Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
MSM’s evenhanded article on sex-ed
As Congress prepares to take up the question of sex-ed funding, you’ll see lots of articles on sex-ed. Most of them will say abstinence-only education doesn’t work. Here’s one that takes a more evenhanded approach.
HT: krm
Topic: Education, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top51 Comments to “MSM’s evenhanded article on sex-ed”
I think it was Plato who first wrote: “Let me write the songs and poems of a nation, and I care not who writes the laws.”
Today’s version might go, “Let me write the song, sit-coms & movies of a nation and I care not who develops government-funded social programs and does academic research studies.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying studies. laws, programs or funding are unimportant. But to fail to focus primarily on the the health of the American family and the poison of much of American popular culture is to chase a train that left the station a long time ago.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting to look at the common factors of success between abstinence only and comprehensive sex ed.
I also note that even the successful comprehensive programs stress abstinence.
Report comment to moderator
I thought the article was worth reading. Thanks for sharing.
The problem of sexual chaos in America is real and getting worse, especially with the young. The question is; when we all can finally agree that congress, schools, advanced studies, and social programs fall short, will Americans turn to the church and to pastors for some help and guidance? Will the church even be there for them when that time comes?
Is the church the only place to turn? Of course not. But it is telling that few think of it as a key player with much to offer. In my observation and experience, she has much to offer and should get more into the game.
Report comment to moderator
Joel writes:
I would argue that the current federal emphasis on abstinence is a direct result of the church getting into the game.
Report comment to moderator
And?
Report comment to moderator
“Most of them will say abstinence-only education doesn’t work.”
Most studies say that comprensive sex ed programs are more effective than abstinence only programs.
Abstinence only will not reach everyone. Some people have no interest in abstinence only. These people need a comprehensive program to prevent unwanted pregnancies, possible abortions, and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Abstinence is certainly the preferred method but not everyone wishes to follow the preferred route.
Report comment to moderator
Even this even-handed article notes: First off, there are many peer-reviewed, published, randomized studies showing that comprehensive sex ed—which emphasizes abstinence and also provides safer sex information—might work. There is far less such evidence supporting abstinence-only programs. But that doesn’t mean we can discount abstinence-only entirely.
I don’t understand the Christian fear of information. Clearly, a program that emphasizes abstinence but also provides accurate information to protect those who don’t remain abstinent is the best way to prevent teen pregnancy, abortion and STDs.
The insistence on abstinence-only from some only reinforces my suspicion that they don’t really care if non-abstinent teens suffer. There’s a strong whiff of “they get what they deserve” in it.
If you want to reduce those problems, you’ll support all the means to do that, even those you might morally oppose (because you recognize that even those who don’t share your moral views should be informed and protected.) If you just want to turn your morality into a bludgeon to control other people’s sexual behavior, abstinence-only is the way to go.
Report comment to moderator
First, I don’t understand the expression “abstinence-only education doesn’t work.” No education works unless it is applied.
If students remain chaste, then it works. If they ignore it and have illicit sex, then it doesn’t work.
The problem with “comprehensive” education is that it is like teaching kids how to walk through a mine field more safely. Sure, teach them about condoms–but that doesn’t work if they don’t use them every time. Teach girls about the “pill”–but that doesn’t work if she skips doses.
Who thinks that kids who cannot even remember to turn in their homework on time will be able to use prophylactics and contraceptives properly and consistently?
Report comment to moderator
First, I don’t understand the expression “abstinence-only education doesn’t work.” No education works unless it is applied.
If students remain chaste, then it works. If they ignore it and have illicit sex, then it doesn’t work.
If the goal is to persuade them not to have sex and they do have sex, it’s not working.
Who thinks that kids who cannot even remember to turn in their homework on time will be able to use prophylactics and contraceptives properly and consistently?
So giving them even less of an ability to do that is the right answer?
Yeesh.
I’m guessing your school had an abstinence-only approach to logic.
Report comment to moderator
Epidemiologists look at the big picture. They want the program that is best for society as a whole. They are looking for programs that reduce unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and abortions. Comprehensive programs seem to achieve this better than abstinence only programs.
