"Don't have sex until marriage." That was the message that was pounded into my head during what was supposed to be a class about sex education. The only education that I received, however, was about how if I had sex before marriage, I was going to catch a disease and die. At least that is what I heard.
Whatever happened to the concept of actually educating people about sex as part of the curriculum in sex education, anyway? Sex education isn't supposed to just be about abstinence.
There should be a mixture of education about abstinence, along with information about sexually transmitted infections (STI) and ways to prevent them. There also should be information about the different kinds of birth control.
From what I've gathered, advocates of abstinence believe that teaching comprehensive sex education teaches people to have low morals and values and that only sex in a married setting is healthy.
Seemingly, those who endorse abstinence-only sex education think free information about how to make informed choices regarding sex leads to immorality, as well as unhealthy and unlawful practices.
So, free information about how to make informed choices related to sex education leads to immorality? What does that mean? Does it mean the government is trying to suppress information that is available, because it doesn't like what people might do otherwise ? If so, I consider that an unlawful practice myself.
The federal government champions the abstinence-only approach, and funds only those schools and programs that teach abstinence-only education, according to MSNBC, which also reports that the federal government spends about $176 million annually on abstinence programs for students in middle school and high school.
In my opinion, though, by providing funding to schools that solely teach abstinence-only sex education, the federal government is trying to impose its morals on students. These would be, in my view, the morals of the same group of people who are unconstitutionally wiretapping telephones and sending soldiers to fight and be killed in a war that some believe can't be won.
If the government wants to speak about comprehensive sex education or a lack or morals, perhaps those who make these decisions should open a dictionary and find the definitions for both 'comprehensive' and 'morals' before they begin to criticize a program for supposedly not having any of the latter.
Some school administrators in California have opted out of federal funding for their schools' sex-ed programs to teach more comprehensive sex education. To schools leaders such as these in California and other places that are choosing to expand their sex-ed programs, I say, "Good for you!"
By doing this, you are helping America's youth and the future of America. You have realized that just by telling teens not to do something because it could possibly hurt you does not mean they are going to abstain.
Realizing that teenagers, quite naturally, are going to be curious about sex because it's part of puberty and growing up demonstrates that some forward-thinking leaders-such as those in California - have decided to teach their students how to be safe and protect themselves.
Don't get me wrong, though. I don't want to sound as if I am completely against abstinence, because I am not. I'm not against the idea.
It is agreed that that abstinence is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, but I'm against using it as the only method of sex education when it's not the best one or the only one - and it's obviously not working in most settings.
For example, statistics in a 2004 edition of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health composed by H. Weinstock show increases of nearly 19 million new STI cases in America every year and the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ranks Tennessee 10th in cases of sexually transmitted diseases, part of an overall increase across the country. Half of the 19 million new cases are teens ages 15-24, and the U.S. has the highest teen pregnancy rates of any developed country in the world, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
What do these numbers tell me? The numbers tell me that the government is hurting the country and the world's future. Sex education is supposed to be just that, an education, and teaching abstinence is one option, but such an education should also include info about methods of prevention of infections and diseases, as well as help young people with all the emotional and physical changes one goes through during the ages when sex education is introduced.
In my opinion, it's about time the government opened its eyes and realizes it's causing more harm than good.
Be the first to comment on this article!