Friday, October 16, 2009
Why Say Yes to Comprehensive Sex Ed?
"How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. "
Elizabeth Barrett Browning
Victorian Era Poet
1806-1861
"Does it really matter what these affectionate people do-- so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!"
Mrs. Patrick Campbell
British Stage Actress
1865 - 1940
While the Republican party has become the party of 'Nope', serious harm has been done to our country by the right wing saying 'yes' to abstinence only education. Decisions made promoting the mandate and funding of abstinence only sexual education have a serious impact not only on the educational goals of producing literate, knowledgeable and informed students graduating from our public and private educational system. The resulting ignorance that is associated with abstinence only sex ed has an equally serious impact on our public health policies and expenditures.
I reviewed the research on abstinence only sex ed, and also reviewed the arguments for any kind of sexuality education to be included as an appropriate and desirable subject matter. There were a lot of arguments in support of sex as a legitimate subject of study, and very few arguments against it; most of the against arguments boiled down to a few people who are still too embarrassed to deal with the subject in any objective manner.
The overwhelming statistics indicate that the teaching of comprehensive sex ed in schools is supported by parents, teachers, and the students themselves. According to SIECUS in 2005, more than 90% of high school and middle school parents support funding sexual education in schools, with majorities supporting that sexual education be comprehensive, include accurate information on contraceptives and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.
The majority of objections to teaching sex ed at all, and the majority of support for abstinence only sex ed seem to have a close correlation to promoting a specific religious view that the minority objectors would like to impose on the larger majority. For example, a report in 2004 by Congressman Waxman's special investigation committee reviewing the abstinence only sex education programs supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that over 80% of them used curricula containing false, misleading, or distorted information about the effectiveness of contraceptives and the risks of abortion. According to this paper, http://www.scribd.com/doc/16415796/ARGComprehensive-Sex-Education ,
Waxman's committee also "found gender stereotypes and religious beliefs treated as fact, as well as deliberate scientific errors." I think it is a fair statement that religion should be personal, and that the religious beliefs of a single segment of society should not be presented as fact; and I would hope even more strongly that we should insist on accuracy, including scientific accuracy, in our educational system.
The next best reason for discarding any further funding for abstinence only sex ed is that it doesn't work. A 2006 study by McKeon found that despite the existence of abstinence only until marriage sex ed existing for more than two decades, no peer-review study found abstinence only sex ed effective in either delaying the first sexual experience, or in any other impact either long or short term. But it makes neo-puritans happy, so for far too many years, it continued to be funded, one more terrible waste of tax payers money trying to force religion and religious belief into more and more areas of politics and government improperly.
As part of my research for the preceding post Just Say No to Abstinence Only Sex Ed, I researched a variety of documents that included statistically reviewing a comparison of the rates of teen pregnancies in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries in the world, reflecting varying degrees of development and industrialization, with the results cross referenced to the types of sexual education provided in the schools of each country. This reflects the issues that correlate sexual education with public health policy (I almost made the typo pubic health policy). One of the most liberal countries in openly teaching comprehensive sexual education is the Netherlands, which had the lowest rate of pregnancies in young women between the ages of 15 to 19, at 8 per 1000. The US and the UK, with a preponderance of abstinence only sex ed were among the worst, at 93 per 1000 women in the same age range; while England and Wales had a rate for the same age group of 63 per 1000. There are compelling numbers available from the study of sex ed as it is practiced world wide; this is not unique to a few countries.
These statistics represent real people, not just abstract numbers. They represent real costs as well, to the individuals involved, to their families, to their communities, all the way up to the national level. This makes how and IF we teach Sex Ed a valid interest of our government and of our educational system. It is sufficiently important to us as a nation to deserve a fair and objective approach, rather than to be dominated by the religious beliefs of anyone over fact.
Comprehensive Sex Ed is endorsed by the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, and the American College Health Association, among MANY others. Some scientific studies suggest that far from achieving the desired goal of abstinence until marriage, abstinence only sex ed actually correlated to an INCREASE in teen pregnancy. At approximately the same time, a study by the National Campaign to Prevent Teenage Pregnancy showed that sex ed that includes discussion of contraception does NOT increase sexual activity, the great fear of those who oppose comprehensive sex ed.
