In Theory: What’s right for sex education?
- Share via
Abstinence-only sex education is back in the news after an abstinence-only program was added to the pregnancy prevention program list endorsed by the Department of Health and Human Services, causing some to question the Obama administration’s reasons for including such a program.
Abstinence-only education, in which students are taught that only complete abstinence from sex until marriage can prevent pregnancies and STDs, does not include information on contraception. Its advocates claim that teaching kids about contraception will only encourage them to have sex, while its opponents say that it doesn’t stop teens from sleeping together and actually increases the risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
Although in 2010 the numbers of teen births dropped to its lowest figure, researchers at the University of Georgia found that states that provide abstinence-only education “have significantly higher teenage pregnancy and birth rates than states with more comprehensive sex education programs.” Kathrin Stanger-Hall, an assistant professor who co-wrote the report, said, “Our analysis adds to the overwhelming evidence indicating that abstinence-only education does not reduce teen pregnancy rates.” Other studies have reported similar conclusions.
Q: Is abstinence-only the right way to teach sex education, or should students be given lessons that include contraception and safe sex?
God bless parents, foster parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents and teachers who have the responsibility of raising young people today.
The mantle of spiritual education belongs to all spiritual paths, whether a church, temple, mosque, house of prayer and meditation or ashram. The mantle of sex education rests, I believe, with our schools. Both institutions can support each other in their purpose of providing young people with strong self-esteem (which leads to respecting their bodies and the relationships they have with their partners), and the knowledge of practicing safe sex.
From all that I have read and heard from educators, teaching abstinence has not been effective in preventing teen pregnancy or the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. We have to face the fact that young people of today are going to be sexually active at a much younger age than the generation of their parents or grandparents were.
So it seems that the best we can do is to provide them with spiritual values about self-worth, using wisdom in making choices, thinking about the long-term effects of their actions and taking responsibility for their actions. It is a lot to ask of us.
Through prayer, we can ask for God’s help. None of us need to go through challenges alone. We always have divine intelligence and divine love to guide us and give support, especially when it comes to parenting and to educating our dear young people in principles that will help them grow into healthy, responsible and happy adulthood.
Rev. Jeri Linn
Unity Church of the Valley
La Crescenta
---
In a perfect world, nobody would have sex until he/she was married.
Ingrained in me by my parents (OK, my mother) was the idea that sex before marriage was wrong. So I can honestly say that I did not have sex until I was married. But my remaining chaste did not save my first marriage; I got divorced after seven years.
Why do I share this stuff? To point out that the abstinence-only argument guarantees (in my case) no teenage pregnancy, but not a happy marriage. What’s more, it’s not a perfect world, and I believe our young people should be given all the information regarding contraception.
They can also be told what their parents believe they should do, and what their religion tells them they should do. But the fact is, young people (in fact, all people) are going to get together sexually, some before marriage and some after, and I personally believe it’s irresponsible not to tell them all the facts.
I remember seeing a condom machine in a filling station restroom one time. I was shocked, and told my father how shocked I was.
With much wisdom (which I didn’t recognize at the time), my father said, “Notice the sign that says they are sold for the prevention of disease only.”
What I think my father was trying to tell me was that people are going to have sex, and the best that society can do is provide a way to prevent the spreading of disease — or unwanted babies. We (society) can’t stop sex, but we can at least make an attempt to control the spread of disease and unwanted children.
It would be nice if our kids obeyed us all the time and did exactly as we said; that would be a perfect world. But it’s not a perfect world. So to control the damage, tell the young people all there is to know about contraception. Don’t we owe that to them and society as an act of love and responsibility?
The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada
---
I believe that sex education programs should distinguish between facts and recommendations. Too many young people are woefully ignorant about sexuality and often they suffer for it. They should be taught how a child is conceived, how pregnancy is prevented, how sexually transmitted diseases are spread, how some people try to prevent them and what their devastating effects are. Show them all the facts and give them unbiased statistics.
It is an undeniable fact that total abstinence before marriage is the only 100% effective way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. So shouldn’t the best way be our recommendation?
Yes, cynics mock at suggesting that to hormone-propelled teens (and adults), but isn’t it still true?
Jesus Christ is rightfully known as one of the world’s greatest teachers — personally, I’d say the best ever. Jesus never said, “Here’s God’s will for you, but in case you reject it, there’s a few things you can do to make it less dangerous.” However God frequently does list the consequences of violating his ways. God’s approach is: “Here’s my will. If you violate it, here are the consequences. So make the right choice.”
That might be a wise way to approach sex education in schools.