Many christians view success as virginity. In their minds, loss of virginity is considered the biggest failure and any ramifications of this loss are deserved. Many want teens to suffer when they make the wrong decisions as an example to others.
Epidemiologists don’t view loss of viriginity as a failure (particularly since 50% of high school seniors are in this category). They view disease and unwanted pregnancy as the greater failure.
Christians and epidemiologists are therefore at odds in determining which program is best since their goals differ.
I tend to side with epidemiologists on this one. We can’t view 50% of our children as failures.
Report comment to moderator
The reasons abstinence-only won’t work over the long haul are several:
1. It’s based on a negative. It’s telling people not to do something. Human nature is to do that which is “prohibited”. Always has been, always will be.
2. It’s based on restricting knowledge. The premise is that if you keep people ignorant (example: how to use a condom properly) they won’t do it. Human nature is naturally curious – it will seek out the information anyway.
3. It’s based on a narrow religious viewpoint. Americans have become far more varied in their religious and moral views. Public schools have found it necessary to reflect that reality, as they properly should.
Schools should be involved in educating students with sound, medical and scientific facts on sex. Churches and parents should supply the moral equation. To me it’s no different that schools teaching about science. Churches and parents can add their religious beliefs about creationism or whatever.
Report comment to moderator
Are we looking for a program to decrease sin (premarital sex) or a program that decreases health risks (unwanted pregnancy and disease)?
Christians want to decrese sin. Epidemiologists want to decrease health risks. The government must listen to the health care experts and not the religious leaders. Despite what the evangelicals want, this country is not a theocracy. America’s policies do not come from its religious leaders (I hope).
Report comment to moderator
“1. It’s based on a negative. It’s telling people not to do something. Human nature is to do that which is “prohibited”. Always has been, always will be.”
I disagree. Why would human nature be to do that which is “prohibited”. If I told you not to put bees in your ears, would you?
People don’t have sex because it is prohibited. They have sex because it feels good.
Report comment to moderator
You mean I shouldn’t put bees in my ears?
I think Anlir’s statement assumes that what’s being prohibited is something appealing. There’s nothing wrong with sex per se and it’s a natural drive. The harm comes in way people go about it. You can teach teens the value of delaying, and you can teach them the risks of indulging, and maybe they’ll choose to delay or even wait until marriage.
You can teach them how to protect themselves if they do have sex, and they still may choose not to, but if they do, they’ll at least know how to not ruin their lives and possibly create new, innocent lives in the process.
But just tell them “You know that thing you really badly want to do? Don’t do it.” And you’re just about guaranteeing that they will.
Report comment to moderator
For the last time for a long time:
Human sexuality is the equivalent in psychology and sociology to nuclear energy in technology and politics.
It can serve useful purposes: reproducing our race and contributing to loving relationships. We always think we can control and guide it, whether through education or through training and indoctrination.
Sometimes one or the other of these methods work. Frequently, it escapes our control and causes great havoc. This happens to many secular people and it happens to many religious people. And their children.
Keep your zipper buttoned and then put a cap on it.
Report comment to moderator
Theo,
If you told people to not put bees in their ears they would do it – lots of them.
I’m sure at one time, ages ago, someone told a woman not to put a hole in her earlobe. (They likely told her that her soul would leak out if she did). She did it anyway. Her soul didn’t leak out. Then lots of women did it. The elders probably gasped in horror at the practice.
SteveG is correct – that which is prohibited (sexual activity) is appealing. It’s been the struggle since mankind first appeared on the scene. Some humans (particularly the religious) have always tried to tamp it down, to restrict it, to prohibit it. They’ve tried scaring people with punishment from God, eternal damnation, by making sex into something evil or bad, and by trying to make people feel guilty about it. None of that has worked. Yet, bless their hearts, they keep on trying.
Yes, we should teach young people to delay as long as possible. But the reality is that one day they are going to have sex. It’s a nearly universal human experience. How much better to have them prepared for it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: “If the goal is to persuade them not to have sex and they do have sex, it’s not working.”
