Culture, Science and Shmuly

           Rabbi Shmuly Boteach's recent article (What creates sparks between men and women? Jerusalem Post, 6/16/08) justified his decision for providing single sex education for his children. I have, to a certain degree, made a similar decision regarding the education of my children and support those who choose to do so. My decision, hopwever, was based on cultural, religious belief, not, as Shmuly suggests, scientific evidence. He further equates single sex education with a justification for total separation of the sexes. In fact, much of what he suggests as the rationalization for his decision is not supported scientifically.

            Rabbi Boteach writes that “Overexposure to the opposite sex had made us all ordinary to each other.” If by that he meant that he was able to communicate better with members of the opposite sex than he would be correct. To overcome the fear of the opposite sex people need to learn how to talk and act around them. To accomplish that time must be spent together. What he believes, though, is that learning to communicate properly causes boys and girls to lose “the magic of the opposite sex.” This is patently untrue. What causes the magic has more to do with developmental stages, hormones and neurotransmitters than time spent with members of the other sex.

            If it is true, as Shmuly suggests, that co-education leads to students feeling like “uninteresting nerds” than how can he explain the same behavior, which occurs in single sex classrooms. In fact, some studies have shown that boys and girls in middle school and older who are in single sex classes tend to be more cruel to peers and more indifferent to adults than those in co ed classes.

            The only possible educational benefit consistently shown for having single sex classes occurs in mathematics for girls. When girls are taught arithmetic in a single sex class they tend to learn more and produce better scores.

            Where Shmuly truly strains credibility, however, is the leap that he makes from co-ed classes to the singles scene. By claiming that singles never develop the “magic spark” of love because of having been raised in a co- educational environment he dismisses all the research that shows that it is in fact the opposite that is true.

            The divorce rate in the “ultra-orthodox” community has been rising at frightening rates. This is due partly to the fact that when young men and women are thrust into the dating scene today they enter as overindulged, over protected people with no experience in the basics of communicating with members of the opposite sex.

            Shmuly states that:”when they finally do go out they don’t need to be impressed with superlatives.” Has he not seen the lists of requirements that these young singles bring to the dating scene? Many, if not most, of these individuals have placed themselves on a pedestal and want to marry someone who can keep them there. It is perhaps, this reason more than any other, which is the cause of the increasing numbers of singles that exist in today’s orthodox societies, not, as he states, a failure to “develop an erotic spark.”

            By postulating that the “erotic mind works through differentiation” Rabbi Boteach skirts the edges of science. The erotic mind works through dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin. These neurotransmitters set the stage for real attraction and are triggered by a perceived personality similarity between individuals. The only way this similarity can be triggered is by spending time together with someone of the opposite sex.

            Victorian dramas and movies, which he refers to, are simply that, escapist fantasies. We can just as easily refer to Indiana Jones movies as a symbol of relationships. But, we don’t. Thinking people take these stories for what they are, which is to say, just movies. Most people know that the Victorian era was not as sexually repressive as the movies or novels suggest. Indeed, the stories are generally about only the upper classes of Victorian society where marriages were based upon social class or financial needs. I doubt, if given the opportunity, anyone would chose to go back to a time where life expectancy was approximately half of what it is today and living conditions were so deplorable and difficult.

            To imply that the decisions we select based on our belief systems are scientifically accurate and suggest that our choices are the only correct approach is not logical. Every society has its ills. Ours does as well. To ignore them and attribute them to other causes can only exacerbate the problems we so desperately need to repair.