Abstinence Only? Really?

I noticed several things in the reading for this week and in the debate yesterday. Since I have heard both I will reflect on both. The biggest thing I noticed was that each side of the argument was presenting statistics that clashed with one another. Only one of the statistics could be true. The abstinence-only side of the argument got most of their statistics from religion-affiliated organizations like Focus on the Family. The opposing side got their statistics from a variety of sources. I think this is really religion trying to push its way into our schools. Religious organizations have plenty of opportunities to preach their message of abstinence-only, and schools can then offer information about contraceptives. The religious organizations can tell children that it's not smart to have sex too early, and then since not all youth are religious the school can inform them of what they need to do to make good life choices. In my mind this model just makes so much sense. If the religious groups are worried about people having sex too early they can put that message out. Schools have a responsibility to inform students, regardless of their religious affiliation. That common denominator message is, in a nutshell: don't have sex until you are sure you are ready, and if/when you do here's how you can protect yourselves against unwanted consequences.

Earlier this semester I went to a hearing about requiring abstinence+ education in Nebraska's public schools. The only arguments against the bill were religious in nature. However, we live in a nation that has this fantastic freedom of religion. When we make laws that are designed to appease one specific religion it seems to me that we are defeating the whole purpose of that freedom. It's like America is a person with its hand outstretched for different people, but then behind its back there is a knife waiting to stab the different people for their differences.

It may be surprising to hear this from me after that tirade, but I actually support the idea of abstinence, but I don't think schools should be offering that message. It violates the division of church and state.

Questions:

1) Should sex ed be taught in schools at all or should that be handled by parents?

2) If sex ed is taught in schools should the state require that education to be abstinence+ rather than abstinence only?

SEX

Lets all ask ourselves a quick question. How much of what your parents and teachers told you did you listen to in those preteen ages? Personally, I though I knew everything there was to know. I don't even remember if I was taught abstinence or sex education in school. That shows how successful their message was. Frankly, sex education was boring. If one is trying to preach abstinence or sex education they need to make it exciting so students will listen. One student brought up in class today to bring in nursing students to teach whatever kind of sexual education the school feels necessary. This way, it's a young adult and not somebody they are already have their own stereotypes about.

I believe in a mix of sex education and abstinence. I don't think we should be telling our kid's it's okay to sex whenever they please, but I also don't believe in scaring them to the point where it's all lies. They need to know the truth ,plain and simple, the good and the bad. Obviously, buffer the information at younger ages but as children grow into their teens they need to know what sex is so they don't get "curious" and find out for themselves and possibly contract a STD or become pregnant.
 Q1: What characteristics do you feel a sexual education teacher should have?
Q2: Should sexual education be taught by parents or teachers? or both? or neither- just abstinence?

Let's Talk About Sex, Baby. Let's Talk About You and Me.

In the wise words of the esteemed female performance group TLC, let's talk about sex. In our modern media culture, teens are literally surrounded by sexual imagery. If we don't talk to them about sex, the media will.

Study after study has returned the same result: abstinence only sex education does not work. In the eight years that funding for abstinence only sex education was drastically increased by the Bush administration, the rates of teen pregnancy and and abortion simultaneously rose. This reverses a trend of continually decreasing rates of both teen pregnancy and abortions during the years of comprehensive sexual education provided by the Clinton administration. A 2002 report from the Progressive Partners in Health stated, "abstinence only programming runs the serious risk of leaving young people, especially those at elevated risk, uninformed and alienated."

The idea that providing teens with a comprehensive sexual education will a) teach them how to have sex and b) indicate that teen sex is acceptable are both easily refutable. First and foremost, teens will learn how to have sex whether we address it in a school setting or not. The first humans did not have sex ed classes, and yet thousands of year later here we are, products of their procreation. Teaching teens how to have SAFE sex is a critical part of ensuring that their health is provided for, both emotionally and physically. Second, cultural norms about the acceptability of teen sex and premarital sex in general are not going to be reinforced in the classroom nearly as effectively as they would be in the home. For teens from families which deem premarital sex a serious issue, they won't need abstinence only sex ed to convince them that abstinence is the best choice. Their families will already reinforce that decision. However, for students who do not have that strong moral influence from the family, an abstinence only sexual education leaves them without the knowledge to defend themselves against the dangers that come along with engaging in sex. In fact, a study of one California abstinence only program found that students who went through it were more likely to become pregnant (or get a partner pregnant) or need an abortion.

Maher's arguments are flawed in a few places. To start, the one study she cites that shows comprehensive sex ed in a negative light is an old favorite of proponents of abstinence only sex education. The study isn't peer reviewed and isn't regarded as a solid research study by many in the field. Aside from shoddy evidence, her only argument against these programs is that they talk about condoms and don't mention abstinence as a option. Let's just add abstinence to the comprehensive curriculum and call it a day.