My point was that teaching kids things always has a varied success rate and depends on the motivation of the kids to actually apply what you teach. My goal in teaching literature is to foster appreciation of it, but it doesn’t always work, because only the student can make it work by his or her own attitudes and actions.
SteveG: “So giving them even less of an ability to do that is the right answer?”
I never said that. My point is that an optimistic view of youth–that all you have to do is put a condom on a cucumber and there will be no more spread of STD’s or unwanted pregnancies–is pretty unrealistic.
My main point is that “comprehensive sex education” won’t work with kids any better than “abstinence-only education”, because they both depend upon the kids’ choices.
For the record, I believe in teaching some kind of comprehensive sex education to kids of the right age. But it shouldn’t be fatalistic and materialistic (”Well, you’re bound to do it, and here’s how it works”). It should include the physical, emotional, social, and spiritual aspects of sexuality. It should not promise them that there are only physical consequences to sex and that certain devices can guarantee that they will avoid those consequences.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I forbid you to put bees in your ears.
In my opinion, premarital sex is the wrong decision to make in any circumstance but we shouldn’t punish those people who make that choice by increasing their risk of sexually transmitted disease or unwanted pregnancy. This simply compounds the problem and further damages society. A comprehensive sex education program is definitely preferred to a one-dimensional program that emphasizes abstinence alone.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A,
How are you going to teach the “spiritual” aspect of sexuality in a public school? Who’s religion/spiritual values will we teach? What about the parents who demand that their values/religion be taught? Schools are there to serve all families, not just conservative Christian ones (or any other sect). Getting the state involved in teaching religious/spiritual values will result in those values being watered down to accommodate everyone. Someone’s going to be left out and someone is going to sue.
Nay, I say. Let the schools teach the facts. Let the family and the church teach the values.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A at #17: My point is that an optimistic view of youth–that all you have to do is put a condom on a cucumber and there will be no more spread of STD’s or unwanted pregnancies–is pretty unrealistic.
I haven’t heard anybody arguing that something like that is all you have to do.
Let me spell it out: The sex-ed curriculum I would design would teach these things:
1. Sex is a normal part of human life and is not “dirty,” nor are sexual urges anything to be ashamed of.
2. However, having sex opens the door to a lot of possible consequences, both physical and emotional.
3. Those possible consequences include pregnancy, various kinds of diseases and emotional upheaval that most teenagers aren’t mature enough to handle well.
4. Sexuality also must be controlled through a value system which teens should learn from their parents and religious leaders.
5. Abstaining from sex is the only 100 percent sure way to avoid the possible consequences.
6. If you do choose to have sex, you can greatly reduce the risk of the physical consequences (and information about specifically how.) However, only maturity and good judgment can protect you against the emotional ones.
My main point is that “comprehensive sex education” won’t work with kids any better than “abstinence-only education”, because they both depend upon the kids’ choices.
And I agree with you there, but the problem is that abstinence-only ignores the reality that many teens will not choose abstinence. If they don’t have information on how to responsibly have sex, then they’re being set up to fail … that is, left in a position where if they do not heed the abstinence message, they don’t have the information they need to minimize the risks. Or at best, they’re left to get that information elsewhere because the moralists won’t let them learn it in school.
You are right, the information benefits them only if they use it. But that requires first giving them the information at all.
Report comment to moderator
#20
SteveG,
I would add to your points that not everyone has the same definition of what activities constitute “having sex.” Only some of those activities can result in pregnancy, but the others can still have significant emotional consequences.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline: Very good point, yes. Agreed.
Report comment to moderator
#4, Lynn writes, “I would argue that the current federal emphasis on abstinence is a direct result of the church getting into the game.”
I would agree. I meant my comments about the key role the church can play to be inclusive of other various responsible means and resources.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle,
Most people judge effectiveness of a program by its results compared to a matched placebo program. You are trying say that a program is only effective if 100% of participants are 100% compliant with the ideals of the program. This is not the case.
Report comment to moderator
Well, here is one source of evaluations on the effectiveness of abstinence only programs. This site reports indiviual state assessements and finds minimal short term impact on attitudes and behavior, and no long-term effect.
