Originally posted by Drew
US public school sex ed programs do _not_ promote abstience, like the Uganda program does. Pop culture also does not support the idea. To my knowledge, stations such as MTV have never promoted abstinence; rather they push condom use 24 hours a day.
This report is basically an attack on all abstience programs by using a few abstience programs that use some strange facts. These facts are given with a much more important message: Abstinence is the only way to totaly prevent transmission, and to totaly prevent pregnancy. Many teens pledge abstinence just because it increases chances of a succesful, unproblematic future.
Condom use does not promote the suppression of libido, just "safer" methods of relieving it. On the other hand, abstienece involves a serious amount of self control.
Abstinence programs do not use these facts as the conerstone of their message.
The primary basis of abstinance arguements is, IMO, based on religion (specifically the morality of pre-marital or non-reproductive sex); teaching based upon this could be very easily seen as bringing religion into the curriculum. Also, the job of sex education is - or should be - to educate about the process of sexual reproduction and the personal effects.
The decision of whether or not abstinance is 'good' should be one which is made by the individual themself; based on the unbiased evidence (i.e. from sex education) of the
possible risks of unprotected sex*, including the effectiveness of contraception. The fact that no sex = no STD infection (simpilification, obviously there can be other infection vectors) is fairly obvious.
With regards to abstinance, it is worth noting that the US does commit substantial funds to abstinance-promoting groups; $270m (according to article below, I
think Congress may have reduced this to $196m but I can't find a specific link). It is also worth noting this is also a religious issue based on personal views; setting a national policy to focus solely on that is clearly sectarianising the issue.
NB: with regards to a specific group; the Silver Ring Thing; a Columba university report found that
Study of 12,000 aged 12 to 18
- Six years on, 99% of non-pledgers had sex before marriage
- So too did 88% of pledgers
- Pledgers first had sex an average of 18 months later
- Both had similar rates of STDs
- Pledgers 'much less likely' to use contraception [/b]
(see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3846687.stm boxout)
(also worth noting the level of teenage pregnancies in the US is much higher than the UK and by consequence the rest of europe; there is no similar focus on abstinace in Europe that I know of)
I think this illustrates why sex education is necessary even if you aim to have a universal 'abstinance only' focus; abstinance groups have to focus on overcoming a basic human urge to reproduce, and as such may often resort to scaremongering about the alternatives.
I have no objection to the message of abstinance; if people wish to listen to it, then fair enough. What I think is wrong is when education on safe sex, etc, is omitted or discredited to favour that view of abstinance. I think that it's simply short-sighted to do so, especially when the arguement for the morality of abstinance is based on a religious or moral code which not everyone will choose to subscribe to. In the worst case, we have the situation where the Vatican scaremongers (or outright blocks) over the use of condoms to prevent their use in anti-aids education in Africa.
I short, I think it is the duty of the government to provide full information on the biological risks and safeguards available for sex. It is the duty of individuals to decide which safeguard is most appropriate for them, and which approach to sex to take; they should not be forced to listen to a single view such as that which preaches abstinance.
*note that this includes the issue of promiscuity. From a biological perspective, and thus the educational perspective, whether or not sex is with a married or unmarried partner is of no real consequence with relation to the individual risk of STDs..... there's no real difference from a long term relationship vs a married relationship with regards to STD infection (etc).
