogical tales are tales of control, passwords, continual training (formation permanente), and continuous monitoring (contrôle continu). This takes us into the world of porn-blocking software, V-chips (Kunkel et al., 2002), and public library terminals (Wardak, 2004). This is a ‘new’ political landscape (cf. Tien, 1994) inviting reflection on children’s action radius, spaces and spatial principles, access restriction, firewalls, browsing, dangerous hyperlinks, ratings, filters, logging, blocking, reporting. We now have browsers, lurkers, moderators, previewers, parental advisory boards, programmers, and cyberpredators that populate webs of exchange. The eventual subject here is defined by curricular entry, by automated and computerised age checks, phrase based algorithms, logged key strokes, and age-delimited user privileges, while the cyberpedagogue is not a normalist but a bidirectional gatekeeper. To be clear on this point, what is normalized is mobility, not the traffic experience as such. Sex education now means manufacturing critical users in media and network environments (e.g. David Buckingham, 2005) specifically where critical use means critical navigation.

 

As Cruikshank (2004) concurs, we have progressed from a norm-based society to a neopolitical society that controls by mobilizing efforts against the pluralisation of norms. In any case, transgression of age boundaries mobilizes and scandalizes as travesty of gender barriers once did. This then situates the problem of sexual curricula in information societies today: the normative curriculum is challenged, surpassed, and deconstructed by the new, infrastructural paradigm of what remains of ‘developing sexualities’: their logistics, sites of access, and the neopolitical gatekeeping schemes they invite. At any rate this new dialectic is far removed from the structuralist chronology of preliminal, liminal and postliminal sex acts, and increasingly departs from the norm-based chronometric regimentation of enduring identities, exclusive orientations, and local bodyhoods.

 

5.

 

The problem of post-modern sex education is that in a society characterised by a radical deconstructionist focus on gender, and a continued gender paradigm for its sexuality activism, paradoxically avoids ‘curriculum’ in its agenda. That is to say, gender is an organiser of a taken-for-granted, implied, and expected development, the deconstruction of which proves far more problematic. Busy deconstructing curricula for their gender bias, ‘voice’, and ethno-specificity, critical pedagogues have largely abstained from deconstructing sex Curricula as such. Sex educationalists however might take into account the need, the coming centrality, and the changing setting of sexual development’s deconstruction, especially against the contemporary background of an otherwise productive deconstructionist pedagogy of children’s bodies, identities, and mobility. In an ethnotheoretical vein, one might ask, how are curricula being rationalised as local instruments of containment?

One promising entry to this problem can be found in Talburt (2004a,b) who argues that one should denaturalize ‘narrative segments that produce ethnography’s and subjects’ desires for trajectories with a beginning and a destination’. A critical sexology of youth indeed needs to consider the possibility and relevance of looking critically at the kinds and forms of ‘development’ as they circulate through the welfare apparatus, action fronts, education libraries, ‘awareness’ curricula, and postmodern media. I would also argue that it increasingly requires classificatory ‘children’ to do the critical looking themselves. My central argument is, what we see in contemporary critical and deconstructionist pedagogy should be anticipated, welcomed, and invited as a child’s own performance today. How are they buying the too-early/too-late binaries of sociological surveys (Cotton et al., 2004)? How problematic are virginities, for instance: might elementary transitions within the sexual sphere take place from not-doings not to other doings, but to other, more elaborate not-doings (as in the prize-winning read of Mullaney, 2001)? How can you pedagogically address complex forms of not-doing without further complicating them? Can you? A critical analysis of body curricula indeed entails reflection on children as potential self-developmentalists (as hinted at by Kelle, 2001). What in fact are body curricula made of, how are they narrated, accomplished, performed, contested (Janssen, 2005a)?

If anything, an ethnological digestion of indigenous forms of sexual pedagogy (Janssen, 2002-5, II) shows that sexual curricula are instances of negotiated local culture. When I say ‘negotiated’ I mean to say that children have consistently been shown to piece together, ignore, resist, and rework formal curricula as chronometric and chronologic straightjackets. The fact that we would locate this task in pedagogical postmodernity rather than in other/Other indigenous settings invites further probing, but in all likelihood it might prove to be a methodological artefact of ethnographic conventions.

 

To summarise: if not to the benefit of social conformity, structural solidity and re/productive paradigms, on what political basis are contemporary sexual/erotic bodies curricularised? How for instance, might we elaborate and implement a ‘queer theory of age stratification’ (Angelides, 2004)? In terms of gender as a political mobiliser having entered the stage of post-saturation, are curricula our new bulwarks/projects/centres/bullies?

 

Note

[1]  Interestingly, Manning (1995) referenced an alleged teening of culture as a whole.

References

  • Angelides, S. (2004) Feminism, Child Sexual Abuse, and the Erasure of Child Sexuality, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 10,2, pp. 141-177.

·         Bell, V. (1995) Bio-Politics and the Spectre of Incest: Sexuality and/in the Family, in: R. Robertson, M. Featherstone, & S. Lash (Eds) Global Modernities (London: Sage Publications Ltd.), pp. 227-243.

·         Buckingham, D. (2005) Show and tell:  learning about sex and relationships from television drama. Paper presented at ‘Cultural Aspects of Sex/Sexuality Education’ Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, May 25th

·         Cook, D. Th. & Kaiser, S. B. (2004) Betwixt and be Tween: Age Ambiguity and the Sexualization of the Female Consuming Subject, Journal of Consumer Culture, 4, pp. 203-227.

  • Deleuze, G. (1990). Postscript on control societies, in: Negotiations (New York: Columbia University Press). Translated by Martin Joughin.

