I always find it interesting when proponents of abstinence-only education start espousing things like ethics, parental-child communication, character, and "a healthy dose of self-respect" when talking about the elements of "holistic" abstinence education programs like K-Lo, or Kathryn Lopez, does in her article in the Washington Times today. Ms. Lopez's support for these programs is based solely on ideological and religious points of view rather than any thing grounded in scientific evidence. Of course, she is a "conservative columnist" according to Wikipedia, not a journalist, and she has no background in health education or public health (her undergraduate degree is in philosophy and politics).
K-Lo inaccurately describes comprehensive sex ed programs as handing out condoms and promoting teen sexual activity and repeats the same old tired argument that teen sex is the problem that results in unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. She also provides "evidence" in support of abstinence-only programs from the Best Friends evaluation, a report that used logistic regression modeling to compare girls in the Best Friends programs (a program that helps teens develop important social connections, particularly to community adults) to the CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) without indicating what, if any, type of sexuality education the YRBS respondents were getting. So, if a teen girl who participates in the Best Friends program and develops important social ties is compared to a teen who does not and received no other type of sexuality education then she probably will engage in less negative risk-taking. Duh. Not to mention that they asked about "having sex" which we know most people define as penile-vaginal intercourse. And why do they always equate sexual activity with smoking, drinking, and taking drugs? Finally, what about ALL of the scientific evidence that shows that teens in comprehensive sexuality education programs are more likely to delay the onset of sexual activity, have fewer sexual partners, and are more likely to use condoms or other forms of birth control when they become sexually active when compared to teens who have abstinence-only or no sexuality education. Why is this so confusing for people?
Let's talk about what is at the crux of this issue. Teen sexuality. The question that I am most often asked when I talk to groups about why it is important to have comprehensive sexuality education in schools is, "Are you telling me that you want to teach 14 year olds how to have sex?" Which is almost always followed by, "Because I have a problem with that." For years, I have given some circuitous answer about teaching age appropriate, scientifically accurate information, blah, blah, blah. No more. Yes, I want to teach 8th graders how to have sex. Not because I think 8th graders should be having sex. I want to teach them how to have sex because I want them to be able to make informed decisions about their lives and for their lives to be lived as democratic, productive, and informed citizens. I don't believe that teen sexuality is something to fear. In fact, I feel that teen sexuality is something to be celebrated and explored with all the curiosity that one explores and experiences other aspects of life. This does not mean that I am advocating 14 year olds having sex with one another. I think that teens should be able to learn about their bodies, academically and experientially. They should be told that masturbation is a normal activity, that it is a great alternative to sexual intercourse and a great way to reduce stress (and that it will make them better lovers later in life when they do become sexually active). We know that most teens will become sexually active at some point in their lives regardless of whether or not it is as a teen, which is when most Americans become sexually active, or when they are married. Wouldn't it be nice if they knew what they were doing and how to be sexually healthy and happy and able to make informed decisions whenever that time arrives? It's time to step out of the dark ages and put sexual health and sexual knowledge on the list of valued things in a person's life.
UPDATE: It seems that this whole not teaching teens about sex is continuing to prove so extremely successful that there was a significant increase in teen birth rates in 26 states in 2006. When you read the article, be sure and check out the comments. I love that some people are still blaming rock'n'roll and television and continue to state how wonderful life was in the 1950s (nothing like some good old fashioned fifties racism, sexism, homophobia. oh what a sweet time.)
