- Abstinence only educators say that they provide information about contraception, it is not a focus of the course.
- Comprehensive educators say that they provide information and relationship skills which encourage kids to choose abstinence.
The Comprehensive woman pointed out that by pointing out the failure rates, teens might think "well, they all fail, I may as well not use anything." I would point out that teaching about birth control and the naturalness of sexual activity (with or without marriage) might lead teens to think "well, everyone is doing it, I must be a dweeb if I'm not." (I heard a talk about "50 ways to yes" which told stories about how you present something changing the chances that it would be accepted: I think this is one of those cases.)
Look, I'm for teaching about condoms. But then let's teach about the failure rates too. Let's teach kids that they don't need to use their bodies to get the emotional support they seek. Let's teach kids better ways to have someone who loves you than having a baby. Let's teach kids that they are so valuable that their sexuality is not something to experiment with, but something to cherish. Let's teach kids that not doing it is the normal pattern. Let's teach kids that they are more than their sexuality, that they have a mind, emotions, and a body apart from sex.
From what it sounded like on the radio, neither the comprehensive nor the abstinence only groups have much of a difference from this program, and if they would start listening to each other, they would find that out. Unless both the women were lying about their actual positions...
2 comments:
My view on the subject is that fighting against teenage sexuality is very, very, very difficult. And certainly being 100% effective when fighting against it is nigh impossible. I personally think the problems are biological and no teaching is going to be 100% effective when teenagers are allowed to comingle as they are today. But even if it's merely societal, we can teach one thing in school but would not be able to remove the other societal inputs, so putting together a 100% effective teaching for all kids would require a movement far beyond the classroom.
I don't think that teenage sex is a good thing but I think that teenage pregnancies and STDs are worse. Unexpected pregnancies lead to abortions, forced unexpected (and likely unhappy) marriages, stopped education. STDs of course can be disfiguring or lethal.
And if kids learn that to be caught with a condom is to be a bad, immoral person then they're less likely to have one handy if they _do_ fail to choose abstinence, either due to a conscious decision to have sex or due to a moment of weakness. And that's bad for everybody.
I think we two, at least, can agree:
1. anything that replaces teenage sex with abstinence is a good thing.
2. anything that replaces protected sex with unprotected sex is a bad thing.
To me, point number two is more important, because I think it has a greater impact on the individual's life and on society as a whole.
On the other hand, whether an individual is harmed by teenage sex is, well, something that is based on the individual - and their belief system. If the assertion is that everyone who engages in it is harmed by teenage sex - how does one prove such an assertion? I think it's easier to say that waiting is _better_, because you're older, and able to make wiser decisions. But that is likely true for all teenage actions, so there has to be some higher bar.
I hope that my kid learns all the lessons you've mentioned - that they are more than their body, that not having sex as a teenager is the best option, that they are special and important, and that they love themselves enough to not do anything they think they will regret. But I think if they learn that, they'll learn it from me and my wife, in a way that no school teacher could replace. Certainly from my childhood, I cannot imagine a school teacher who could have given me that message in a way that I would have listened.
I definitely agree with your two points. And I agree that I can't think about any class that could have taught me what I want my kids to learn about their bodies, although I can think of some teachers who could have taught me those lessons.
My question about the worth of some sex education classes has to do with a restatement of number 1:
1'. Anything that replaces teenage abstinence with sexual activity is a bad thing.
If a teacher can't really accomplish replacing teenage sex with abstinence, is it possible for them to replace teenage abstinence with sex? I know of studies which show watching TV with lots of sexual activity increase the likelihood of earlier sexual activity, I know that teenagers already have an inflated idea of who is "doing it" (i.e., not rooted in reality). If a teacher goes into detail about how teenage sex is a beautiful thing and a natural part of being human and emerging into adulthood (mentioned briefly by the comprehensive sexual educator), will she open the door for some kids to be led into sexual activity by the idea that everyone is doing it---even if they're not?
This is not very clear right now (and it's hard to edit and read in a long comment) but that's really what I'm opposed to---the false idea that you have to have sex as a teenager in order to be complete. I see it on TV, I hear it from people who should know better (The People's Pharmacy, the Dr. I saw in college) and I don't really want it in school.
I am greatly encouraged by the Friendly Neighborhood Developmental Psychologist, who assures me that kids' values come largely from their parents, so maybe the discussion of what influence teachers actually have in sexual behavior is the discussion we should be having, not whether teachers should or shouldn't demonstrate a condom in class.
As for whether teenagers are harmed by sexual activity, I have heard stories by school nurses that are heartbreaking. Clearly 13 is too young for almost every girl (I have no experience with boys). Clearly most 18 year olds can handle the emotional, social, and physical consequences of sexual activity (although I've read excerpts of a book written about college sexual behavior, not written by a conservative, that makes me ask questions about that idea..). I personally believe in waiting for marriage, but I don't know that that's something I'd want a sex ed class to try to explain. The problem is that the way you answer the question depends too much on your philosophy, and not the other way around.
Must go to bed... I might have to write another blog post about this =)
Post a Comment