·         Elkind, D. (1981, revised 1988). The Hurried Child: Growing Up Too Fast Too Soon (New York: Addison-Wesley).

·         Ellis, H. (1954) Psychology of Sex. A Manual for Students (New York: New American Library).

·         Epstein, D. (1998) Are you a girl or are you a teacher? The ‘least adult' role in research about gender and sexuality in a primary school, in: G. Walford (Ed) Doing Research about Education (Bristol: Falmer Press) (pp. 27-41).

·         Foucault, M. (Ewald, F. et al., eds) (1999) Les Anormaux; Cours au Collège de France (1974-1975) (Paris: Gallimard / Seuil).

  • Harrison, L. & Hillier, L. (1999) What should be the “subject” of sex education? Discourse,20,2, pp. 279-288.

·         Herdt, H. (2004) Sexual development, social oppression, and local culture, Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, 1,1, pp. 39-62.

·         Hymowitz, K. S. (2001) The teening of childhood, Arts Education Policy Review,102,6, pp. 13-21.

·         Irvine, J. M. (2000) Doing It with Words: Discourse and the Sex Education Culture Wars, Critical Inquiry 27,1, pp. 58-76.

·         Janssen, D. F. (2002-5) Corpus “Growing Up Sexually”. 4 Volumes. Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology, Berlin, Germany. Web-hosted: http://www.sexarchive.info/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/GUS_MAIN_INDEX.HTM

·         Janssen, D. F. (2004) Postdevelopmental Sexualities: Don’t Bring the Kids. Paper delivered at the XVIth Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sozialwissenschaftliche Sexualforschung (DGSS) Conference on Social Scientific Sexuality Research “Sexualities and Social Change”, June 25-27, Lüneburg, Germany.

  • Janssen, D. F. (2005a) Sex and Curriculum in Life Narratives: A Poststructuralist Meditation. Mini-Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Cultural Anthropology, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

·         Janssen, D. F. (2005b) Ludic, Preludic and Ludicrous Sex: An Anthropological Note on Pre-Propaedeutic Pleasures. Paper invited at the London Consortium 2nd European Summer School “Playtime: The Cultures of Play, Gaming and Sport”, London, July 25-29, 2005.

·         Johnson, R. (1996) Sexual Dissonances: Or the ‘Impossibility’ of Sexuality Education, Curriculum Studies,4,2, pp. 163-189.

·         Kehily, M. J. (2004) Girls on Girls: Tensions and Anxieties in Research with Girls, Feminism and Psychology, 14,3, pp. 366-370.

·         Kelle, H. (2001) The discourse of ‘development’: how 9- to 12-year-old children construct “childish” and “further developed” identities within their peer culture, Childhood, 8,1, pp. 95-114.

·         MacDonald, D. (2003) Curriculum change and the post-modern world: is the school curriculum-reform movement an anachronism?, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35, 2, pp. 139-149.

·         Manning, T. (1995) The teening of culture, New Statesman & Society, 10/20/95; 8,375, p. 32.

·         Middleton, S. (1998) Disciplining sexuality: Foucault, life histories, and education. (New York; London: Teachers College, Columbia University).

·         Monk, D. (1998) Sex education and the problematization of teenage pregnancy: a genealogy of law and governance, Social and Legal Studies, 7,2, pp. 239-259.

  • Mullaney, J. (2001) Like A Virgin: Temptation, Resistance, and the Construction of Identities Based on “Not Doings”, Qualitative Sociology,24,1, pp. 3-24.
  • Mushanga, M. T. (1973) The Nkole of South-Western Uganda, in: A. Molnos (Ed) Cultural Source Materials for Population Planning in East Africa (University of Nairobi, Institute of African Studies). (Vol. 3., pp. 174-186).

·         Peters, M. A. (2004) Educational Research: ‘games of truth’ and the ethics of subjectivity, Journal of Educational Enquiry, 5,2, pp. 50-63.

·         Plummer, K. (1995) Telling Sexual Stories: Power, Change and Social Worlds (London: Routledge).

·         Plummer, K. (2001) Documents of Life 2: An Invitation to a Critical Humanism (London: Sage).

  • Rohder, K. (2002) Between-agere: Et sporgsmal om seksualitet eller leg? [Between-agers: A question of sexuality or play?], Psyke & Logos, 23,2, pp. 551-562.

·         Talburt, S. (2004a) Becoming Meaningful: Ethnography and Sexual Subjects. Paper presented at the AARE (Australian Association for Research in Education) Annual Conference, “Doing the Public Good: Positioning Education Research”, Nov 28 – Dec 2, 2004, Melbourne Australia.

·         Talburt, S. (2004b) Rethinking Adults and Youth Intelligibility and Narrating Queer Youth, in: M. Rasmussen, E. Rofes, & S. Talburt (Eds) Youth and Sexualities: Pleasure, Subversion, and Insubordination In and Out of Schools (Palgrave Macmillan).

·         Thorogood, N. (1992) Sex Education as Social Control, Critical Public Health, 3,2, pp. 43-50.

·         Thorogood, N. (2000) Sex education as a disciplinary technique: Policy and Practice in England and Wales, Sexualities, 3,4, pp. 425-438.

·         Tyler, M. (2004) Managing between the sheets: lifestyle magazines and the management of sexuality in everyday life, Sexualities, 7,1, pp. 81-106.

 

 

 

 

Janssen, D. F., Growing Up Sexually. Volume I. World Reference Atlas. 0.2 ed. 2004. Berlin: Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology

Last revised: Sep 2004