Intentions to Abstain—Nine evaluations measured short-term changes in intentions.
Four of nine programs showed no significant impact on participants’ intentions to abstain (California, Maryland, Nebraska, and Oregon);
Three of nine programs showed a favorable impact on intentions to abstain (Arizona, Florida, and Washington);
Two of nine programs showed mixed results (Iowa and Pennsylvania).**
Sexual Behaviors—Six evaluations measured short-term changes in sexual behavior.
Three of six programs had no impact on sexual behavior (California, Maryland, and Missouri).
Two of six programs reported increases in sexual behavior from pre- to posttest (Florida and Iowa). It was unclear whether the increases were due to youth’s maturation or to a program’s effect, as none of these evaluations included a comparison group.
One of the six programs showed mixed results (Pennsylvania).
And longterm:
Intentions to Abstain—Four evaluations measured long-term intentions to abstain.
Three of four evaluations showed no long-term positive impact on participants’ intentions to abstain from sexual intercourse. That is, participants’ intentions either declined significantly at follow-up or there was no statistically significant difference in participants’ attitudes relative to controls at follow-up (Arizona, California, and Minnesota).
In one of the four (Pennsylvania’s LaSalle Program), evaluation showed a positive impact at follow-up on program participants’ intentions to abstain relative to comparison youth.
Sexual Behavior—Five programs measured long-term impacts on sexual behavior.
No evaluation demonstrated any impact on reducing teens’ sexual behavior at follow-up, three to 17 months after the program ended (Arizona, California, Minnesota, Missouri, or Pennsylvania’s LaSalle Program).
There is also this alarming result:
A few evaluators also noted the failure of abstinence-only programs to address the needs of sexually active youth. Survey data from many of the programs indicated that sexually experienced teens were enrolled in most of the abstinence-only programs studied. For example:
In Erie County, Pennsylvania, researchers found that 42 percent of the female participants were sexually active by the second year of the program.
In Clinton County, Pennsylvania, data collected from program participants in the seventh, eighth, and ninth grades showed a dramatic increase in the proportion of program females who experienced first sexual intercourse over time (six, nine, and 30 percent, respectively, by grade).
In Minnesota, 12 percent of the eighth grade program participants were sexually active at posttest.
In Arizona, 19 percent of program participants were sexually active at follow-up. Concurrently, Arizona’s evaluators found that youth’s intent to pursue abstinence declined significantly at follow-up, regardless of whether the student took another abstinence-only class. Eighty percent of teens reported that they were likely to become sexually active by the time they were 20 years old.
Abstinence-only programs provide these youth with no information, other than abstinence, regarding how to protect themselves from pregnancy, HIV, and other STIs.
A third, related concern of evaluators was abstinence-only programs’ failure to provide positive information about contraception and condoms. Evaluators noted more than once that programs’ emphasis on the failure rates of contraception, including condoms, left youth ambivalent, at best, about using them.
In Clinton County, Pennsylvania, researchers noted that, of those participants that reported experiencing first sexual intercourse during ninth grade, only about half used any form of contraception.
Arizona’s evaluation team found that program participants’ attitudes about birth control became less favorable from pre- to posttest. They noted that this was probably a result of the “program’s focus on the failure rates of contraceptives as opposed to their availability, use and access.”
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
3. It’s based on a narrow religious viewpoint. Americans have become far more varied in their religious and moral views. Public schools have found it necessary to reflect that reality, as they properly should.
While we have become more varied in our religious views, I’m not aware of a religion that takes anything other than a chastity/abstinence view. If anything, growing religions like Islam are far more strict, not less so, in their approach to sex.
So I’m not sure I understand the “narrow” part of your comment.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron: Earth-based religions such as Wicca do not demand abstinence. Buddhism finds non-marital sex acceptable so long as it harms no one and betrays no trusts. Many more liberal Christians and Jews are relaxed about it as well. And while atheists/agnostics are still a minority, they also have children in schools.
Like it or not, the idea that everyone should remain chaste until marriage is not a universal view. What is wrong with having the schools impart information and letting the parents deal with morality?
