In Praise of Extending Sexual Latency

Classically in psychology, the period of sexual latency is the period prior to puberty ( up to 12 or so) during which the sexual energies are quiet, dormant and peaceful. This calm is ended with the onset of adolescence, explosively so for the boy who finds himself overwhelmed by erotic passions and involved in the agonistic struggle to achieve masculine identity. The girl's itinerary, it seems to me, is briefer, more telescoped, less eruptive physically, but maybe even more intense emotionally. I want to argue for a second, culturally created, period of latency and peace through adolescence, from 12 to about 20 years old or so. I envision a cultural/social arrangement in which young men and women engage in a variety of wholesome activities and interact with each other unburdened by romantic/ and sexual involvement. Clearly, there are major advantages to single-sex high schools in light of this vision.

In Eric Ericson's stages of development the achievement of identity belongs to adolescence, ant that of intimacy to early adulthood. We do violence to the organic growth of our youth when we allow them to be pressured into physical and emotional intimacy before their identity is matured. Better for them to throw themselves into academics, sports, work, family, same-sex friendships and a moderate degree of social, chaste friendship with the opposite sex. This allows for the steady, solid formation of identity, uncomplicated by the volatile roller coaster of dating.

And so, when my older children were approaching high school, I told them I would like them to avoid serious dating until well into or after college. This did not go over well at the moment. But for the most part, I can happily report that my own seven children emulated the pattern of my own family cohort of nine: little or no dating until at least late in college. The outcomes have been excellent: solid, happy marriages.

Old fashioned dating may be a thing of the past, but a new danger has emerged: the obsession with LGBTQ sexuality. Now we have Catholic high schools sponsoring clubs that support this movement. This can only be detrimental to the development of teen boys especially. Surely we want to discourage all forms of bullying and hate, especially in a Christian environment. But the drumbeat of gay militancy is harmful for both those who do and don't experience same-sex attractions. The high school will benefit from a degree of quiet, anonymity, and even avoidance of these issues.

For our Catholic youth, for sure, we need a clear, candid and reverent catechesis of the sexed human body in regard to: the inner meanings of masculinity and femininity, sexual chastity as an aspect of purity of heart, the importance of fidelity even to one's future spouse, the unitive/procreative nature of sexual intercourse, the power of concupiscence and its disordered consequences, the mercy of confession, the vocations of virginity and celibacy, and the grave, indeed horrific, nature of romance and sexuality uprooted from marriage and family and therefore sterile, extrinsic, manipulative and dominating.

The intrusion of the gay agenda into the Catholic High School is problematic in several ways.

1. Obviously, it's affirmation of gay identity and activity clearly contradicts the Catholic view of sex as a sacred encounter of man-and-woman, within a sacrament ordered to new life and a community of two that is exclusive, permanent, and the bedrock of society.

2. Secondly, it is a big mistake for a young man, whose emotions and identity are in flux, to fix, as in cement, his identity as "gay." More broadly, it is ill-advised and narcissistic for anyone to center their identity around sexual proclivities, but this is even more disastrous for the teen. It is not irrational to imagine future law suits as those formed by LGBTQ clubs sue the schools that sponsored them.

3. For the heterosexual youth the LGBTQ presence is also disturbing. The young man is insecure in his own identity, vulnerable to shame about his sexual feelings, and involved in often brutal competition with boys who are hostile and belittling. It is not by accident, nor mere homophobia, that aggressive young men intuitively use contemptuous language around homosexual acts to demean and insult each other. It is because here is an inherent indignity, a violence, a lack of mutuality, a toxicity and a dominance/subservience in the very nature of homosexual intercourse. It has been this way and probably always will be: notwithstanding the laws, taboos and disapproval out of  the gay movement, in the crude, primitive, and violent culture of insecure male teens, the two privileged instruments of contempt and humiliation are the insult to the mother and the allegation of homosexuality as servility, weakness and lack of virility. This is unfortunate, but probably not avoidable. The argument here is that the sponsoring of gay clubs, pride, parades, rainbows and causes will not repress this regrettable dynamic but may inflame it.

A benign neglect of the gay agenda is important within Catholic education. A clear and comforting catechesis on sexuality will prepare teenagers of all types to receive, calmly,  the chaos and violence of sexuality and concupiscence, whatever its presentation. And our youth will enjoy a relative quiet and peace in which to strengthen their identity and prepare for intimacy.