Carnal Nation reports that “Scottish Women’s Aid, an organization dedicated to helping the victims of domestic abuse, has flatly refused a £600 ($1000) gift from 11 women who posed semi-nude for a calendar.” A spokesperson from Scottish Women’s Aid states, “We are opposed to the sex industry, and we have an issue with women removing clothes” as their reasoning for rejecting the donation. Certainly, the organization has every right to deny gifts from anyone they choose, but their reasoning does not sit well with me, especially coming from a feminist organization, and especially after reading that many of the women who posed for the calendar had been victims of domestic violence.

Generally, I’m a member of the boat that says that women should be able to define what they find to be empowering. We see this debate often regarding Muslim women’s modest dress, or hijab. Some people argue that the hijab is always demeaning to women, that it only serves to perpetuate the notion that women are naturally immodest and that men are inherently unable to resist their beauty. On the other hand, proponents of the hijab argue that wearing modest clothing creates an atmosphere in which women can be treated as human beings, rather than as pretty objects for men to look at. From my point of view, each perspective has its merits, and each woman should be able to choose to dress modestly or not depending on her opinion, without repercussions.

I have a similar attitude when it comes to nudity. Certainly, the porn industry can be incredibly degrading to women, especially in places where health and safety regulations are not enforced. On the other hand, nudity can be very empowering. If a woman feels confident, comfortable, and safe enough to take off her clothing of her own free will, it means that she has claimed control over her own body, and she is simply allowing other people to look at her body, as she chooses.

I feel like the assumption of Scottish Women’s Aid is that nudity is always demeaning to women. But isn’t that perspective harmful in and of itself? It implies that women always lack control over their own bodies. It takes agency away from women before they even have a chance to claim it–and in the name of feminism, no less. On some level, of course, I agree with their perspective. At times, female nudity can be demeaning. When female nudity is forced, or when the nude women are presented purely as sexual objects, it does take agency away from women. Some women take their clothes off merely for men to look at them, or out of pressure or coercion from men. But women can and should also have the freedom to choose when and for whom (if anyone other than themselves) they would like to remove their clothing. I think that women who make this choice out of a sense of self-confidence and self-respect are empowered women.

Why do we want to protect our children from sex?

A couple weeks ago I finally finished reading Judith Levine’s Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex. It was a fascinating read, and it paralleled many of my own personal beliefs on the subject of childhood sexual education. As an aspiring sexuality educator, this issue is significant. Am I going to have a job in the future? What sorts of things am I going to be able to teach these kids? How will I answer my students’ personal queries?

Of course, I shouldn’t be too worried about all that yet, since I’m not even in grad school yet. But on the level of my personal beliefs, I have indeed always wondered what people are so scared of when it comes to teaching young people about sex.

I never formally learned about sex. I only found out what it was by a (perhaps strategically placed) book that my friend and I found in her house when we were nine. It was a book full of cartoons of a mommy and a daddy “making love.” My parents never spoke to me—even though they are pretty liberal themselves—and I never heard a peep about the mechanics of sex in school. Most of what I learned about the important stuff—safety, communicating my needs to my partner, and so on—I learned from websites such as Scarleteen.

When it comes to young people and sexuality, though, I’ve always been in the boat that says “If it’s going to happen eventually, why try to pretend it won’t?” I always thought that trying to “protect” kids from sex—a.k.a. withholding important information—was kind of a delusional goal. Sure, some kids may wait until marriage to have sex. But is that really even a good thing? What makes marriage the safest and most relevant place for people to have sex with each other?

Marriage is actually the most dangerous place for women—both in terms of their emotional and physical health and safety, but also in terms of their sexual health and safety. The ultimate “private sphere,” marriage is also the place where impunity reigns. Husbands in most countries in the world can beat and rape their wives without any retaliation. Even in countries with established laws against such violence find the laws difficult to enforce.

However, if children were educated throughout their youth about sexual respect and communication, perhaps young girls would be able to apply these important skills in their marriages in the future. I don’t think it would solve all problems of domestic and partner violence, but it would certainly help women reclaim their sexual rights and have a sexual voice, within and without their marriages.

Preventing children from learning anything at all whatsoever about sexuality does not prepare them for adulthood or for marriage in any way. If marriage is the objective, then don’t we want children to have healthy sexuality in their marriages when they grow into adults?

Either way, I don’t particularly agree that marriage is the ultimate goal for life, nor do I agree that it is the only venue for sexual activity. But a lot of people throughout the world do believe that marriage has this kind of role in life. Working with cultural norms—such as marriage—rather than fighting against them is a good start to enacting change. And encouraging people to have healthy sexuality within their marriages—by teaching youth about sexual respect and communication before marriage occurs—would be a great place to begin.

Of course, the major worry is that if children learn about sex, then they will do it. Some people believe that this is always a bad thing. I happen to believe that if young people learn about sexual communication, respect, pleasure, and safety, then the risks involved in their sexual activity are greatly reduced. Nevertheless, it is up to parents to teach their children when it is appropriate to have sex. That does not mean hiding information from them. When parents want to explain to a child that the child should not do something, the parents need to be responsible and realistic and go on to explain why the child should not do that thing. “Because I said so” and its variations are cop-outs and childish—exactly what parents should strive not to be, especially when it comes to an important area of their kids’ lives: sexuality.

I hope to write more substantially on this issue in the future. For now, I am enjoying the opportunity to express some of my personal thoughts and concerns. In researching for my senior thesis about sexual pleasure as a human right, I have begun to see the importance of sexual education for all people of all ages and genders, and I hope that more people will begin to agree.