Posts
Sex-Ed: No Child Left Behind
Sometimes it is easy to take education for granted. When I see TV commercials warn that an oral contraceptive does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases, I have to remind myself that not everyone has had the benefit of learning that I have. Unfortunately, some of this seems to be by design.
I've come across several news stories about abstinence-only sex education over the past year. Several notable ones include:
1. "Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President George W. Bush's education plan, have had no impact on teenagers' behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study."
2. "A leading group of pediatricians says teenagers need access to birth control and emergency contraception, not the abstinence-only approach to sex education favored by religious groups and President Bush."
3. "The U.S. government's emphasis on abstinence-only programs to prevent AIDS is hobbling Africa's battle against the pandemic by downplaying the role of condoms, a senior U.N. official said on Monday."
Continue Reading
I'm all for encouraging abstinence, but not at the expense of the basic issues concerning sexual health. In terms of high school education, I think kids ought to be taught the basics about reproductive biology, sexually transmitted diseases, and contraception. Yes, teach about abstinence and warn that contraceptive methods are not foolproof, but give them a viable plan B. (But be careful about disparaging plan B, otherwise it seems pointless.) I think the same would basically apply for international efforts as well.
Disclaimers about oral contraceptives not protecting against STDs should be provided for the ignorant, not the intentionally uninformed.
(For basic information about sexually transmitted diseases see here.)
3 comments:
I wouldn't necessarily recommend this, but I had a YM leader give a lesson on chastity who then produced a condom at the end and said, "And if you think chastity is BS, and you're gonna have sex anyway, use this."
!
(Many Mormons would be galled by this, and I think I am too, but he might have a point. If people aren't going to be chaste, then "safe sex" is better than "unsafe sex," if "no sex" is rejected.)
(Anon. to protect said leader's identity)
My wife says that her mother had some frank/realistic talks with her, that if she decided she was going to have sex, to let her mother know so they could get her on birth control. There was no sense in multiplying the problems.
Slightly off topic, but connected: I think some people go overboard with their committment to consequences. They argue against contraceptives because it removes consequences for actions. I think the application of such reasoning is short-sighted.
It is interesting to note that the Church instructes bishops that single, pregnant women should not be encouraged to keep the child as a part of repentance.
I think contraception should be encouraged among the unrighteous. THis preserves children for the righteous.
Post a Comment