It started a while ago, in the nineteen sixties, I guess. At least that's what they say--the sexual revolution. I don't know the sociology behind the shift in cultural norms, but it seems we have developed an overwhelmingly sexualized culture. This may be an obvious observation, but it goes far beyond the acceptance of sexually provocative clothing, sleeping around, children born out of wedlock, and even homosexual relationships. (In the decade of my birth, these things were considered scandalous.) Yesterday I experienced two things that informed my understanding of how far we have come down this path. While taking an online course to prepare to be a substitute teacher in the state of Georgia, I encountered a good deal of information that I already knew as an experienced teacher. However, I learned one piece of information that I haven't encountered in my fifteen years of teaching. Georgia has a "no touch" policy with regard to teachers and students. At face value, this might seem prudent considering the cases of childhood abuse at the hands of trusted adults. After all, there can't be inappropriate touch if there is no touch at all. (Although, I'm not sure how much sexual abuse this will prevent since most instances of abuse occur when no one else is around anyway.) What troubles me is that this policy overreaches in its attempt to protect children (and school districts from law suits) and concludes that it is not reasonable to differentiate between loving, positive touch and sexual abuse. The benefits, and even the necessity, of positive physical touch have been well documented. (Here are just a couple of sources-http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/6-reasons-you-need-to-be-touched/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273229711000025.) I remember a therapist telling me that everyone needs at least fourteen positive touches every day to be emotionally well. Since this is the case, what does that say about thousands of school children spending over seven hours a day in an environment that is devoid of positive touch--no hugs for small children, no pats on backs, no high-fives. As a high school teacher, I was always very careful about physical touch with students--most of the time it is unwarranted. However, there have been times when a distraught student (particularly a girl) needed a pat on the back, a high-five, or a hug with permission. Though high school students can probably get through most days without positive touch from the adults in their orb, it troubles me to think of young children, whose brains and bodies are in such rapid development and who continue to need nurturing adults actively involved with them for most of their day, confined to an environment that bans all supportive touch. I am passionate about protecting children from sexual abuse, but that protection should not extend to the point of depriving children of something that is essential for their physiological and psychological well-being. Yet, we are living in a culture in which all physical touch is suspect because of perpetrators who degrade children through abuse.

The other event that I experienced yesterday was watching the latest episode of my favorite show on PBS--"Call the Midwife." I have noticed over the past couple of years that the shows  I like to watch (typically British) have been introducing the issue of homosexuality on a regular basis. (For example, Mr. Barrows in "Downton Abbey") What troubled me yesterday was the scene in which one of the midwives sought comfort from a female friend, and the scene was framed unmistakably to suggest that the two women were lovers. What saddens me here is the loss of freedom for two friends of either gender to express loving, positive touch without it being sexualized. It wasn't too many decades ago (in my lifetime) that girls, even young women, could be seen hand in hand or arm in arm and had the liberty to kiss one another on the cheek without being slandered or labeled. Filial affection could be distinct from erotic affection. Though not the case in the U. S. where male standards of behavior have been narrowly defined, Peter, after visiting India a few years ago, told of seeing men holding hands in friendship. None of that behavior could be practiced now without onlookers assuming homosexuality--thus the sexualization of physical touch. (Indeed, as early as the late 1970s, this behavior was beginning to be suspect. I remember being in college and feeling starved for physical touch because it was not allowed from a member of the opposite sex and none of my girlfriends offered it, either.) This to me signals a sickening loss of one of the most important aspects of loving relationships. Though cultural norms vary with regard to how "physical" people are with each other, I believe it is irrefutable that human beings need loving touch which provides connection to another human being, reduces stress levels, and helps our psyches to develop in healthy ways. When we sexualize human touch, we impose a cultural fast on activity that is vital to our well-being as physical creatures who desperately need connection with each other.