Below is a paper I just did regarding abstinence based education. I did it for a course I am in. I still have about 24 hours before I have to pass it in. Comments or suggestions are appreciated but certainly not expected, as are highlighting any grammar errors. The Fallacy of Abstinence Education Many parents cringe at the thought of their teenaged children having sex. Trepidation about their daughter becoming pregnant, or their son impregnating a young girl, is behind many parent’s primary sexual fears. Besides pregnancy, many parents also worry about their teenaged children contracting or sharing sexually-transmitted infections. Additionally, some parents simply do not want their teenaged children having sex because they feel they are too young, or for religious or cultural reasons. In many school districts in Canada, and more so in the United States, these concerns have culminated to the point that many schools now teach abstinence as the primary message in school-based sexuality education programs. This approach, however good its intentions, is misguided and fallacious. I submit to you that the very reasons why abstinence is taught as the primary message in school-based sexuality education programs are the precise reasons why it should not be. It should be noted that for these purposes abstinence refers to the practice of voluntarily refraining from sexual intercourse, it does not include sexual acts such as digital stimulation or oral sex. Abstinence is a perversion; it is deviant from orthodox human behaviour. Any educator who teaches students abstinence is the only sexual behaviour appurtenant to teenagers is doing a tremendous disservice to the taxpayers who pay their salary. It is my personal belief that abstinence is the most appropriate form of sexual behaviour for teenagers, but it most certainly is not the only form of teenage sexual behaviour. Sexuality education programs that go beyond the shackles imposed by abstinence based programs, henceforth referred to as comprehensive sexuality education programs or CSEP, have many critics. The primary ammunition that many critics use to denunciate CSEP is the assertion that by giving teenagers an encompassing amount of information regarding sex will simply serve to encourage teenagers to engage in it. This is a flimsy argument. Providing teenagers with information and literature about subjects serve merely to inform and educate, it does not serve to manipulate. Do history teachers worry that they are turning students into neo-Nazis when they teach the Second World War? Do parents worry that their teenager will turn into a homicidal manic anti-Semite after reading Mein Kampf? It is absurd to give serious consideration to either of the aforesaid possibilities, yet we are led to believe by the critics of CSEP that the teacher who educates students about the proper way to put a condom on is turning their students into sexual beings earlier than they would have otherwise. In this respect, an erroneous educational double standard has arisen. Some teenagers are going to have sex regardless of what is, and is not, taught in school. I propose to you that CSEP is what benefits these students and society as a whole, best. If teen pregnancy truly is the primary fear that parents and proponents of abstinence based sexuality educational programs hold, then ways to prevent pregnancy should undoubtedly be covered in sexuality education programs. True, abstinence is the best way of avoiding pregnancy, but if some teenagers are going to have sex regardless of what their teacher or parent tells them, then they should be properly informed about other ways to prevent pregnancy. Consider what would upset a parent more: that their fifteen year-old daughter is having sex but is educated about the topic and does not become pregnant, or that their fifteen year-old daughter is having sex and is not educated about it and becomes pregnant. Many teenagers are having sex, but there are also many teenagers who are not having sex. CSEP still benefits these students; the reason for this is because like their peers, virtually all these students will have sex at some point in their life. When this point arrives the comprehensive sexuality education they received in school may serve to help them make more informed decisions regarding their body. Contrary to what some believe, individuals do not magically become sexually informed the moment they move out of their parent’s home, or turn twenty, or marry. At some point individuals have to learn about sexuality. This can occur at school under the guidance of educated professionals, or it can occur through other means, such as internet sites or word of mouth. Given the two options, it is my contention that the former is the preferential. Personal experiences shape everyone’s values and beliefs. As an undergraduate I had the opportunity to serve as a resident assistant for two years. During those two years my colleagues and I were entrusted to provide guidance to approximately 1 400 freshmen. Surveys would indicate that about half of these freshmen (700) were virgins when they moved into my residence. In my estimation, which is based on anecdotal, observational, and intimate evidence, I would calculate that about half of these virgin freshmen (or about 350) lost their virginity during their first month of university, many during the first week itself. It is my belief that many of these newly sexual individuals did not have a proper education or knowledge of sexual issues. I am not aware of any pregnancies that occurred in my residence, but sexually-transmitted infections did run rampant. It is my predication that if these students had a more thorough sexual education in junior and senior high school, the rates of sexually-transmitted infections would have been much lower. Although many of these sexually-transmitted infections can be cured just like the common cold, some, such as herpes, cannot, and reside in the individual as life-long, latent viruses. It is debatable to what extent a CSEP may have helped prevent these individuals from contracting a