Pastor Jon Barta
Valley Baptist Church
Burbank
---
Five good reasons not to teach abstinence-only:
1) Kids will sometimes listen to the difference between shouldn’t and mustn’t. You can say, “You mustn’t drink alcohol,” but if you want to keep your kid alive, you say, “You shouldn’t drink alcohol, but you really mustn’t drink and drive.” “You shouldn’t have sex; but you really mustn’t have unprotected sex. Protection is the difference between a bad idea and a life-alteringly horrible idea.”
2) No matter what you teach in school or home, the primary source of kids’ sex education is TV, movies and music — and it’s not responsible education. Day after day, kids see arousing images of beautiful, cool people falling into bed without stopping to ask questions about protection or birth control. This education must be countered, and powerfully so, by other voices of reason, reframing the way those scenes would play out in real life.
3) If you don’t have a real conversation, you’ll never get to their real questions. Every time I’ve taught sex ed, kids won’t even start to ask their shy actual questions until about the third round of truly blunt and honest talk. If you want to get at their confusion and misunderstandings, the only way in is total honesty.
4) If you don’t acknowledge the reality of sexual activity among teenagers, you can’t discuss its impact — which for them is the more compelling argument. You can say, “Wait till you’re married,” or even “Wait till you’re in love,” and all it will sound like is a prude lecture from a hopelessly out-of-touch adult. But try this: “The truth is that once you have sex with someone, it’s all you’ll want to do; so be sure you’ve had all the conversations you want to have about exploring each other’s personality and figuring out if this is someone you could love.” There are reasons to wait that aren’t about prudishness. Talk to kids about those.
5) Finally, of course, kids are the ultimate hypocrisy detectors. If you’re going to preach abstinence-till-marriage, you’d better be ready to tell them that you, yourself, waited.
You did, right?
The Rev. Amy Pringle
St. George’s Episcopal Church
La Cañada
---
Of course students who are sexually active and at risk of getting pregnant or contracting venereal disease should be educated on how to avoid these situations. Responsible adults have an obligation to inform teens about all the steps they can take to avoid unintended motherhood, serious health risks, or even death.
That aside, what bothers me about this conversation is that it seems wholly focused on preventing pregnancy and STDs while ignoring another very serious issue: the psychological consequences of having sex before reaching the age of maturity.
Sociologists have long publicized the fact that teenagers who have sex before they are emotionally and intellectually mature — before they fully understand the positive or negative ramifications of intimacy — often have a much harder time adapting to healthy relationships later in life. The teen years already tend to be fraught with challenges brought on by bodily changes, schoolwork, peer pressure and a host of other unavoidable societal forces. Throwing the powerful influence of sex into this mixture is a recipe for disaster, and can cause serious psychological harm to the immature minds of adolescents.
In addition to striving to protect our children from pregnancy and disease, I would like to see our schools (and parents) place equal emphasis on educating children about the importance of avoiding sexual activity entirely until they become adults who are mature enough to comprehend its spiritual beauty — and better yet, until they are in a committed relationship. If we fail to impart this important lesson, we risk raising a generation that lacks a healthy attitude toward sex and will consequently struggle to create wholesome relationships and positive family units.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
Chabad Jewish Center
Glendale
---
Sex education should be taught in a comprehensive way that teaches important skills that both youths and adults need to protect the health of themselves and others.
Historically, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are attempts to change society to reflect different structures and relationships. School-teaching should not attempt to modify society. Sex education should serve the goals of giving young people the information and skills they need to make responsible decisions, and to protect their health and the health of others. People who act with intelligence and knowledge are best at reducing risks of HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancy.
With the proper information and skills, young people can learn communication, negotiation, and how to make decisions to keep themselves safe. In the real world, young people will make complicated decisions and need to think critically to make these decisions effectively.
All young people should understand the need for the use of contraception and safe-sex practices because real choices are complicated.
Steven Gibson
South Pasadena Atheist Meetup
Altadena
---
The goal of LDS parents and leaders in teaching children about physical intimacy differs from that of policy makers.
The LDS belief is that God has shared with us his power to bring life into the world and has commanded that this gift be used only between a man and woman committed to one another by love and by marriage covenants. So for the LDS, the issue of abstinence involves more than preventing unwanted pregnancy.
The best place for children to learn about sex and relationships is in the home, with caring parents in the role of teachers. Parents are best able to determine when a child is ready emotionally and physically to learn about sex. The church counsels parents to teach children about their bodies and help them learn to control their behavior with respect to physical desire. We believe that ultimately this will lead to happier lives.
