I'm a proud UU and just have to stick up for my church's sexuality program. The Letter Writer's concerns are clear--she should bring them to the attention of the Religious Education director, who is hired specifically to deal with such issues. The other teacher needs to be dealt with. Simply.

But as an alumni, so to speak, I found my church's OWL program to be incredibly important to my healthy sexual development. When a kid taunted me on the playground using the word blowjob, I was able (at the age of twelve) to use that "question box" to find out exactly what a blowjob was. Highly useful information in playground self-defence.

In my OWL program, we talked about things from masturbation, to condom use, to the importance of love in sexual relationships. Which was great, because it gave me strength to wait until I could have safe sex in a loving relationship. And the healthy lessons I learned at 12 and 13 certainly helped guide me through the sexual free-for-all that happened around me at college. I was a lot luckier than most of the girls I knew in that regard.

I learned that respecting myself sexually was much like respecting myself spiritually. Something, that as a Unitarian, I was brought up to do by making well educated, well thought out decisions. As a young woman, that kind of self-respect focused, highly educated sexual education is invaluable--and not so easy to come by.

There will always be teachers who cross the boundaries. I don't think anything this inappropriate teacher is doing is seriously scarring. Unitarian kids are also taught to question all the things their religious educators teach them--Unitarians are smart kids, and even at 13, they are using their judgement.

I urge the LW to check the state law where she lives. In my state, non-clergy people involved in ministry are required to report all instances of child abuse, homicide (planned or committed), suicide (planned, obviously), or elder abuse. She and her church could be held liable if one of the kids files a complaint.

(Clergy people have to report, too, just not if they're hearing a sacramental confession).

Whether it's a legal issue or not, though, this needs to be shut down NOW. I recommend either talking to the other teachers or minister/priest, or both. These kids should not have to deal with her issues, whatever they are, and if it is some kind of pedophilia (as opposed to narcissism), her behavior could escalate.

Being nice and collaborative is great, but, as an educator, your first priority is to protect the kids.

I have not seen anything about the clergy of this church, and whether she or he has been informed about what is going on with this teacher. As an Episcopal priest, I can tell you I would want to know. Even in the smallest churches, clergy cannot be present for every class. We are grateful for members who are willing to take on the responsibility of teaching, particularly in areas that are as sensitive as human sexuality. But believe me, if and when there is flack over the appropriateness of this teacher's content and behavior it will be directed in large part toward the clergy. Please let her or him know what is going on.

Tricia Templeton

Here's the guidelines for answering personal questions

that are provided to OWL 7-9 and OWL 10-12 faciltators

during their training:

1. Feel free not to answer personal questions. You and the participants have the right to privacy. Refer to your established ground rules or group contract.

2. Never discuss your own sexual behavior.

3. Use your judgment to answer harmless personal

questions. Remember, sharing about yourself should always

be done for a reason—to model appropriate sharing, to

build group cohesion, to demonstrate empathy. It should

not be done to meet your own needs.

The questions that one needs to ask himself or herself

about any sort of personal sharing as an OWL faciltator

are "why am I sharing? and "whose needs are being met by

the sharing -- my needs or the group's needs?"

I think it's kind of annoying that people blame the UUs

for this woman's behavior. She is doing what they have

explicitly told her not to do.

Cary,

Your concern is with the other teachers' feelings? This is child abuse and must be reported/stopped immediately, whether it means that this teacher personally contact each of the parents and inform them himself, or let the committee shut down the program. If this LW were me, I would protest loudly-- to the teacher, the committee and the parents. Would your advice be the same if the abuse included physical molestation? (No offense intended to the UU in the group or the OWL program itself, properly administered.)

...are all these people who write letters to the editor stating that the LW (in this article and others) must be especially pathetic if she/he chose to write to an advice column at all, regardless of the issue. I mean, it is obvious these people are reading the advice columns. And writing repeated letters to the editor in response to them. And then sometimes getting in snitty little fights with each other in the letters section. So, really, who is pathetic here. Sheesh.

As far as the LW's problem goes, I agree with the people who suggested talking w/ the other teachers right away and then going to the committee, because the you-know-what is really going to hit the fan if a parent does so first.

I'm "anon" who hadn't read all these letters before writing mine. I'm not at all surprised to see other people fingering the UU OWL program. I will say, further, that the main reason we left the UU church is that our son did NOT feel safe there - the teachers he had included mostly scattered, downright incompetent people, and one bona fide nutcase who actually frightened him. I found the "committees" to be so averse to any sort of confrontation or even vetting of RE teachers that it boggled the mind. When they hired a richly-tattood 20-something as the "Youth Advisor" as a way to "help him out" of a troubled situation, and after I myself saw him telling one of the young female teens "not to tell anyone what they'd talked about," we pulled outta Dodge and didn't look back.

"Inclusivity" is one thing, and certainly a laudable goal. But the inability to "exclude" inappropriate people and their behaviors when in the business of providing a "safe, beloved community," is downright negligence, pure and simple.