When I was younger I was much more inclined to see the world in shades of grey. Part of this was, of course, adolescent rebellion, but as I have moved closer to thirty I have developed some strong convictions. I can compromise on some matters but on certain matters I have to put my foot down. Case in point.
In this post, Nate Nelson proposes an interestingly diplomatic method of teaching sex education. In short, he believes that both abstinence-only and comprehensive sexual education models can peacefully co-exist. It is laudable of Mr. Nelson to seek a means to pull together two seemingly contradictory points of view. I do not believe, however, that such a compromise is possible.
To me, abstinence-only education is totally insufficient because it often resorts to scare tactics. In high school, I was subjected to slides of random strangers with advanced stages of syphilis. The football coach who served as some semblance of health education referred to venereal diseases in down-home fashion: The state makes me tell you guys about VD. These bad boys. You don't want 'em.
When I went through high school RE, I attended AYS. I found it to be most informative and unflinchingly honest. This was what I needed. I will say, with a great degree of pride, that none of the young ladies in my group became pregnant and none of the young men contributed to an uh-oh pregnancy.
As I think back further into my past, in fifth grade, I went through the obligatory sex education provided by the public school I attended that advanced no strong position either way, yet told us the minimum necessary information to cover all the bases mandated by the state. I remember being frustrated at how little I actually learned. As I got older, I came to understand that faced with such a loaded topic as sex education, the school system opted for the path of least resistance in an effort to avoid being sued.
That is another issue in itself, that I will touch on briefly. Public schools have become so fearful of lawsuits and bad press that they will bend over backwards to accommodate the demands of parents. Many of these are totally frivolous and completely nonsensical, but god forbid little Johnnie or Janie be deprived of whatever his or her parents want for their little bundle of joy. 80% of these lawsuits would be laughed out of court and never progress past the beginning stages of litigation. Schools have become parent-pleasers and that's part of the reason why so many kids have been raised without any sense of boundaries. They've gotten everything they wanted and their whole lives have been micromanaged by well-meaning, but highly misguided parents.
I do tend to see some things in terms of right versus wrong. I see abstinence education as wrong because 1) it is insufficient 2) it is unrealistic 3) it is no longer relevant. Pandora's Box has already been opened. As I've mentioned before in previous entries, we have become a hyper-sexual culture and I think a reason (among many) why mental illness, personality disorders, and eating disorders are so prevalent amongst today's youth is created by this schizophrenic, psychotic, distorted view of sexuality that is perpetuated in the name of greed, cowardice, and ignorance.
h/t to Uneek
I totally agree. In Athens, one of the more liberal cities in Georgia, they teach abstinence only in the public schools. One could argue that it is the one thing they do teach, but that's for another time.
ReplyDeleteAnd the teen pregnancy rate in Athens? Is 25%. One in four teen girls in Athens are pregnant by the time they turn 19. And the welfare rolls here just keep getting bigger and more overwhelmed. I wonder if anyone's made that connection at the Board of Education yet?