Report comment to moderator
Hi Cameron!
Attend any school board meeting where the subject of sex education comes up and one will see a wide variety of viewpoints expressed by parents, some for religious reasons, some not. Some parents want abstinence only, some parents want abstinence emphasized, some parents want it included as an option, some parents just want their kid to be sexually responsible.
Another point – if we teach “abstinence only” how do we responsibly educate gay people? Other than MA, I suppose they’re just flat out of luck.
Report comment to moderator
We’re really asking a lot from schools. We put these hormonal kids together all day long and then expect teachers to make sure these kids know all about not getting into trouble or to impart values that their own parents do not give them.
What are parents supposed to teach their children, if anything? If children won’t even listen to their parents, will they listen to other authority figures?
Once upon a time, parents believed it to be their solemn duty to pass on to their children all the good things necessary to a productive and healthy life. These parents wanted their children to grow up honoring them and honoring God so they took the time to disciple them personally and cultivate a relationship that would point to a loving God.
Then schools were invented. And parents don’t have any time to invest in their children anymore. But they can serve on the PTA or fund raise or attend board meetings!
Teaching is a tough job. If a parent isn’t willing to take it on, why blame the school for not doing a good job?
Putting children at the mercy of the government should be done at one’s own risk. Instead of abstinence or sex immersion, how about neither? Let’s assume responsibility of our children and lay the burden of teaching them ourselves.
Report comment to moderator
Putting children at the mercy of the government should be done at one’s own risk. Instead of abstinence or sex immersion, how about neither? Let’s assume responsibility of our children and lay the burden of teaching them ourselves.
I agree with that. But unfortunately, if you take that approach and some parents don’t step up — from either negligence, squeamishness about sex or just denial that their 16-year-old has sexual desires — you end up with uninformed kids playing with fire.
Report comment to moderator
27
I think you are confusing Wiccans with Buddhists.
In Buddhism, it is not the act of sex which is sinful but the desire for sex. In order to reach enlightenment, celibacy is undertaken by the monks. Sexual misconduct is forbidden in Buddhism. In many forms of Buddhism, sexual misconduct includes non-marital sex. Most strict Buddhism would disagree with your assertion that pre-marital sex is wrong. Lust by itself is negative and damaging.
Wicca’s great commandment is to do no harm. If non-marital sex would cause harm to an individual than it would break this commandment and harm would return three-fold. Sex should be shared in love and trust and be a pleasurable experience. Marriage is not strictly required but sex is not abused or taken lightly.
Report comment to moderator
Sex ed is certainly the parent’s responsibility. When parents fail, however, it is a society’s responsibility to prevent this failure from harming the society. Unwanted pregnancies, teenage suicides, and sexually transmitted diseases show a general failure by some parents. Society should therefore take moderate approaches to prevent significant failures.
Extreme measures should certainly be avoided, however, since the majority of parents are generally effective. (Unless of course, you measure effectiveness as virginity, in which case parents are failing at an astounding rate and society would be best served by taking responsibility away from the parents)
Report comment to moderator
#31: No, I think I have it right. Buddhist monks are celibate, but that doesn’t extend to Buddhists in generals.
The “Middle Way” of Buddhism shuns both extreme puritanism and extreme permissiveness. The idea of non-attachment implies that sexual pleasure in itself is not wrong, but a continued craving lust is an impediment to the path.
One difficulty is that Buddhism doesn’t have commandments or rules as understood by adherents of Judaism or Christianity or Islam. The responsibility is on the adherent to decide what things are beneficial and what things are obstacles.
This article may help illuminate that. (I am no expert in Buddhism … I researched the question before posting because I didn’t know.)
Report comment to moderator
Buddhism varies greatly across Asia. I lived in Asia for 6 years in Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Hong Kong, and China. Many Buddhists consider non-marital sex to be a sin and many monks will tell you that non-marital sex is forbidden as it is a source of lust.
My wife and I were not allowed to sleep in the same building when we visited her family (Buddhists) because we had not been married in a Buddhist ceremony. We have been married for 3 years in a Christian ceremony but that was not considered adequate.