Someone I know, outside of this blog, wanted to know what business it is of government to be involved in sex ed. THIS is why it is the business of government, and of us all, to be involved in seeing there is objective not belief-based sexual education in our schools.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just curious but did you come across any study that shows how parental involvement affects teen pregnancy. For example I would think that kids who went to a school that taught abstinence only and the parents let them watch and do what they want after school would have a much higher pregnancy rate than kids from the same school whose parents tried to keep tabs on what they were up to. That said I have no objections to sex education that teaches about contraception but they should also tell them that the only 100% effective birth control is to not have sex. Yes some kinds of sex will not get you pregnant but there is also stds to worry about if either partner has had sex in the past. I think a large part of the religious right wanting abstinance only teaching is you never see anything about the small school in nowhere TX teaching sex ed on the news. What you see is the Berkley grad in San Fran that is way to the left of you guys :) going into subjects like homosexuality, anal and oral sex, transgender and such when they are teaching first grade. There is an appropriate age to teach things and 5 yrs before puberty is not it for those subjects. By the way it isn't just FOX news that broadcasts these things, I have seen them on CNN and ABC also.
ReplyDeletett, comprehensive sex ed INCLUDES abstinence only information, as well as teaching how to avoid peer pressure to have sex, AND it involves parents as teaching partners of sex ed.
ReplyDeleteHow would you conduct such a study as you suggest about parental involvement? I would think, on the face of it, it presents some problems........
What did interest me in the reading I'v done is that there is sex ed, predominantly comprehenssive sex ed, world wide, across differences of culture and religion, geography and economies.
Would that perhaps be inclusive of what you mean by parental involvement?
Yes that is what I mean about parental involvement. I don't know of any such studies just thought that you maybe came across one while writing this. The comprehensive sex ed is a good idea, just give them the scientific facts and involve the parents to teach the morals and such.
ReplyDeleteTT wrote "The comprehensive sex ed is a good idea, just give them the scientific facts and involve the parents to teach the morals and such."
ReplyDeleteActually, I wish schools offered classes in formal ethics, rather than teaching morality.
I'm always surprised at those parents who think that think what kids learn in school from teachers is going to somehow 'undo' what they learn at home, and yet those seem to be the same parents who don't KNOW what their kids are learning in school either.
In my brief stint as a custodial step-parent, I knew what the course content was. I asked, daily, what was taught in school, and how the day went, chronologically. If asked "how was your day?" the answer was usually fine or lousy or a similar one or two word answer. If I asked what happened first period, second period, etc., and we talked about the material, the answers were completely different. Those conversations became the source of "here's a good question that might stump your teacher" to ask the next day, and was a good cue to send the stepchild to look up things in the encyclopedia, or other sources at home. Sometimes friends would join in these discussions; NOT ONE of these other kids had parents who asked those kinds of questions. Yet, I'm sure these parents were just as protective of those - to my mind unexercised - parental 'rights' to teach their kids about sex and morals and who knows what else.
Frankly, until we have a generation or two that have had thorough comprehensive sex ed, I would advance the radical thought that parents teaching their kids is a bit like the blind leading the blind, where everyone falls in the ditch, a loose approximation of an old german proverb favored by one of my grandmothers.
I continue to be surprised by how few adults I know are really well versed in the subject, in part because they last had formal study so many years ago and more is known, and in part because their sources of information have not always been all that reliable. There is a lot of adult misinformation in the world.
I think it interesting that the same people who crammed the "No Child Left Behind" program down the states' throats are the same people who propose abstinence only sex education, and that also, however, clamor for "smaller government" and more "states rights". This seems to me to be a patent disconnect. While I think that most agree that a free public education is an important thing for the US to have, education has long been considered a local or state issue. I think that education decisions, quite frankly, should be left up to the states, and that Congress should leave well enough alone. (This includes doing away with No Child Left Behind AND the rules that come with it)
ReplyDeleteK-Rod said...
ReplyDelete"I agree that this is something the Federal Government should keep its nose OUT of. Since when is it the Federal Government's job to teach YOUR kid about sex?"
Internationally, countries from all over the world have made the decision to provide guidelines that are required for sex ed. It works, it is important.
As to why? I think the explanation I provided about this as a public health concern addresses that question --- and KR, I missed you while you were on hiatus from Penigma --- this is just one more instance where something from KR actually prompted me to research and write this. I would place teaching sex ed - comprehensive sex ed, with a stressing of factual science and medical fact - on a par with requiring and providing school vaccinations.
There is a very serious, expensive public cost connected with failing to provide that comprehensive sex ed, which I would further suggest is a legtitimate area of school curricula; and a similarly serious and expensive cost/problem if we don't insist on certain school vaccinations.
Teaching sex ed doesn't replace parents teaching their children values connected with sexual decisions; nor does requiring minimal vaccinations to reduce the spread of certain diseases prevent parents from providing all other health care to their children.
