From an excellent article by The New York Times on the slow death of abstinence-only education:
In northeastern Texas, advocates of abstinence education vow to fight for their mission because to them, it is not just a matter of sexuality or even public health. Getting a teenager to the other side of high school without viruses or babies is a bonus, but not the real goal. They see casual sex as toxic to future marriage, family and even, in an oblique way, opposition to abortion.
“You have to look at why sex was created,” Eric Love, the director of the East Texas Abstinence Program, which runs Virginity Rules, said one day, the sounds of Christian contemporary music humming faintly in his Longview office. “Sex was designed to bond two people together.”
To make the point, Mr. Love grabbed a tape dispenser and snapped off two fresh pieces. He slapped them to his filing cabinet and the floor; they trapped dirt, lint, a small metal bolt. “Now when it comes time for them to get married, the marriage pulls apart so easily,” he said, trying to unite the grimy strips. “Why? Because they gave the stickiness away.”
Mr. Love’s (hehe) silliness aside, the article touches on some very serious topics, like the repeated failure of research to find any correlation between abstinence-only education and higher rates of abstinence. And the continued finding that education about contraceptives actually increases contraceptive use.
I’m not sure what it is about parents or administrators that makes them think that kids aren’t going to have sex because a condom is only 78% effective, or you could get syphilis if it breaks, or sex is dirty, or it’s going to ruin (!!) your future marriage. For starters, when teenagers are horny, they’re not worried about their imaginary future spouse. And scaring kids with numbers about failure rates, like abstinence programs do, is stupid. On the off-chance that a kid missed a class and didn’t learn that having premarital sex will doom his future, he’ll at least know that condoms aren’t even 100% effective, so why bother using one? Might as well just go for it. It’ll feel better, anyway.
I don’t know why the abstinence-only education thing bothers me so much, but it has since junior high. Maybe it’s that it’s inherently limiting the information available to students. Maybe it’s because the information kids aren’t being taught could keep them from getting life-threatening infections. Or maybe it’s because it’s a moral imposition on students that I don’t think should be made by state lawmakers, or federal regulators, or lobbying groups. If a kid wants to remain celibate, more power to him. If parents want to encourage him to wait until marriage, more power to them. I think it’s an admirable goal. But to deprive an entire school district of children access to potentially life-saving information is utter neglect, in my opinion.
This has interesting parallels to an article I clipped from the paper on June 18, titled “Lawmakers considering sex ed bill,” which I thought was important because a bill was introduced in the Massachusetts legislature to write comprehensive sex education into the state’s mandated curriculum. I thought it was an excellent proposal.
I grew up with comprehensive sex education. I learned all about contraceptives, STDs, pregnancy, and all the risks. No questions were taboo. It was the kind of education I think every child, unless his or her parents expressly forbid it, should receive. Anything less would be neglecting the safety of an entire generation of young Americans.
NOTE (2:10 AM): … It looks like I may have found something to do next summer. Or maybe when I graduate. Sex education lobbyist, anyone?
4 Comments
Abstinence-only sex ed really bothers me, too, I think because it’s completely unrealistic. Kids are going to have sex no matter what. The schools (or, actually, the states) get to choose whether they have it in a risky way with tons of guilt, or in a safer way with more happy feelings.
My school district had abstinence-only sex ed, but I got very excellent comprehensive sex ed elsewhere (church, strangely enough). I am very, very glad today that I was taught what I need to know.
Or you could be a sex-ed teacher instead. Hott!
But yeah, my school had good sex ed, and it was really valuable stuff – it helped me realize that STDs were something to actually worry about, and so that one should be sure to use a condom even if you’re on other birth control, and that you should be regularly tested for STDs if you’re sexually active. It also taught me that a 75% effectiveness rate doesn’t mean you’ll get pregnant 25% of the time you have sex using that method
Janet: I guess being a UU has its benefits, eh? I’m glad to hear that other resources are available aside from school-based programs.
Mad: I support the teaching of sex ed, I don’t really want to teach it, though! I think it’d be pretty awkward to be the teacher, putting a grape-flavored condom on a banana in front of a bunch of 15-year olds. lol.
They should have adult sex ed. Put the adults making the rules through it, so they see what’s going to be taught, and perhaps then they’ll realize that, “Hey, if I’d known all this I might not have had that child with that sailor I met at the bar that night after Woodstock.” or, “Wow, I wouldn’t have the clap right now, had I known about con-dom rubber sheaths, shoot man.” or, “That would not have been a whoops. It would’ve been an “oh yeah!”