life-long virus like herpes, but certainly the odds are higher than a student who received abstinence based sexuality education. My final argument against abstinence based sexuality education programs concerns religion. Many parents push abstinence on their children and expect school teachers to do the same, because of their religious beliefs. In their opinion, sex is sacred and something that is shared between two married people. The problem with this approach is that we live in a secular society; this is Canada, not Saudi Arabia. Religious interference of any persuasion and of any degree has no place in schools that are funded by a secular government. CSEP educators have no desire to offend anyone’s religion, but it is their inalienable right and duty in a secular country to inform and educate students about all aspects of sexuality, regardless of a student or parent’s religious persuasion. To encapsulate, sexuality education in schools is a controversial issue. It is my belief that much of the reason behind this is because many parents are inherently uncomfortable with the thought of their teenaged son or daughter having sex. However, just because a parent may not want to think about their teenager having sex, some teenagers may be having sex regardless. With this in consideration, it is my proposal that teenagers be given the most comprehensive sexual education as possible, covering topics such as pregnancy prevention and sexually-transmitted infections. This comprehensive sexual education not only serves sexually active teenagers, it will also come to serve non-sexually active teenagers when they do become sexual active later in life.
Andy, Please note some suggested changes. I'll put them in bold and, when I've suggested a change in wording, the suggested wording will be in bold caps inside brackets with the words they may replace. This is a solid paper. Your arguments are well constructed and you supply good support. The paper flows from beginning to end with no side trips -- something I see all too little of these days. In a moment of whimsy, I was going to suggest you title it "The Phallusy of Abstinence Education." Luckily I restrained myself before I typed that. Wait a minute! :shock: On to your paper Aside from that, I'd suggest simplifying your prose a bit. Words like "appurtenant, encaspsulate" and phrases like "encompassing amount of information" tend to make your prose a bit pedantic. Just a suggestion. Hope this helps, pard.
Re: RE: Abstinence based education Heh. You know full well that I am not in any grade, but I appreciate your comment nonetheless, regardless of its disingenuous nature. I am doing my third degree, a masters in education. Andypalmer, are you an abstinence education proponent? This assignment is a position based one, we were not allowed to cite any sources. Otherwise my argument would have been stronger, involving empirical studies and such.
RE: Re: RE: Abstinence based education Couldnt you have found something else to write on? It's too late now.. I should have replied earlier. I think you miss the boat on why MOST parents want abstinence taught. It's NOT that they think their kids wont have sex if it is, they just want some support in what they are teaching at home. And they certainly dont want the message that handing out condoms to middle schoolers sends. Kids are almost ALWAYS going to select the message that most suits their short term pleasure. It's a real dilemma... there's no getting this absolutely right. But pretending 'Abstinence only' has been a dismal failure is not the truth either. I dont think the actual results show that. Whether it's from what kids learn on their own.. or take from that and adjust to their whims, 'Ignorance' hasnt exactly been the result. And polling teens has shown that even those who get the 'educator preferred' teaching often decline 'safe sex' for other reasons. So, I would only suggest putting in a little leavening.
RE: Re: RE: Abstinence based education I read a report recently of a kid that died using compressed air (the stuff you clean computers with). The comunity was shocked because they had never had any problems with that before. They asked the kids best friend and found out that the kid had learned of the "habit" from a TV show that was discussing its dangers. The kid would never even have known about the possibility without the show. Moral of the Story: Too much information can kill. The problem with the majority of the non-abstinance based programs is that they reduce sexual activity to the clinical; i.e., they remove the "specialness" from sexual activity and the discussion of sexual activity and reduce is to the common/everyday. By doing so, it is sending the message that sex isn't a big deal, it's not anything special. Afterall, if its ok to discuss in detail in a class, then its ok to discuss in detail with your friends and ok to experiment with. What's the big deal, afterall? Think about it, how many teenagers are going to independently think of, say, anal sex, on their own, without having heard of it somewhere? Teaching them the full menu of possibilities is not necessarily a good thing. Personally, I don't think schools should be in the sex education business. I am more than capable of, and comfortable with, talking to my three children about the subject. It is true that not all children are blessed with parents with my outlook on the subject so, we are forced to have it available, but make it an optional class, one that requires the guardian's permission, and offer both the abstinence based class and the "other" one - if the parents want help educating their kids about the subject, let THEM choose, the level and method of education. What it boils down to is that sexuality is not an educational topic, it is a social topic (and for many, a moral topic) and as such, should not be part of the mandatory cirriculum. At most, it should be a "community service offering" of the schools that requires parental consent. Afterall, it is the parents who will have to deal with the consequences of actions in this area, not the school.