So, KR, take a bow - you were my inspiration for...... sex........at least talking about it, reading, and writing about it. (This is a topic that because of my interest in theriogenology, I'm usually very comfortable discussing, but after writing that preceding sentence, I'm laughing, but also blushing, as I work at the computer.
President Bush supported and proposed the No Child Left Behind act. President Bush proposed the law on January 23, 2001. It was introduced by both Republicans and Democrats, and passed both chambers of Congress with broad bi-partisan support. (House: 384 Ayes, 45 Nays. 186 of the Aye votes were Republicans) (Senate: 91 Aye, 8 Nay) The bill provides for mandatory standardized testing and penalties for states which refuse to comply. However, the bill also fails to fund a number of its requirements, which has left states scrambling to pick up the tab.
ReplyDeleteI don't support completely eliminating the Department of Education. However, I think the Department of Education should be restructured so that its emphasis is on assisting states rather than dictating to states.
KR wrote: "Since when is it the Federal Government's job to teach YOUR kid about sex?"
ReplyDeleteAbstinence only sex ed is very little taught about sex, resulting in very little abstinence, LOL.
So I guess the answer is that abstinence only sex ed isn't really the government teaching your kid or anyone's kid about sex, and it isnt' resulting in much abstinence either.
KR wrote - in bold letters no less! "Since when is it the Federal Government's job to teach YOUR kid about sex?"
ReplyDeleteA digression - thank you for another of your inimitable cyber-serenades KR; I believe, thank you, that I already have a heart, brain, and of course courage; but I always enjoy your musical interludes.
As to your question, asked and answered alreday.
Two reasons why/since when the government is properly involved in teaching sex ed.
1. when the lack of competent sex ed results in a public health issue, which encompasses both the rate of undesirable teen pregnancies, and the rate of sexually transmitted diseases.
and
2. when a clear majority of parents, teachers AND students want this kind of involvement.
and
3.when that involvement is recommended by a wide variety of professional entities as being necessary, both for the individual children, and for the larger health of the country, both physical and psychological; and when research indicates they are correct in their assessment.
So - KR - now that I've answered YOUR question, are you going to answer mine?
ReplyDeleteTo refresh your memory, so you don't have to go looking for the questions:
DG wrote"
Would you want a 13 year old child of yours, either a son or daughter, to have sex at that age?
If this is a biographical statement, (1)do you think it is too young? (2) Were you actively having safe sex, or at-risk sex at that age? (3)Why in the world do you think 'do as I say not as I do' is going to stop anyone else from having sex, if you were having sex at that age? "
And I will repeat my statement that compares and contrasts ideology with reality:
(practicing abstinence) is an unreasonable expectation for everyone to follow, however much it is a desideratum. Therefore, sex ed should address reality, not "would't it be nice" fantasies.
Do as I say, not as I do....doesn't have a very good track record in practice.
One more question, KR, if you would be so kind.
ReplyDeleteAssuming for the moment, that having sex at 13 was an autobiographical statement........did that early onset activity continue? Or was it a one time only experience until later?
Just curious, as early onset of sexual activity usually continues and expands, rather than stops. One of those 'can't put the genie back in the bottle, can't put the toothpaste back in the tube' landmark life events.
Which is rather curious, as my very casual, informal survey of women about losing their virginity indicated that 100% of them had not had a very pleasant first experience. Quite the opposite; more often than not,it was extremely unpleasant. I have no idea if that is the case for men and boys or not. But it certainly presents an interesting challenge in the continuation of our species, and raises a number of questions about the social interactions involved in the onset of sexual activity.
KR wrote:"We don't need the government to tell us these facts."
ReplyDeleteApparently we DO, given the dangerous ignorance without it.
Kr wrote: "And of course I discouraged the kids and warned them of the consequences of sex, but that started about 8 years ago... and continues today... even though they are legally adults... but still kids..."
Which presumes you know what they are doing? Did your parents know when you became sexually active?
Mine didn't. I was an adult, if you define adult as over 18 (but under 21).
And KR wrote:
"As for me, my track record is perfect, but I would still say do as I say and not as I did."
What perfect track record is that, exactly?
Having only safe sex?
NOT continuuing to have sex, until after you were married?
I do not expect ANY measure to produce perfect results - zero unplanned pregnancies, zero STDs. That would be unrealistic.
However, it is clearly possible for us to dramatically improve our existing track record for these two categories, to either single digits per thousand, for 15 to 19 year olds, or at least very very low double digits from their nearly triple digit numbers. Given the population of the United States, that would have an impact on a LOT of people for the better.