I would guess that the majority of Buddhists would consider non-marital sex to be a sin. I am certain I know more Buddhists than you do. I have spoken with dozens of Buddhist Monks and I have as many Buddhist friends as I have Christian friends.
Much of what you hear about India, Thailand, China, and other Asian countries is from liberal visitors who are taking their own take on the culture. My experience in these cultures is that they ae much more conservative than is commonly believed often rivaling the puritanism of England.
I have not had much experience with Japanese or Korean cultures although I have dozens of friends from each of these cultures. I have never lived in either of these countries. Perhaps Buddhism differs in these countries.
The Buddhism that I have experienced is certainly closer to extreme puritanism than to a middle road.
Report comment to moderator
I will defer to your experience then, as I only know what I read about Buddhism.
Report comment to moderator
Your article was written by Winton Higgins.
Read the next portion. It is more indicative of true Buddhism in which lust (and most forms of sex) is considered a sin.
http://www.buddhanet.net/rejoiner.htm
Report comment to moderator
I have known a couple Wiccans. They avoided non-marital sex. Since I have only known two, I am not sure their beliefs reflect that of most Wiccans (although they claimed that they did).
I have heard that Taoism is not as strict sexually, but honestly I don’t know anyone who describe themselves as strictly Tao, although I think it influences most asian cultures.
Report comment to moderator
First, I question calling something “a more evenhanded approach” only because it favors the opinion you hold. Unless you’ve read enough sex ed studies to claim some special knowledge, you have no way of knowing whether a report is an “evenhanded” summary of the relevant studies or not, and your calling it “evenhanded” is only a veneer of scientific credibility over your uninformed opinion.
Mark Twain (?) applies: “People commonly use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support rather than illumination.”
Second, I think public schools have absolutely no business teaching sex ed of any kind whatsoever. I’m not talking about studies examining the effectiveness of various approaches, etc. I’m saying the government has no right to choose one set of sexual mores over another and push them on to everybody’s children. I wouldn’t want them teaching my kids that gay sex is a profound expression of beautiful and deep love when practised safely (like this…); likewise, I wouldn’t want them teaching other people’s kids that God designed sex as a loving bond between man and wife.
Sexual morals are the role of the family, the church, and the community. If we as a society are concerned with teaching the mechanics of safe sex, hold free seminars at the Health Clinic or something.
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
That’s all find and good for you and your family. But what about all those families who don’t or can’t teach about sex? Do we just throw them by the wayside and say “oh well, not my problem”. Well it is because your taxes have to fund health clinics for unmarried teenagers who are pregnant and teens who develop STD’s, and all the welfare problems of single motherhood. There is a financial and societal cost to all of us for ignoring issues like this. Yes, it would be wonderful if every parent was responsible. But they aren’t. So we have to figure out the next best solution for dealing with it. Responsible, medically and scientifically based sex education is a good idea.
Report comment to moderator
In 18, Theo Godwyn says,
In my opinion, premarital sex is the wrong decision to make in any circumstance but we shouldn’t punish those people who make that choice by increasing their risk of sexually transmitted disease or unwanted pregnancy.
Actually, Theo, as I’m sure you know, premarital sex leads naturally to greater risks in these and other areas. No “punishment” is involved, and no other people stepping in to increase their risk. One might just as well say that we shouldn’t punish smokers by increasing their risk of lung cancer. Now, can we limit the risks of sexual activity a little bit? Yes–but just a little bit. Promiscuous girls still get pregnant in large numbers, and boys and girls get diseased, have broken hearts, choose not to get married and be responsible adults at all….
And far from society “punishing” people by bringing about the natural consequences of their actions, society pays big time to try to help people avoid the natural consequences of their action. And our desperate avoidance techniques do not work. We have diseased young people, wantonly immoral young people, and fatherless babies. We have a whole generation of young people largely uninterested in marriage and child-rearing. None of this is good for society, and it’s far deeper than an STD here and there or an occasional illicit teen pregnancy.
