You're Teaching My Child What? (8 page)

Well, okay, but Kayla's not a vole. Nevertheless, these little rodents have provided insights to the way she bonded with David. Like the monogamous vole, intimacy fuels her oxytocin level, lighting up her reward center. For a short time, she feels exhilarated. Intercourse is not necessary; pleasant touch will do the job, especially of her fingers, face, lips, nipples, and genitals. Compared to other areas, these places are rich in touch receptors,
³³
cells that send signals to her brain.

That's why I told Kayla kissing is an intimate behavior. It's not like playing golf with someone.

While oxytocin is amping up the reward center and fueling attachment, it's slowing things down elsewhere in Kayla's brain. It is de-activating the centers that mediate negative judgment, caution, and fear.
³⁴
These areas help Kayla assess David's intentions and trustworthiness. I repeat: the chemicals flooding her brain while “hooking up” turn attachment “on” and critical thinking “off.”

Think of it like this: with David, Kayla's skin is flooding her brain with a message: This is a different sort of touching. I'm with someone
special now; time for attachment and trust. And after a while, her brain may respond to David even without touch—the sight of him in the laundry room or cafeteria may be enough to stir those feelings of attachment.

Kayla's friends realize that David is immature and inconsiderate; he's not even cute. Why doesn't Kayla see that? They needn't bother her with the facts; the information won't register in her brain, because she's become attached to him. Yes, although oxytocin promotes gazing into the eyes of another,
³⁵
love is blind.
³⁶
This phenomenon has been captured on brain scans, but our grandmothers knew it all along.

Girls who are gaga aren't the only ones who stand to lose from trusting the wrong people. Investors want to be certain their capacity for critical judgment is fully intact. Scientists at Zurich's Institute for Empirical Research in Economics devised an ingenious experiment in which individuals playing a “trust game,” involving real monetary stakes, were given a whiff of oxytocin.
³⁷
They then had to decide whether to trust an anonymous trustee, accepting risk levels to which most people are averse. The individuals who had inhaled oxytocin exhibited significantly more trust than those who received the placebo. They took risks most people would avoid.

Conclusion: increased levels of this hormone impact Kayla's decisions
at the moment.
Decisions such as: What do I think of this guy? How far do I want this encounter to go? Also at stake is the bottom line issue, at least to the SIECUS and Planned Parenthood crowd: What about a condom?

Kids are warned all the time about the hazards of combining drugs and alcohol with sexual activity because of the likelihood of poor decisions. Sex educators tell girls: If you make too many trips to the keg, you are more likely to end up making out with that dorky guy from history class because he suddenly is irresistible.
³⁸
So use caution, the warning goes, know that consuming another drink—or taking another hit—will impair your judgment. Yet they don't say that choosing to become intimate with a guy will also impair a girl's judgment; that her own brain produces what can be considered an
internal drug
, one that also affects perceptions, reasoning, and decision-making. They don't tell her that even without a hangover, she can still face the morning after dilemma:
what was I thinking?

Following the announcement of the Zurich experiment, back in the United States some investors smelled a money-making opportunity. And so “Liquid Trust” was born: bottled oxytocin for sale at
$29.95 for 1/4 ounce. “Apply liquid trust every morning after showering,” the ad reads. It is “specially designed to give a boost to the dating and relationship area of your life.” A boost, indeed.

The recent breakthroughs about this hormone have been covered with much fanfare by the media. “‘Trust me,' says cuddle hormone,” Reuters reported.
³⁹
“Scientists study ‘trust in a bottle' ” announced the AP.
⁴⁰
There were news items by NPR, MSNBC, NBC, National Geographic, and ABC.

But there's no mention of oxytocin in our schools, or should I say, in the “comprehensive, up to date, medically accurate” curricula taught there. Neither is any mention of it found in the books and websites to which our kids are directed for guidance. I searched three
⁴¹
of the most popular curricula, five suggested books, and another five recommended websites, and found not a word.
⁴²

Why don't health and sexuality “experts,” who find reason to discuss cross-dressing and sadomasochism with kids, explain that male and female hormones create distinct realities? That because of this, teen boys and girls
do
think and feel differently, in particular about sexuality?
⁴³
That a girl's physiology is so finely tuned, it responds to a boy's scent? That a kiss is, well, not just a kiss?

These biological truths are omitted by the sex ed industry because they fly in the face of the ideology animating their very existence, that's why.