RE: Re: RE: Abstinence based education Andypalmer: I dont know if you've ever written anything on here that I agree with more! Because I read BETWEEN the lines, there. It IS INDEED a question of social mores. To pretend it isnt, is to engage denial to the fullest extent. Kids dont need ANY outside influence to become sexually aware. It's innate. But the attitudes depicted in their environments tell them how it should be treated. A 'denial' problem exits on both sides of the question, of course. The entertainment industry believes they can get away with sexual depiction because it's a reflection of reality, but it's a reality they are themselves creating. It's a parents duty to believe their kids arent having sex and that kids listen to them about it. But MOST parents dont delude themselves into thinking that parental stricture is absolutely followed. And it's interesting that not even the Amish believe that. Here's the nut of the problem: Kids almost ALWAYS take what's 'accepted' by society {in their view} and push the boundaries out, further. I always thought about 10%. As I recall we never PREACHED to our kids, but we made it clear what we felt was acceptable in THEIR MEDIA and what wasnt acceptable. As in 'Not in OUR HOUSE!' Not that the outcome was perfect but, overall, we're now pretty satisfied in how they turned out.
RE: Re: RE: Abstinence based education Ok, obviously I disagree with almost all of the above. Maybe it is an age thing, maybe my view will change as I get older. Or maybe if you spent 7 hours a day with hundreds of diverse junior high kids your view will change. Anyways, I am not a parent, but I will reiterate a question from my paper, and give an honest answer. Consider what would upset a parent more: that their fifteen year-old daughter is having sex but is educated about the topic and does not become pregnant, or that their fifteen year-old daughter is having sex and is not educated about it and becomes pregnant.
Re: RE: Re: RE: Abstinence based education (Letter headings added) But of course, the response is, what make a parent happier, (A) that their fifteen year-old daughter is having sex but is educated about the topic and does not become pregnant, or (C) that their fifteen year-old daughter is taught that abstinence is the ONLY absolutely foolproof way to prevent transmission of STDs, and because she takes this advice to heart she doesn't have sex until she's mature enough to do so responsibly. Now, of course, the argument then is about whether (C) is a realistic possibility. Opponents of abstinence-only sexual education will argue that it isn't, and I agree with them, but it's disingenuous of you to frame the discussion as if it's not a point worth discussing.
RE: Re: RE: Abstinence based education After the shock wears off, and the decisions are made... what the parents will TYPICALLY worry about is WHY and HOW she happened to have sex. Because the parents JUST might worry about those attitudes affecting the REST of her life. That is purposely neutral on Birth Control and Abortion because there are bigger issues in the long run. All parents want their kids to end up in a happy meaningful life. Seven month gestational wonders existed long before the pill or the controversy on Sex-Ed. Since time began, actually..I'm one of them. But somehow almost all teens seemed to wait till they were capable of carrying on a life on their own before they got caught. And here's another thing you might not think of... if a fourteen or fifteen year old got pregnant, guess who 'society' cocked an eyebrow at. That's right.. the girls' daddy. Just threw that in in case you thought that was something else that was new.
Re: RE: Re: RE: Abstinence based education Attitudes change. Do you think the same way now then when you were 15? Certainly not. What doesn't change is babies, they don't go anywhere. And if you're talking about abortion, certainly the emotional baggage of that will last longer than the attitude that made a girl have sex in the first place.