And Anlir, yes, in sex education I’d still teach abstinence to people who have homosexual desires.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – I agree with what you’ve written. And not only is all that not good for society, but also not good for the individual.
My heart aches for the young women who are throwing away their “virtue”, & probably their hopes for a healthy, fulfilling sexual relationship in their (possible) future marriages. Also, for the children born without parents committed to each other. Sad, sad, sad. Even tragic.
Report comment to moderator
Condoms radically decrease the risk of STDs and pregnancy. HPV vaccines can prevent genital warts. Teens and adults can be further instructed about the effectiveness of various birth control methods. They can be instructed about STDs and advised to find out more about their partner’s sexual history.
Teen pregnancy and STDs don’t have to be the natural result of pre-marital sex.
Perhaps we should increase the amount of carcinogens in cigarettes to punish smokers further and increase their risk of lung cancer.
We may not be able to decrease the emotional and spiritual effect of pre-marital sex but at least we can limit the damage caused by unwanted teen pregnancies and STDs. AIDS may no longer be fatal to many but it remains very costly to our health care system with the expensive anti-viral regimen. I would rather not have to further tax the American people just because evangelicals want to punish the wicked for their immorality.
Report comment to moderator
But Theo, it costs society more and more each day to keep people from “the cost” of their own actions. I am NOT saying, “Let them suffer; they deserve it.” I’m saying, “Tell them there’s a better way.” You’re willing to let kids be on a treadmill going faster and faster while you try to keep them from being hurt. I’m saying the kids, society, and the kids’ future families should get off the treadmill.
Again, you can prevent some diseases, some pregnancies. But that is not all that is lost. Part of what has been lost is the sense that children are a GOOD result of sex. Part of what has been lost is the anticipation of marriage. We live in a society that devalues children, and that doesn’t protect them from important things. We protect them from every possible playground accident, sure, but not from divorce and sexual predation. And then they bear their own children and the cycle continues.
I’m in favor of breaking in and telling kids they can ask for something better for their futures: responsible singleness or responsible marriage, either one, not this sexually irresponsible “freedom” that isn’t good for anyone involved. That’s not even a specifically religious viewpoint! It really isn’t possible to protect anyone from all the costs of irresponsible sex, the personal, family, community, and even national costs, so let’s stop pretending it is.
Report comment to moderator
There is no evidence that teaching responsible sex education will increase the likelihood of premarital sex. In fact, the opposite occurs. San Francisco had the lowest rate of teen sexual activity among reporting cities in the USA. This came from comprehensive sex education.
I understand your concern. Certainly abstinence is the best route. But failing that, we need to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Abstinence only education does not accomplish this.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D at #40: Actually, Theo, as I’m sure you know, premarital sex leads naturally to greater risks in these and other areas. No “punishment” is involved, and no other people stepping in to increase their risk. One might just as well say that we shouldn’t punish smokers by increasing their risk of lung cancer.
So you’re saying smokers deserve lung cancer?
Smoking is an addiction that’s very hard to break. Of all the smokers I have ever known, a figure that must be in the hundreds, 100 percent of them have known the health risks, but I know only two (2) who have successfully quit and stayed quit.
People engage in all kinds of risky activities. Rock climbing, sky diving, SCUBA diving, skateboarding, motorcycling. Even driving a car can be dangerous. In ALL CASES no one objects to giving the practiioners of those activities all of the education and information needed to reduce the risks of injury and death, and safety equipment is available, and in many cases mandatory.
But sex comes with all the moral baggage, and that’s the point where you break with that and say they DON’T deserve to know how to protect themselves.
It does not make sense.
Report comment to moderator
One thought for reflection: Abstinence-only sex ed aims to change people’s attitudes towards sex, chastity and marriage. It seeks to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs through changing moral attitudes.
Is that not precisely the same kind of “social engineering” that conservatives get up in arms about when they believe liberals are doing it?
Report comment to moderator
Karen O at #41: probably their hopes for a healthy, fulfilling sexual relationship in their (possible) future marriages.
