“Who Told You That You Were Naked?”: Sexual Shame and the Need for Theologically Informed Sexuality Education
Louise Adillon, Duke Divinity School
Sexuality is inextricable from human embodiment and sense of self. As Pope John Paul II writes in Familiaris Consortio, “sexuality is an enrichment of the whole person—body, emotions, and soul—and it manifests its inmost meaning in leading the person to the gift of self in love”[1]. Still, sexuality is a subject of immense controversy, as evidenced by strong political divides over sexual and reproductive health care and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, many of which are a result of differential religious and spiritual understandings of sexual morality.
One area of particular debate is how adolescents should be taught about sexuality. In the United States, state-funded programs in schools can be categorized as (1) abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, (2) abstinence-plus programs (strong emphasis on abstinence but inclusion of contraception and STI prevention), or (3) comprehensive sexuality education (CSE). While the U.S. has funded abstinence-only programs since 1981, professional associations in medicine, public health, adolescent health, and psychology advocate for CSE[2][3]. Both approaches are insufficient in addressing the fullness and richness of human sexuality. On one hand, abstinence-only sexual education focuses on the spirit, leaving out several important topics about the body (including pleasure and healthy relationships) while promoting fearful messages about sexuality and affirming harmful stereotypes, continuing cycles of sexual abuse and violence[4]. On the other hand, comprehensive sexuality education focuses on the body, reducing sexuality to pleasure or entertainment, and focusing on technical instruction for protecting individuals from STI transmission and pregnancy[5]. This divorce between the body and the spirit is a result of sexual shame.
As noted by Karen McClintock, many early Christian teachings promoted “a fear of the flesh and denial of sexual impulses [which has] left us with a disembodied theology and a great deal of shame”[6]. The story of the first sin in Genesis offers insight into the theological origin and nature of this shame. After Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, “the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked” (Gen 3:7, NRSVue). The consequence of the first sin, a separation between humanity and God, is sexual shame. This sexual shame is further supported by numerous laws in the Old Testament against sexual sins, as well as the continued condemnation of “sexual immorality” in the New Testament. However, the story of Genesis 3 does not end there. God, like a concerned parent, asks Adam and Eve, “Who told you that you were naked?” (Gen 3:11), lamenting that they have become ashamed of their nakedness, of their sexuality. God laments this shame because it has caused us to distance ourselves from God further, prompting sexual suppression and subsequent abuse, violence, and addiction, continuing the cycle of sexual shame and suffering[7].
In this paper, I will argue that the separation between sexuality and spirituality yields an ethic of sexual shame that is manifest in both abstinence-only sexuality education and comprehensive sexuality education, and advocate for theologically informed sexuality education. To do so, I will first show how a reading of Genesis 3 with a Gnostic lens produces an ethic of sexual shame. Then, I will explain how aspects of abstinence-only and comprehensive sexuality education are a product of and continue sexual shame and the harm it produces. Finally, by offering an alternative interpretation of Genesis 3, I will illustrate how sexuality education, informed by scriptural accounts of Jesus’ healing ministry and Pauline writings on the body, can foster Christian perspectives on the unity of the human person as both spiritual and bodily, promoting wholeness, healing, and oneness with Christ.
[1] Pope John Paul II, “Apostolic Exhortation Faimilaris Consortio,” 1981, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html, no. 37.
[2] Jeremiah [R-AL Sen. Denton, “S.1090 - 97th Congress (1981-1982): A Bill to Amend the Public Health Service Act to Support Services and Research Relating to Adolescent Pregnancy and Parenthood.,” legislation, November 4, 1981, 1981-04-30, https://www.congress.gov/bill/97th-congress/senate-bill/1090.
[3] “Committee Opinion No. 678: Comprehensive Sexuality Education,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 128, no. 5 (2016): e227, https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001769.
[4] Mark A. Levand and Karen Ross, “Sexuality Education as a Moral Good: Catholic Support for Accurate, Holistic Sexuality Information,” Theology & Sexuality 27, nos. 2–3 (2021): 169–87, https://doi.org/10.1080/13558358.2021.1872827, 171.
