Amitai Etzioni is the Director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University. He is the author of The Limits of Privacy. He can be reached at etzioni@gwu.edu.

Sex education, provided in many public schools, is often taught value-free -- simply as a matter of the birds and the bees. Those on the right object to the use of schools for indoctrination in sex at all, and those on the left fear that schools will push abstinence. Both are misguided notions. Because of that, sex education as it exists should be abolished, and a new course -- based on a new approach -- introduced in its place.

We recently convened a task force for The Communitarian Network for that purpose. The task force concludes in "The Relationship of Religion to Moral Education in the Public Schools" that "education for interpersonal relations, family life, and intimacy" ("intimacy," in short), rather than simply sex, should take place in all public schools, at least in middle and high schools. This program should include discussion of human nature, an examination of the special features of human beings that set them apart from most animals.

Schools now cover a good part of the topics related to making decisions about intimacy in a variety of classes such as social studies and home economics, while ignoring other topics. Our main recommendation is to combine some of the elements already in place with new ones, to provide a comprehensive and morally sound approach to interpersonal relations and to provide the needed context for teaching sex education.

The task force called for the abolition of value-free sex-education programs that teach about human sexuality as if it was exclusively a biological phenomena, or a lesson in blooming. At the same time it opposed those who would bar education about sexual topics from public schools.

Instead of approaching the discussion of sex in public schools as a matter of health and safety bereft of moral content, or forbidding discussion of sex out of traditional moral concerns, the task force favored a program that provides children with the facts they need to know, within the context of values that responsible and moral persons embrace. Hence, sex education should not be taught as a chapter in human hygiene or human biology, akin to dental care or car mechanics.

Specifically, a public-school program of sex education should be folded into a much more encompassing treatment of interpersonal relations, family life and intimacy, to be developed by taking into account several premises and principles.

The context of character building

Developing strong character must be the core for 'intimacy' education

Developing a strong character must be at the core of all education programs, and particularly of programs dedicated to intimacy. Persons of weak character cannot take responsibility for their actions, abide by values they themselves believe in, be good partners in a relationship or be upstanding members of a community. Character development is essential both because without it, all other educational efforts will be undermined (as we see in disorderly classrooms), and whatever education is imparted will be woefully lacking.

At the same time educators need to address the question of whether sex is healthy or is a sin. The intimacy program assumes that sex is inherently neither good nor evil, neither pure nor sinful; the context makes all the difference. Sex is somewhat akin to nuclear energy: Properly contained it is a boon to the world; let loose it can be a highly destructive force. The fact that must be shared with the young generation, gleaned from both historical and contemporary experiences, is that attempts to repress sex as well as to let it roam freely cause much human misery.

Several studies and surveys of teenage girls, for example, have found that -- more than information about contraception, STDs, HIV and pregnancy -- girls mostly seek information on how to refuse to engage in sexual acts without hurting someone's feelings. Better communication skills are also necessary for boys, particularly relating to rape and sexual-harassment prevention, and how to better relate to fellow human beings. These skills make people into better friends, employees, neighbors and community members. They are particularly significant in the context of sex education.

Even much-less-severe expressions of sex are matters of serious concern. Making sexual advances to someone committed to one's friend is a quick way to lose that friendship and to offend one's community. The same holds for continuing to make sexual advances to those who indicate that they do not appreciate being approached.

In contrast, sex properly contextualized is a precondition of our future. Sex can be an appropriate way to cement relations that have properly matured, and it can be a source of much joy. In short, sex should always be viewed, treated, and taught within the context of values and relations.

Implications of a new kind of sex education

Specifically, education for intimacy should stress that bringing children into the world is a moral act, one that entails a set of personal and social responsibilities. Sex is much more than "recreational." It is an act that can carry serious consequences, including unwanted pregnancies, and, even, the loss of life. Responsible persons weigh the moral issues involved; they take into account that yielding to impulse in this area can lead to dire consequences for the child to be born, restrict the life chances of the parents, and corrode the values of the communities in which we are all members.

Education for intimacy seeks to encourage children to refrain from having children. Children born to children often suffer considerably physiologically, psychologically and otherwise. These babies are more prone to illness, anxiety and other afflictions. They often become public charges in a society that is increasingly disinclined to attend to children properly.

Children who have babies often find their life opportunities seriously constricted. They are much less likely to complete their studies, find work and otherwise develop their own lives, economically, socially and otherwise.

When educational programs encourage young people to defer engaging in sex, the question is raised: should sex be deferred until a person is 18? 21? Married? The question is often raised by those who argue that sex is proper only within marriage. While much is to be said for deferring sex until two people have made the kind of permanent commitment and mutual responsibility implied by marriage, marriage does not provide the only criterion. The task force urged teens to defer both sex and marriage on the ground that they are likely not to be ready to make a responsible decision in either department. Furthermore, they were less troubled by intimate relations between mature adults than between children. Maturity is measured by behavior rather than chronological age, but it is more common among those who are older than those who are younger.

¿Responsible sex' or abstinence?

The suggested program diverges from the notion that sex should be described simply as a natural, healthy act and that children should be taught how to proceed safely, but not be discouraged otherwise. Statements such as "sexuality is natural and a healthy part of living" and "all persons are sexual" may be correct by some standards of psychiatry (which consider all erotic responses sexual) but are open to gross misinterpretation when given to children, especially without the proper normative context. To state that "the primary goal of sexuality education is the promotion of sexual health" is particularly unfortunate in this context. At the same time, I suggest that approaches that treat sex not tied to procreation as sinful, shameful or dirty should be avoided.

Sex should be viewed originally as a primordial urge. Like all others, it cannot be ignored and should not be suppressed, but its expressions must be subject to self-control. What is needed is (a) that a person will form judgments before he or she acts and (b) that a person will channel expression of this urge into morally and socially proper, responsible channels.

Merely relying on willpower -- the "just say no" approach -- is psychologically naive and unrealistic. Educators should point out that (a) use of drugs and alcohol reduces our self-control; and that (b) other forms of intimacy than intercourse are also best deferred. Our grandparents had a point: Dressing 8-year-old girls with training bras, arranging "socials" with close dancing for 9-year-old children and other such activities do not always lead to premature sexual experimentation but neither are they without any such effects.

Children need to be taught that the use of alcohol and drugs lessens a person's ability to deal with urges in ways that are socially constructive and morally responsible. They need to learn and above all experience the joy of living up to their moral values and social commitment by engaging in acts such as community service, peer mentoring, sports, successful completion of taxing assignments and sharing in the household duties. "Just say no" should be preceded, accompanied and followed by mores one finds reason or value for saying "yes" to. The sociological record shows that those positively engaged are most able to resist yielding to their raw impulses. There are so many other meaningful and enjoyable activities to cultivate.

Sources: see the full position paper, "The Relationship of Religion to Moral Education in the Public Schools" on The Communitarian Network Web site.