RE: Re: RE: Abstinence based education andyns. You seem to think that teenagers having sex is a foregone conclussion. My wife was 20 when I married her; our wedding night was her first time. My girls (4 and 2) aren't old enough to have any conversations about sex with yet, but I plan to start pretty early (~ 8 ) and will expand the scope of those conversations as they get older. Part of that conversation is about birth control - afterall, she and her future husband may not be ready for children as soon as they marry. If my 15/16 year old daughter came to me and asked to go on birth control pills, then we'd have a discussion about the doctor's appointment (gyno) and about how the pills work, and how their not 100% effective nor are they proof against disease - all framed as "preparation for marriage", yet with the understanding that, despite (or because of) our best instructional efforts on the subject, she will make her own choices. The girls will know, however, that they can come to either of their parents, ask questions, and receive no judgement for those questions (or requests, in this case). Yes, even informed teenagers may choose to have sex, but that needs to be an informed decision based upon an understanding of the importance of sex, not just the clinical aspects of how it works.
RE: Re: RE: Abstinence based education I think its fantastic that you have a safe and open home environment, many kids do not. There is no need to go into detail, but many of my students come from the most destructive, unsafe home environment you can imagine. I've had students in junior high who aren't just having sex, but who are sex offenders! It is not pretty. I think there is some confusion over what is meant by a comprehensive program. What that means is, it is COMPREHENSIVE. It covers abstinence, it covers emotional issues, it covers masturbation, it covers failure rates of condoms and birth control pills, it covers almost everything, bondage and the like excluded. The classes are not taught in labs, they are not clinical. And I do not think that teenagers having sex is a foregone conclusion. I believe that, depending on the particular region, between 40-60% are by the time they graduate high school, because that is the case.
Well, I don't really have a horse in this race. I'm no longer teaching, and I'm not a parent -- or grandparent or great ... . I do have a few comments, though. It would be true to say that parents are almost equally divided in two camps -- one thinks that teachers should be teaching subjects and NOT attitudes. These are things that should be taken care of at home. The other camp says that teachers should do their best to augment and re-inforce the values the parents have worked so hard to inculcate in the first place. It would be true, except I've noted that the majority of people in each camp ARE THE SAME PEOPLE. No problem with that dichotomy; just how does the school respond to those often contradictory demands? As concerns sex education, I'm often amused by people equating it to bomb-making instruction and the like. The only thing that's similar between the two is that each is available on the web. The only thing that's lacking there may be the consequences of actions and the basic health and safety information that can't be easily skipped over. Many of our high-school and middle-schools offer "consumer math" courses to ensure that kids understand the ramifications of compound interest and the like. And I taught government to high-school seniors at least partially as a societal survival course. What's wrong with throwing a little life education at the kids? As to the charge that talking about sex in the classroom will make kids want to have sex, I'm reminded of a former colleague who said during a teacher's meeting: "Of course, dealing with this stuff will make kids think of sex. Rebuilding a carborator for three hours will make teenagers thing about having sex." Most of the cry against sex education is politically based. Rich people don't send their kids to public school and hate paying taxes for any reason -- much less taxes that benefit someone other than themselves or friends. But much of this criticism stems from the fact that each generation views the following generation with horror and dread, and that parents are always frustrated in their inability to produce progeny with the same values and opinions they have. This never changes. During the course of my lifetime, there have been several "demons" that have thwarted parents' ability to raise their children to follow the path the parents value -- as well as reasons why their children are violent or suicidal. None of this is never the parent's fault, it is rather the fault of [over the years]: rock n' roll music banning of mandatory prayer in public schools violence and sex in movies and TV dungeons and dragons and other role-playing games rap music violence in video games MySpace and Facebook -- and THROUGHOUT MY ENTIRE LIFE -- the public school system Perhaps the reason that education is performed primarily outside the home following the age of 5 is that it's a good thing to give children information, training, contacts, and experiences that they DON'T find in the confines of their home [which they did not choose to live in] and their church [which they probably didn't decide to be baptised in]. But, like I say, I'm not a parent, nor am I any longer a teacher. The good thing [for me] about this discussion [aside from reading Andy's paper and the