K-Rod wrote:
ReplyDeleteDG, the fact remains that over the years the incidence of unwanted pregnancies and STDs has increased while the governments' involvement has also increased.
I write:
There are a variety of things to consider other than a cause and effect relationship between government involvement and the stats for pregnancy and STDs. Two that come to mine are population growth and increases in the gathering and record keeping of information. Further, there have been noticeable declines in these statistics observed that correlate to certain measures, like the availability of contraception, and with certain kinds of education.
KR then writes "Running to big government to solve all your problems is not the answer."
I wouldn't suggest big government or any government is the total answer to anything. That it can make a positive difference in public health is evident. That this is an involvement of government that is preferred by a majority makes it a legitimate involvement. This is the kind of dismissive rhetoric that I see from the conservative right when they don't want to admit facts and realities that don't track with their ideology. Favoring ideology over pragmatism and reality has been one of the thematic problems with the era of conservative dominance in politics.
KR complained the government is telling kids how to have sex, and taking away our liberties.
ReplyDeleteThe Federal government is NOT too involved, nor is it telling kids how to have sex. This objection conveniently ignores those pertinent but inconvenient facts, such as the preferences and requests of parents, teachers, and students for this to be taught, and ignores the recommendations of all of those professional entities listed in these two articles supporting it. This comment conveniently ignores the involvement of parents as teaching partners in comprehensive sex education as well. It especially ignores that the value of abstinence is still taught as part of comprehensive sex ed.
There seems to be a pattern that occurs whenever there is a push-back against religion being intruded into aspects of government, such as in the promotion of religion in the guise of abstinence only sex ed. That is for the conservative right to suddenly claim that the government is taking away our rights, our freedoms, our personal liberties, and intruding on and controlling our lives. IT IS NOT!
And that is a point of view conveniently set aside when it is the conservatives who are doing the intruding, the controlling, the limiting of freedoms and liberties. I would refer you not only to the conservative actions in promoting abstinence only sex ed, but also to the attempts to put in place intrusive, liberty limiting laws relating to sex in places like Kansas and Oklahoma, which ToE will be addressing shortly (won't you ToE?????).
KR wrote: "BTW, with my track record I can claim zero unplanned pregnancies and zero STDs!!!! Perfect!!!"
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm delighted that KR happened to escape these two potential perils of early sexual activity, I don't construe that as the measure of perfection in the area of sexuality.
KR also conspicuously failed to answer my other questions. However, after attempting to post comments which violated the rules of Penigma, the last one which was not posted obscentiy ridden, KR is now banned from commenting on Penigma, subject to periodic review for the ban to be removed.
So, sadly mindful that KR can no longer reply to these comments, I do still wish to point out that while abstinence is effective in avoiding pregnancy and disease, it is not widely practiced, and neither abstinence only NOR comprehensive sex ed has been very successful in selling the idea. Declines in pregnancy and STDs when comprehensive sex ed is taught are largely attributed to safe sex and the use of prophylactic contraception. Abstinence is a good idea; it just doesn't work in practice effectively.
Telling your children only to practice abstinence is not education. It is advice, advice that is not widely followed regardless of how often it is said.
That is no doubt in part because of other competing external influences, like the promotion of therapies for erectile dysfunction, widely also promoted less officialy as a means to greater sexual pleasure, and the widespread promotion of female hygiene products, condoms, and exploitation of sexual activity generally (look at the widespread use of sex in marketing products)that not abstaining has a stronger message. Add to that the understanding that we continue to explore of how the adolescent brain differs from that of a mature adult, and the expectation that simply telling students 'don't do it' will suffice is unwise and inadequate.
To expect the message "Do as I say not as I do" to be successful, without further actual education, is also unjustifiably hopeful. There is a great deal of truth in that other saying "actions speak louder than words" in calculating which part of that mixed message will dominate.
K-Rod said...
ReplyDelete"DG, those are very good reasons in general for the Feds to supply information, but it doesn't grant the federal government the power to dictate and force curriculum on a state and local level. It may even be against the Dept of Ed statutes."
Neither abstinence only NOR comprehensive sex ed has been forced on anyone. It has been funded, with the abstinence only a waste of federal funding, imho.
States have always been free to refuse the funding, and in fact some have refused to take the money so they didn't HAVE to teach the abstinence only sex ed, and could instead fund their own more effective comprehensive sex ed. That is the source of some of the comparative statistics.
However, depending on how financially desperate different states have been, rejecting that funding, in favor of finding the money to provide comprehensive sex ed, has been more difficult for less affluent states than it is for the more financially advantaged. That reflects an uneven, disproportionate 'leverage' on the part of the federal government, but not the violation KR alleges.