
When it comes to sex and education about it, a veil of stupidity and hypocrisy seems to descend upon those in charge, especially in some parts of the US. Although it is no different from most political people around the globe, in this case we are talking about influencable minds that may be driven to wrong conclusions and wrong lines of thought.
The BBC in this report shows some of the shortcomings of US abstinence programmes in schools, and how enthusiasm for them is waning.
At least 17 states have opted out of the system and others have suspended funding while Congress investigates whether such programmes work.
Congress would better spend their time fixing the economy and removing some draconian legislation (eg laws forbidding inter-state health insurance purchases). Put young healthy people of both genders together for over a decade in the restricted space of the school and sooner or later some of them will have sex, some will decide not to and some will want to but won't find the right person. If I were to be crude no piece of legislation can make a state of arousal go away, so what should be done about it?
Certainly something MUST be done, if this statistic is true:
[...]a report earlier this year from America's leading health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which revealed one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease.
So how does the federal government spend its money? Funding programmes that just hammer in the "don't have sex" message. Thankfully, as the report states, only a quarter of schools teach abstinence, while the rest do some sort of sex education. Still, 25% is twenty-five percent too many.
"This national programme which has wasted $1.5bn (£750m) of tax money is a failure and our teens are paying the price," says Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood."
So is this a rant against teaching abstinence? Not at all. I decry the means, not the ends. I for one believe that teenaged kids shagging themselves silly 24/7 isn't exactly the definition of a free and civilized country. However I am outraged at the deception that is inherent in the kind of abstinence teaching those unfortunate kids are getting. Educators choose to close their eyes and look the other way.
"They don't touch on subjects like sexuality, STDs (sexually transmitted diseases), birth control - it's not allowed because of abstinence-only education. It leaves you on a cliff-hanger - and a lot of teenagers become sexually active in their middle school years."
And if they don't stay quiet and deny you information, they take things in their own hands and lie:
He [Roger Norman] runs an organization called Wonderful Days which does not receive government funding but teaches abstinence as part of the health curriculum in some local schools.
[...] "Self control leads to a happy, joyful life. If we can learn to control the most basic of drives - the sex drive - for good, then we can control drugs, gangs, alcohol and abusive anger."
His lessons promote marriage and virginity - for both partners - as an ideal. They emphasise disease as a consequence of sex before marriage.
His argument seems to be that you can blame all the problems of this world, from abusive behaviour to street gangs to alcoholism on sex. Not stupidity, not lack of education, not deprivation, not poverty, not even lack of social mobility but SEX. As per the last point, last time I checked a ring on your finger didn't protect you from genital warts. Go figure.
Furthermore, his "alumni" display a remarkably skewed view of the whole of humanity, in particular their peers employing their energy in other, dare I say more entertaining ways:
Eighteen-year-old Ashley says she believes teenagers who experiment with sex are laying the foundations for troubled relationships later in life.
"At some point everybody ends up getting married. Everybody wants commitment at some point and nobody likes to be cheated on.
"But a lot of the young people I know who go around have experiences with lots of different people are just preparing themselves for not knowing how to be committed to somebody.
"Once you get into the practice of doing whatever you want, it's hard to change when you're older."
I guess "try before you buy" rarely crosses these kids' minds. Surely enough these programmes do end up persuading SOME people not to have sex:
Sixteen-year-old Josh says he relies on friends to help him stay abstinent.
"I have a lot of close friends and we pretty much agree on the same thing so we keep each other in line most of the time. Yes, it's difficult, but my friends are there and I'm there for them, and it gets easier if you have friends who agree with you."
I do not want to judge those who are guilty of nothing but being led into deception by people they trust (including their parents). What angers me is adults who indoctrinate teenagers into lies and falsehood under the pretence of care, religion or school policy. They further encourage those indoctrinated teenagers to go find new converts, with the added pressure of the advice coming from a peer.
You want to teach abstinence and responsible sexual behavior? Fine, I'll help. Instead of making people loathe themselves for their completely natural and healthy desires teach them the purpose of those same wants. Instead of shutting your eyes teach people about STDs and pregnancy so they know there's always an amount of risk associated with sex.
Teach them also what a great measure of trust is implicitly involved in intimate contact, and how that trust should be earned by both partners. While you're at it, tell 'em sex may be good, but if you have it with a person you really love it's GREAT. Ultimately, considered it can be great, you'd want to find the person you know would make it great, and you'd also want to have your fun unspoilt by an STD. Can't a promise of greater fun work better than scare tactics?
The bottom line is that the scaremongering and false approach adopted so far (by many, not all) isn't working. All it does is impose frustration and promote masturbation.
Image courtesy of ipostr.com.
4 comments:
I started reading your post, and stopped reading when I saw you were using the BBC as the source for your argument.
The BBC proposes nothing in the sight of truth.
I don't think that the BBC as a source makes or breaks Mr. Manfredi's broader points, with which I substantially agree.
There's nothing wrong with abstinence being taught as a part of sex-ed - I certainly was, here in BC. What's NOT alright is abstinence being taught to the exclusion of all other possibilities. It's a little bit like teaching pacifism as the only means of conflict resolution. It may be the most effective in theory, but we live in a real world.
I agree with the first comment. How can anyone believe anything those vile commie creeps at the BBC have to say about anything, is beyond me. And of course, with the BBC its always the same old "dummy Americans" narrative that they peddle with everything that comes out of there pathetic mouth.
Yours Truly,
Glenn M.
The BBC is one of the world's standards in terms of information. Impartial information doesn't exist, and expecting it is a delusion.
I try to work with facts and take everything with tweezers and a pinch of salt. But the fact that such people are allowed to teach teenagers about an important part of their personal identity is beyond me. That kids are being denied information about infections that could endanger them is criminal. All in the name of what?
I agree with abstinence teaching. But if 'tis were done when 'tis done, then 't were well 't were done properly. Sorry if the paraphrase isn't litterally exact.
Post a Comment