While I agree that sex has many physical and emotional consequences, the idea that we can only teach teens about the ideal of what they should do is ludicrous. She can throw any number of statistics about how much teens/society is harmed by pre-marital sex, but until she prove to me that abstinence only sex education actually reduces the numbers of teens having sex across the board (which not study has done thus far), then I am inclined to educate our teens about the choices they make. Ignoring the realities of teen sex in the classroom will not make them go away, it will simply make them taboo topics that teens feel they are completely alone in facing.

You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammels, let's do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel

I definitly say that there needs to be a separation of home and school in this case. If parents want to inform their kids about abstinence, then by all means, they are free to do so. It is their place to help their child to develope his or her morals and see what is best. However I don't think this is a place where a public institution, such as a school, should be involved. The school's primary focus is to add and develop where the parenting left off. I don't think making condoms available undermines the parenting at all, it's just a different way to tell teens to stay safe.

In the end, however, let's let the blame fall where it should: the teens. It's not the parent's or school's fault for the rise of STDs or pregnancies. Teens should take responsibility for their own actions. You can't say they didn't know because they weren't educated; anyone has access to the tools they need to be safe and responsible. It's time they stand up and act like the adults they are.

Q1: Should schools teach a sex ed class at all?

Q2: If so, what should be taught an why?

Issue 18

I don't think that abstinence only education should be the only message teens get. My parents raised me to believe I should wait until marraige before having sex, however growing up that wasn't the only message I was getting. My parents taught me that abstinence was the right thing to do for many reasons, but they also informed me that if I choose not to wait I could face many consequences, which definitely scared me. I think that teens should be taught abstinence both in and out of school because engaging in sex is a risky behavior and the consequences are numorous however they are going to make up their own minds about sex and I think that they should be taught that if they don't maintain abstinence they may face consequences that they may not be ready for. There is a study supporting that abstinence only education actually increases teens likelihood of getting an std or pregnant which I totally can understand. I mean when a teen is told not to do something, they often do, and that's mostly because were curious, we hear people talking about it and wonder what the big deal is. So I beleive that if the information is out there, then the teens will have the choice which most likely will decrease that curiousity. Furhermore in reality teens are subject to a lot of messages thanks to the media and most of those messages are about sex. So I think it's just foolish not to educate teens about the messages they are constantly exposed to otherwise they are going to interpret them the way they want to which can be extremely damaging. So in my opinion give teens a choice, give them the facts and help them understand that their actions may have consequences, but I think the more they know about the matter the better decisions they can make for themselves. Q1: How can abstinence campaigns compete with pop culture to ensure the message is getting across? Q2: Why are teens engaging in risky behavior? Lack of facts, no active parental role?

Abstinence vs. Sex education

Personally I feel that kids need to be taught about sex education. With the society that we live in today, we can't be that neive to believe that kids are not having sex. There is a television show on MTV dedicated to teenage mothers and being 16 and Pregnant. That is why I feel that abstinence only programs do not work. By teaching kids abou abstinence only, it is going to only increase their curiosity about sex and then they are going to experiment and try it, and then boom, we have another teenage girl having a baby. But if sex education is taught in school, they will know that there is a possibility of STD's and they will also know different methods of contraception such as birth control, condoms etc. So my personal view is that we need to implement a sex education program in the schools and get rid of the abstinence only program. I am from a small town and teenage pregnance used to be quite unheard of, now, there are at least 3 girls in my brothers junior class that are pregnant. How does your school fare?

America Sucks.

Alright--check to make sure your parents aren't around, and watch this brilliant French AIDS charity ad, that would run pre-watershed on French TV. Note that this video, while not overtly pornographic, is certainly Not Safe For Work.

CLICK

There. Try running that ANYWHERE in America. Perhaps HBO might pick it up; otherwise, not a chance. There's this extreme stigma present in America that fundamentally clashes with its more open and liberal take on sexuality; television shows and movies constantly push boundaries, but never tend to push them too far so that advertisers and censors will take issue. There's a tenuous and, frankly, unfortunate line that it tightroped almost every day in this country between embracing sexuality to its fullest, and denying it entirely.

We can't do this any longer; it's time to fish or cut bait. It's time we either regress to Victorian-era denial of sexuality or move toward the European take on sexuality.

Frankly, I don't really care which. Just so long as this asynchronous dichotomy would quit it.

Question: Did the animated images displayed in the above video bother you at all? Would it bother you to realize these were not particularly disturbing images for French children? If so, why do you think it does bother you?