Sorry, but this bit is just ridiculous. Many people have very happy and successful marriages with fulfilling sex lives, and don’t have to be a virgin on their wedding night to have that happen.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D at #43: I’m saying, “Tell them there’s a better way.” You’re willing to let kids be on a treadmill going faster and faster while you try to keep them from being hurt. I’m saying the kids, society, and the kids’ future families should get off the treadmill.
That’s a good goal, but abstinence-only sex ed in schools is not going to meet it. Read my post at #25 for an objective assessment of just how poorly it does. In fact it does more harm than good in some ways.(And follow the link to the source; there is a lot of useful information there.)
Changing the attitudes as you suggest has to start at home.
Report comment to moderator
Nope, Steve G, I’m saying smokers are more likely to get lung cancer, just as promiscuous children and adults are more likely to get STDs. No one has to do anything to them for that to happen.
I didn’t say they don’t deserve to know how to protect themselves; I said that continual focus on how they can protect themselves doesn’t offer fail-safe protection of any kind–it doesn’t protect 100% (or even close to it) from pregnancy, disease, heartbreak, or any other consequences of living an immoral life.
And no, of course no one “deserves” to know how to sin without consequence. That doesn’t mean that I wish horrid consequences on promiscuous people; I do not. But do they “deserve” to avoid consequences, no. But deserving or not deserving isn’t what I said. What I said is that we’re addressing the wrong issues, and everyone from the individual to the nation has suffered as a result. We can sterilize all our children at birth and wipe out all sexually transmitted diseases, and it would still be a very bad idea, morally, emotionally, and physically, to be promiscuous.
And no, I don’t imagine that a few sessions of abstinence education would be likely to innoculate kids against their whole culture. It’s still better to teach abstinence. But add to that a lot of other things, such as expecting young men and women to behave with propriety and dress appropriately, teaching them the moral consequences of actions in general, etc. Right now our whole culture has decided fornication isn’t even wrong, homosexuality isn’t wrong, and adultery is only slightly wrong…naturally it’s going to be hard to tell teens otherwise. But it’s still worth doing.
Report comment to moderator
You are right that comprehensive sex education attempts to change attitudes towards sex. The goal is to emphasize abstinence first followed by safety for those who decide to become sexually active.
Apparently, highly liberal San Francisco has done it well in some respects. 69% of students reported being virgins. 66% of students who reported having sex also reported using condoms. 11% of students reported using birth control pills.
Compare that to Dallas, Texas (conservative republican voters with significant evangelical presence and an emphasis on abstinence only education). 40% of students reported being virgins. 60% of students who reported having sex also reported using condoms. 7% of students reported using birth control pills.
San Francisco may have a higher abortion rate than Dallas. California no longer reports abortion statistics to the CDC.
Since 50% of students will become sexually active, we must take steps to keep these teens from contracting HIV or having an unwanted pregnancy. To condemn half the student population for their inability to keep Christian morals would be heartless. Interestingly, Christans do not are not any more chaste than non-Christians. Some studies even conclude that evangelicals have sex at a higher rate than non-evangelicals.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD And no, I don’t imagine that a few sessions of abstinence education would be likely to innoculate kids against their whole culture. It’s still better to teach abstinence. But add to that a lot of other things, such as expecting young men and women to behave with propriety and dress appropriately, teaching them the moral consequences of actions in general, etc. Right now our whole culture has decided fornication isn’t even wrong, homosexuality isn’t wrong, and adultery is only slightly wrong…naturally it’s going to be hard to tell teens otherwise. But it’s still worth doing.
I agree with all of this, I just think the school isn’t the right place to do it. The school doesn’t have the amount of time needed, nor does it have the right to teach one set of moral values to teens coming from a diversity of backgrounds.
Abstinence-only is a well intentioned effort that can do more harm than good. One of the studies I found and mentioned in #25 found that teens who had been through abstinence-only programs were as likely to have sex as others, but less likely to use contraceptives. The reason was that the program emphasized the same points you do about their not being 100 percent effective.
The focus on failure rather than use didn’t keep the kids from having sex; it just kept them from having a condom’s 95- or 98-percent effectiveness at preventing harm.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!