[5] Teresa Collett, “Government Schools, Parental Rights, and the Perversion of Catholic Morality,” Journal of Markets & Morality 21, no. 1 (2018): 95–115, 101.
[6] Karen A. McClintock, Sexual Shame (Augsburg Fortress, 2001), 43.
[7] McClintock, Sexual Shame.
One area of particular debate is how adolescents should be taught about sexuality. In the United States, state-funded programs in schools can be categorized as (1) abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, (2) abstinence-plus programs (strong emphasis on abstinence but inclusion of contraception and STI prevention), or (3) comprehensive sexuality education (CSE). While the U.S. has funded abstinence-only programs since 1981, professional associations in medicine, public health, adolescent health, and psychology advocate for CSE[2][3]. Both approaches are insufficient in addressing the fullness and richness of human sexuality. On one hand, abstinence-only sexual education focuses on the spirit, leaving out several important topics about the body (including pleasure and healthy relationships) while promoting fearful messages about sexuality and affirming harmful stereotypes, continuing cycles of sexual abuse and violence[4]. On the other hand, comprehensive sexuality education focuses on the body, reducing sexuality to pleasure or entertainment, and focusing on technical instruction for protecting individuals from STI transmission and pregnancy[5]. This divorce between the body and the spirit is a result of sexual shame.
As noted by Karen McClintock, many early Christian teachings promoted “a fear of the flesh and denial of sexual impulses [which has] left us with a disembodied theology and a great deal of shame”[6]. The story of the first sin in Genesis offers insight into the theological origin and nature of this shame. After Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, “the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked” (Gen 3:7, NRSVue). The consequence of the first sin, a separation between humanity and God, is sexual shame. This sexual shame is further supported by numerous laws in the Old Testament against sexual sins, as well as the continued condemnation of “sexual immorality” in the New Testament. However, the story of Genesis 3 does not end there. God, like a concerned parent, asks Adam and Eve, “Who told you that you were naked?” (Gen 3:11), lamenting that they have become ashamed of their nakedness, of their sexuality. God laments this shame because it has caused us to distance ourselves from God further, prompting sexual suppression and subsequent abuse, violence, and addiction, continuing the cycle of sexual shame and suffering[7].
In this paper, I will argue that the separation between sexuality and spirituality yields an ethic of sexual shame that is manifest in both abstinence-only sexuality education and comprehensive sexuality education, and advocate for theologically informed sexuality education. To do so, I will first show how a reading of Genesis 3 with a Gnostic lens produces an ethic of sexual shame. Then, I will explain how aspects of abstinence-only and comprehensive sexuality education are a product of and continue sexual shame and the harm it produces. Finally, by offering an alternative interpretation of Genesis 3, I will illustrate how sexuality education, informed by scriptural accounts of Jesus’ healing ministry and Pauline writings on the body, can foster Christian perspectives on the unity of the human person as both spiritual and bodily, promoting wholeness, healing, and oneness with Christ.
[1] Pope John Paul II, “Apostolic Exhortation Faimilaris Consortio,” 1981, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html, no. 37.
[2] Jeremiah [R-AL Sen. Denton, “S.1090 - 97th Congress (1981-1982): A Bill to Amend the Public Health Service Act to Support Services and Research Relating to Adolescent Pregnancy and Parenthood.,” legislation, November 4, 1981, 1981-04-30, https://www.congress.gov/bill/97th-congress/senate-bill/1090.
[3] “Committee Opinion No. 678: Comprehensive Sexuality Education,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 128, no. 5 (2016): e227, https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001769.
[4] Mark A. Levand and Karen Ross, “Sexuality Education as a Moral Good: Catholic Support for Accurate, Holistic Sexuality Information,” Theology & Sexuality 27, nos. 2–3 (2021): 169–87, https://doi.org/10.1080/13558358.2021.1872827, 171.
[5] Teresa Collett, “Government Schools, Parental Rights, and the Perversion of Catholic Morality,” Journal of Markets & Morality 21, no. 1 (2018): 95–115, 101.
[6] Karen A. McClintock, Sexual Shame (Augsburg Fortress, 2001), 43.
[7] McClintock, Sexual Shame.