DSM: RE: Sexuality and Heartlight


Joe Jackson (shoeless@jazztbone.com)
Sat, 18 Nov 2000 10:25:48 -0500


Joe Jackson here.

I feel a strong need to respond to a couple of things being said regarding
sexuality.

on 11/15/00 11:28 AM, Jim Fritz at quantumjf@earthlink.net wrote:
> I am concerned that human
> sexuality has been virtually ignored, as in pretending that such an
> element does not exist in the lives of young humans (10-15 years of
> age) at a time when their sexuality is MOST highly charged of their
> entire lives. In practice, the "Just say no" mentality (in whatever
> form it might manifest) is sheer lunacy bordering on criminal neglect
> in its negative impact. If Sudbury or ANY other model deals with human
> sexuality in the learning environment openly, honestly with FULL
> awareness in behavior as well as theory, I would certainly like to
> know about it. Even Sudbury, (as I have listened to the tapes) tends
> to have a "don't do it" orientation.

While the subject of sexuality comes up somewhat regularly in our schools,
sexuality per se is not an institutional curriculum at Sudbury Schools.
Therefore, there is no "approach", "position", "mentality", "orientation" or
"way" that a Sudbury Model school deals with sexuality. The way sexuality
(just like any other subject) gets taught there is through
student-to-student and student-to-staff conversations and modeling.

An institutionalized "approach" to teaching about sexuality would smell
quite bad.

(If there is a "don't do it" tendency - there is like I said no
"orientation" - perceived at SVS, I'm positive that it is a "don't do it
_at_ _school_" tendency. By tendency I mean the attitudes and opinions of
the culture as a whole expressed through legislation and J.C. decisions)

Marko wrote:
> Then there's the question about sexuality. What a weird concept. I
> relate it much to the common concepts like ADD. Homosexuality,
> bisexuality and others. Just concepts with no real value. Their only
> meaning is to seperate people from each other and create higher and
> higher walls around us.

Well, as I said here recently, terms that describe something can build
walls, but they can also promote understanding. For example, John Doe, by
the simple act of attaching the label "alcoholic" (a wall-building label by
the above definition) may have just saved and put him on a course for a
rich, fulfilling life.

> I believe that homosexuality is nothing else than people of same sex
> wanting closeness from each other, which is totally natural. The sex
> part is actually just cultural misunderstanding. I'm not stating that
> people of same sex should have no sexual contact with each other, not at
> all. I'm stating that it's just not an inborn need, it's a thing that is
> learnt and thus can also be unlearnt. And once again I don't mean that
> there is something wrong in homosexuality, I'm stating that there is no
> such thing as different sexualities.

Well, no disrespect intended, but one could say the exact same thing
substituting the word "heterosexuality" for "homosexuality" and the phrase
"the opposite" for the word "same" and the depths of the silliness of this
statement become evident. No offense.

Is there a little ax-grinding happening here, Marko?

Joe writing from a Holiday Inn in Auburn NY
************************
please note my new email address:
shoeless@jazztbone.com
http://www.jazztbone.com
************************
Kids rule at Fairhaven School
http://www.fairhavenschool.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss-sudbury-model@aramis.sudval.org
> [mailto:owner-discuss-sudbury-model@aramis.sudval.org]On Behalf Of Marko
> Koskinen
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 9:20 AM
> To: discuss-sudbury-model@aramis.sudval.org
> Subject: Re: DSM: Re: [heartlight] Sexuality and Heartlight
>
>
> It is very hard in nowadays society to tell what sex is or should be all
> about. Well, one thing is sure that it has to do with reproduction. And
> another thing is that it is a very powerful force.
>
> But in addition to those two things I can't really tell what it is. I
> can tell I want to be close to people. I can tell I want to be listened
> to and appreciated. I can tell I want to have fun and learn new things.
> But I cannot tell if I really would want to have sex with someone.
>
> That's because already in my early childhood I've understood that sex is
> the only way people can really be close to each other. And that has
> created a tremendous conflict in my mind. I've sought for sex while I
> should've sought for closeness.
>
> We in western cultures try to replace most of our real needs with sex.
> Love, closeness, tenderness, even kindness. It is a very mixed up
> society we live in.
>
> Then there's the question about sexuality. What a weird concept. I
> relate it much to the common concepts like ADD. Homosexuality,
> bisexuality and others. Just concepts with no real value. Their only
> meaning is to seperate people from each other and create higher and
> higher walls around us.
>
> Peoples behaviour is based on their construction of reality including
> all the conflicts in their world view. People have a weird way of
> showing their conflicts - they repeat the behaviour which is in conflict
> with their innate understanding of the bening reality thus trying to get
> attention to discharge the conflict and to go on living their full and
> happy lives.
>
> I believe that homosexuality is nothing else than people of same sex
> wanting closeness from each other, which is totally natural. The sex
> part is actually just cultural misunderstanding. I'm not stating that
> people of same sex should have no sexual contact with each other, not at
> all. I'm stating that it's just not an inborn need, it's a thing that is
> learnt and thus can also be unlearnt. And once again I don't mean that
> there is something wrong in homosexuality, I'm stating that there is no
> such thing as different sexualities.
>
> I believe it's totally natural for young people to play with their own
> genitals and with others as well and thus find out about themselves and
> the differences between boys and girls. And I believe that all the
> misunderstandings about sexuality come from these plays or the lack of
> them. Usually when adults show some disapproval of such plays, it is
> easy for the child to interprit the situation so that there is something
> wrong with me and that I'm a bad boy or a girl because I'm interested in
> my genitals.
>
> There are many emotions and conflicts included in sexuality. Most common
> ones I guess are shame and loneliness. I believe the experiences that
> have created such emotions and conflicts go to the early childhood when
> children become naturally curious about their genitals. That's why many
> people say different sexualities are genetic because they can't really
> remember the things that have created their shame or the
> misunderstandings of sexuality.
>
> And in this society it is very hard for people labeled as homosexuals,
> bisexuals, pedosexuals or some other bizarre label, to feel proud and
> appreciated which are the prerequisites for changing ones thinking and
> world view.
>
> So, the conclusion for my talk... =) Sex and sexuality are very
> complicated issues that are very hard to comprehend with intellect, as
> Robbert stated. But I believe that if we are able to discharge our
> emotions and conflicts around early sexual memories enough, we might
> eventually understand what it is all about. Meanwhile, I encourage all
> you people to have playful sex with your loved ones, and enjoy and
> cherish your bodies, for they are all yours.
>
> Marko
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Nov 19 2000 - 21:54:04 EST