Of course, not every child is in a home that offers this opportunity, nor does every adult agree with this perspective. My personal belief is that it is important that abstinence be a primary focus even in curriculums that teach the use of contraceptives. As a parent, I would be concerned about any program that treated human sexuality lightly or focused only on the physical processes of sexual behavior.
There is no shortage of voices that discourage teens from waiting until marriage to be physically intimate. Many movies, television shows and books suggest there are no consequences to uncommitted sexual relationships. Young people need to be assured that they don’t have to follow the crowd or the media influences that define popular culture.
Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta
---
Whatever we may want to believe about sexual activity and pregnancy among teens, I am convinced that the research in this area is very clear. At least one very reputable study tells us that those young people who receive comprehensive sex education are 60 percent less likely to become pregnant than those who are presented with an abstinence-only model. And those states where abstinence is the only form of sexual education presented have a much higher teen pregnancy rate than those with more comprehensive programs. Abstinence-only sexual education does not reduce pregnancy or sexual activity.
All that being said, parents have every right to expect that abstinence will be presented as a part of any comprehensive sex education curriculum. The problem for me is when abstinence is the only option that is being offered. In addition to the fact that it doesn’t work in preventing pregnancy or STDs, such a program leaves our teens vulnerable to many problems in life before, during and after marriage.
Enforced ignorance of documented information about sex, or any other topic, does not prevent misinformation from being communicated. And there is no reliable evidence that providing young people with information about an activity such as sex makes it more likely that they will participate. There is even the very real possibility that a lack of information may encourage curiosity and experimentation.
For all of the reasons stated above, and others, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries developed a lifespan sexuality curriculum called Our Whole Lives. Implemented in our congregations in 1999, it is an age-appropriate program at each level from kindergarten students through adults. We believe that our children and adults need to have all the facts they need to make responsible and loving decisions about their whole lives.
My hope is that others will find ways to embrace that perspective as well.
The Rev. Dr. Betty Stapleford
Unitarian Universalist Church of the Verdugo Hills
La Crescenta
---
I have nothing but respect and support for teens who chose abstinence, and I wish parents who want their teens to be abstinent all the best with that. While parents can opt out of sex education for their child, they should not be able to do so for other people’s children.
The problem with abstinence-only as the sole content of sex education is that it isn’t sex education. Conversely, a comprehensive sex education curriculum includes, by definition, coverage of abstinence as well. It is a public health issue, because abstinence-only “education” increases transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.
All parents should take note that comprehensive sex education in fact makes teen pregnancy and STDs less likely, and that sex education of any kind has no impact on rates of abstinence, one way or the other.
This is common sense. Do fire extinguishers cause fires? Does the absence of fire extingushers prevent fires? No and no. It is not taking a higher moral road to oppose comprehensive sex education, nor is it very smart.
Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose
---
Abstinence is the only means of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, no doubt. If you don’t have sex, you can’t get either. But abstinence is also a moral worldview that starts at home. If not cultivated and embraced, institutional instruction will fall on deaf ears. If parents are not having “the talk” with their kids, or if they’re giving them inane instructions such as “just don’t get her pregnant,” how should we expect abstinence curricula to work?
Most parents prefer not having their kids sacrifice virginity at proms or spring breaks, but giving it to their eventual spouses. If expectation is that kids have sex and that’s just something to accept, then kids will have sex as expected. We must teach abstinence, and not just as our parental position, but as the kids’ personal safeguard and as a moral virtue. Is this happening?
Abstinence cannot be offered as one of many fine options, but as the expected, proper and superior position. Contraceptive information should be included, not as an alternate to abstinence, but as necessary instruction for modern human sexuality. Contraception can be taught with marriage in mind, and with a dim view outside that context.
I understand that the Roman Catholic Church forbids contraception, but its members can console themselves with the fact that it is merely knowledge of the subject matter that will be dispensed, and not endorsement. When students flout the abstinence culture and use contraceptives, we can only appreciate that they’re less likely to wind up wrestling with decisions to abort conceived children or to suffer terrible, debilitating diseases.
For abstinence to work, it would be the task of health teachers to educate, not with a wink-wink and a parade of sexual deviants and abortion professionals giving guest lectures, but with real buy-in to the idea of truly protecting students with the best program suited to offset their sexual inclinations in this hyper-sexualized culture. Condoms, rhythm methods, the pill fail. Everything fails but abstinence because it doesn’t participate in risky and immoral activity. It’s failsafe; no death, disease, heartache or hardship. It’s biblical.
The Rev. Bryan Griem
Montrose Community Church
Montrose