By JOHN GUSTAFSONLos Alamos
I read Valerie Fox’s letter about the appearance of a book about drag queens in our public library and was filled with alarm … regarding the state of sex education in our country (link).
At first I was confused by the letter because I thought childhood innocence, which Fox believes is under assault, included things like dress up and pretend play. Then I had my “Aha!” moment.
Fox equates a man dressing as a woman (or a woman dressing as a man, I suppose) with sexual themes. Granted costumes and role play can be part of sexual interaction, but cross-dressing in and of itself is not sex and to confuse it as such speaks to our fundamental failure to educate people in these matters.
I’m admittedly old-fashioned, but I equate sex with the sharing and manipulation of body parts between consenting persons of age. Or, as in the case of my youth, single-handedly with one’s self, and I could go on but TMI. In these technological times there also could be the sharing of imagery, text, or words and sounds between consenting devices.
I have a hypothesis about how mistaking cross-dressing for an adult sexual theme could come about, though. Drag shows appeal to queer culture, and for Fox queer equates to sex, Sex, SEX! Would Fox link a book about dressing up as a cowboy or as a Native American or as a construction worker to adult sexual themes? If not, why does a book about dressing up as a woman lead her there? Dress up is dress up and kids have rich imaginations when they play, especially if they’re supported in who they are.
The fact that Fox sees sexual themes in a book about self-expression and inclusion is an indictment of the system that failed to provide her with a decent education about what sex is. C’mon, people, we can do better!