thoughtful comments it has provoked] is that it reminded me of an old John B. Sebastian song called "Younger Generation." It tells the tale of a father trying to reconcile his belief that children should be raised permissively with the reality that this practice is causing his child to do things he finds frightening. The last minute or so of the song is reproduced immediately following the colon: “Hey, Pop, can I go and ride my Zoom? It goes two-hundred miles an hour suspended on balloons. And can I put a droplet of this new stuff on my tongue, And imagine frothing dragons while you sit and wreck your lungs?” Then I’ll know that all I’ve learned my kid assumes And all my deepest worries must be his cartoons And still I’ll try to tell him all the things I’ve done Related to what he can do when he becomes a man ------------- And still he’ll stick his fingers in the fan. And “Hey, Pop, my girlfriend’s only three She’s got her own videophone and she’s taking LSD, And now that we’re best friends she wants to give a taste to me. But, what’s the matter, Dad; how come you’re lookin' mean? ------------- Can it be that you can’t live up to your dreams?” Keep fighting the good fight, Andy
RE: Re: RE: Abstinence based education Without typing a full on essay... I'd like to mention: When I read the above I realize how this could be a controversial topic. I think that all ways above are effective ways for the parents to handle THIER responsibility of handling a fertile hormonal teen. BUT... None of the above arguments includes the roles of other influences, like perhaps MEDIA, or other parents, OR siblings. The Media, whether it be magazine, TV, internet, whatever is invasive and dominant. Parents can do their best to stave off the constant barrage of external stimuli suggesting sexual attitudes, behaviors, etc. Beverly Hills 90210 anyone? Dawson's Creeks, and the list continues... Britney Spears.... Internet websites, movies, pop up ads... Point is. The strategy is far more complex than any method of education or free condom distribution. I think its a social issue solved by strong communities, families, and the like.
RE: Re: RE: Abstinence based education Look, I think something's been lost here. This is NOT a 'black and white' issue. There's huge gray areas in between. Like I said, kids become sexually aware on their own... even LONG ago, whether they ADMITTED IT or not. But the issue then, was pregnancy, not STD's. Oh, those existed to be sure but if someone died of Syphyllis or got the clap, there was almost always a whorehouse, or round-heel involved somewhere. The problem is that STD awareness MUST NOW be taught. And there's no doubt what happened first: the sexually permissive society or the STD contagion. No, it never is gonna be what it once was. It just is what it is. .. the point is to not throw every parent who objects to kids being handed a 'how to' manual into the same box. I put plenty of disclaimers in there to address the fact that SOME socially conservative parents are indeed in denial. You cant dismiss them, but it's not fair, either to put ALL those who object into that box either. I explained why, above. For the parents who have no choice other than homeschooling, or sending the kid off to parochial school., I would hope they teach their kids, based on and with a reference as to, WHY the liberal program is taught in their school. Perhaps that would be the best way to do it, but kids arent always capable or willing to grasp 'nuance' at that level. I'll readily point out that 'church-going' doesnt help much, if such inanities as "Onan example tells us we must not masturbate" or misinterpretation and mis-application of Jesus' "I tell you if you lust in your mind, you have already committed adultery" hold sway outside the context of the story they tell. The first regarded God's specific wish for Onan to get someone pregnant. The second was to show how impossible it is to follow the law {ten commandments} perfectly and it was right on point! But there's ALSO a lot of parents who DO understand that... some of them are those dumb hillbilly pentacostals, too. In fact, some Pentacostal teens were always regarded as pretty 'hot chicks'. If you REALLY want to rail against sex mores and the church, blame the Roman Church.
RE: Re: RE: Abstinence based education It is a controversial issue. Like I said in my paper, everyone's values and beliefs come from their own, unique life experiences. Think for a second if we were all born in Saudi Arabia, this discussion wouldn't be about the best way to handle sex education, it would be about the best way to stop boys and girls from just being in the same company. And we would all be adamant that boys and girls definitely should not be friends, let alone be talking about sex or abstinence or masturbation or anything like that.
RE: Re: RE: Abstinence based education Jeezz... Don. there was not ONE iota of political bent in the discussion.. Not ONE of rich v poor, either. Until you weighed in. As to your 'how to make a bomb' reference, post that in another thread and I'll blow THAT out of the water! Heh... - - - -- - - - - - -- - - Andyns: That is exactly the point and why there's a controversy. WHAT is the 'happy medium'? This could EASILY devolve into a 'geopolitical' shit storm from there, but can we agree on ONE thing? Saudi Arabian males tend to be sexually repressed, dont know how to deal with women.. even their OWN.. and tend to think of sex as something to be 'done to' someone.