Parents must send a clear message to SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, Advocates for Youth and other sex educators: your approach is dogmatic, reductionist, and out-of-date. It is time to enter the twenty-first
century and make some bold changes, starting with reading journals such as
Hormones and Behavior
and
Biology of Reproduction,
and acknowledging the complex findings and insights of hard science.

The first thing children should learn about sexuality is
we are hardwired for close, lasting attachments
.
⁴⁴

Attachment is a fitting subject for young children, many of whom are first experiencing—at pre-school and kindergarten—a separation from loved ones. They know about security, trust, good-byes, and yearning. It's a natural time to discuss how some people in our lives are special and we always want them close by. We feel good when they hold us and we believe what they say.

It's a natural time to point out, in simple terms, how we form these attachments. Planned Parenthood and SIECUS advise we begin sexuality education in the first years of life with, “Each body part has a correct name and function. . . . Individual bodies are different sizes, shapes, and colors ... bodies can feel good when touched. . . . ”
⁴⁵
The message for kids, from the get-go, is: sexuality is about physical pleasure.

Science indicates otherwise. It says that from infancy we have a biological need to form intense, lasting attachments, and that one way we do that is through closeness and touch. Kids must be taught that our bodies are very sensitive to whom we're with. Cuddling with someone, or climbing into their bed, sends silent signals to our brain with the message:
Now I'm with someone special. I can relax and trust this person. I can love him or her.

In childhood, the sensitivity of boys and girls is similar, but with puberty, a girl's system becomes more finely tuned. Closeness and touch are especially meaningful to her. This difference between girls and boys continues until she's much older.

Anthropologists point out that, from an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense for a human female to be careful about mating: she's the one at risk for what they call the greatest “parental investment burden.” In English that means the nausea, heartburn, insomnia and swollen feet; followed by labor, delivery, engorged breasts, etc ... to say nothing of years of lactation—during which time it's harder for women to reproduce and invest in additional offspring than it is for men—and another dozen years, at least, of mothering. Remember, all men do biologically to reproduce is contribute sperm. So if we're thinking about survival of the fittest, our ancestral sisters who discriminated carefully and chose a mate who hung around for a good while had a distinct advantage. But males didn't need to be so “choosy.”
⁴⁶

Were those the thumps of falling bodies I heard? Yes, this “sexist” message will cause some to feel dizzy and faint. So be it. Today we know too much to perpetuate the Kinsey-based belief that intimacy is easily separated from attachment, and to tolerate the denial of substantial, inborn differences between male and female.

“Boys and girls receive messages about how they should behave from their families, friends, the media, and society,” says SIECUS. Of course they do, and it behooves us to encourage messages that are balanced and fact-based. But the most powerful messages our kids get are not from their environment. They are from their hypothalamus, ovaries, and testes.

Those organizations given the responsibility of providing “comprehensive” sexuality education to our young Kaylas and Davids are obligated to use as their foundation the insights provided by neurobiology and reproductive physiology. To deny these forces of nature in the interest of promoting specific social agendas is an unethical and hazardous blunder.

A
LMOST ALL PARENTS BELIEVE that teens should be encouraged to delay sex until after high school.
¹
Abstinence education encourages waiting—ideally until the safety of a monogamous marriage. Where do the “comprehensive” folks stand?

In a 2007 NPR interview, a SIECUS official addressed the issue. “I get a bit flummoxed when I hear constantly that we don't spend enough time in comprehensive programs on abstinence,” said Bill Smith, SIECUS's director of public policy. Smith said these allegations were “really silly,” and based only on pro-abstinence groups conducting word counts of SIECUS curricula looking for the word “abstinence.” “Just sloppy research,” he said.
²

Smith went on:
The moderator, Margot Adler, then asked: “You would agree that it would be best if kids didn't have sex in high school. Am I right?”

Smith didn't hesitate: “Listen, absolutely. It is better for young people to wait to have sex. There is no question about that.”

Oh,
that's
a relief—it's just a vocabulary issue. Educators want kids to wait, just like parents. So in case you were wondering, kids get the same instruction at school as they do at home—teachers just don't use the word “abstinence” is all. “Sex in high school?” they might say. “
Not
a good idea. If you haven't started, don't. If you have, stop.” Breathe easy, parents: we're all on the same page.

If only it were so. Unfortunately, the last time SIECUS unequivocally advocated sexual restraint to kids was a half century ago. Perhaps Ms. Adler hadn't done her homework, or maybe she didn't want to put Smith in the hot seat.
³
Either way, she missed an opportunity to reveal the truth.