Sex ed (or the lack thereof)
Remember last year when everyone was up in arms about President Obama’s beliefs on sex education?
Well, as it turns out, sex ed for younger kids really is necessary. Yesterday I came across one of the most disturbing stories I have ever read–in England, a baby girl was recently born to a 13-year-old boy and 15-year-old girl. Just last fall, England announced their plan to begin educating students about sex at a younger age, and it looks like it is well needed. Reading through the article, it is clear that a lack of education about sex was an issue here–Alfie’s own father states, “When I spoke to him he started crying. He said it was the first time he’d had sex, that he didn’t know what he was doing and of the complications that could come.”
It’s astonishing for me when I hear people speak out against sex education in public schools. I grew up in a very sex-honest environment: my mother always honestly answered questions I had about why boys and girls were different and I was never told stork stories–in fact, I got the full sex talk when I was 6 or 7. Even Obama wasn’t planning for that to happen until middle school! But not all parents are so open about the topic, and someone else needs to step in and do the job for them, and it just makes sense that it should be the school system’s job since everyone has free access to it.
And abstinence-only sex-education isn’t the happy medium. Why? Because it doesn’t work. The issue with AO sex ed is that it assumes everyone sees sex as a moral issue, which isn’t true. If kids are told in class that there is no such thing as “safe sex,” that condoms and birth control aren’t reliable (as I was), then they’ll just not use them, which only leads to higher STD and pregnancy rates.
Sex education doesn’t mean telling kids sex is okay and they should be having it whenever they want, with whomever they want. It’s about informing them as to what it is and the consequences that can come with it so they can know not to get themselves into situations that could be harmful. It’s about informing them as to what is and is not okay so they’ll know what rape and molestation are and that they aren’t normal. In this day and age, with sex being thrown in our faces everywhere we turn, it is necessary for kids to know these things.
The parents who aren’t so open about the topic are clustered heavily in the cofC too. You were very fortunate to grow up in your family.
I have a couple of general frustrations about this subject. First, truly comprehensive sex education should also include, and should probably start with, frank discussions about the role of sexual desire. Even first-rate sex education often glosses right over this subject. The reason talking about desire is important, particularly with girls, is that it gives them the ability to consider their own sexuality from an ownership perspective, not as ’something that I have to put up with’ or something that’s being managed for them by their parents or their pastor or their boyfriend or whatever.
The minute you take sexual ownership away from girls in particular, they become pawns. They become a valuable commodity in a market that’s not typically being run by them. Of course, most of our modern traditions about marriage–the bridegrooms, not seeing each other before the wedding, the removal of the corset–are play-acting versions of the old commodification of the virgin bride who’s taken by force and with economic benefits for her family. I have no idea why those traditions still exist.
And this is not new; Michelle Fine wrote about this in the eighties.
Also, I think that the excuse that parents and church folk use for not talking frankly about desire with young people–that they’ll run wild, that they’ll do it all the time–is disingenuous because what the adults really fear, in my thinking, is that they will no longer hold the status as the guardians of a mystery to their children. That by giving up information or the access to it, they will somehow lessen their influence or their power in their family. There is some Freudian merit to that, honestly. But a parent who isn’t willing to risk that in order to make their child a more whole and complete person isn’t doing their job. They’re just trying to keep the world small and less scary for themselves and their children out of fear. But most of the cofC theology is about that.
Thanks for your essay Becca–that picture alone is terrifying.
The reason talking about desire is important, particularly with girls, is that it gives them the ability to consider their own sexuality from an ownership perspective, not as ’something that I have to put up with’ or something that’s being managed for them by their parents or their pastor or their boyfriend or whatever.
Yes yes yes yes yes. One thing I hate about the church and all the Christian purity books is that they always treat desire as a male issue and always imply that girls who have sex have in someway been taken advantage of. It puts all the responsibility of sexual decision on men’s shoulders, which I think is unfair for both sexes.
I actually wrote a pretty long post about this on my personal blog last fall. It’s here if anyone is interested.
Why does everyone here assume that it’s preferable for teenagers not to have sex? I’ve never met anyone who regrets having had sex as a teenager. I’ve met people who regret their choice of partner(s) as a teenager, but not the sex itself. I’ve also never met anyone who’s glad they abstained as a teenager, or thought abstaining did them any good.
It’s ok for teenagers to have sex. In fact, they should.
Why does everyone here assume that it’s preferable for teenagers not to have sex?
Because the Bible says so, duh!
But on a more serious note, the only argument I’ve heard for not having sex out of marriage that wasn’t Biblical has been about the shame and guilt you’ll feel afterwards. This doesn’t really sit well with me because people only feel shame and guilt for things they’ve been told are shameful.
Also, the whole idea about how teaching kids about sex will lead to them having lots of sex is like saying that teaching kids about the holocaust will lead them to become members of the nazi party.
Well, look, it’s not only not a bad idea to have sex before marriage, it’s a bad idea not to have sex before marriage. If you’re going to make a serious commitment to someone, you need to make sure you can have a good sexual relationship before you do so. You also need to be sure you can manage more prosaic things like sharing an apartment and bank account without hating each other all the time. You really just can’t know these things about a person without trying them with them first.
It’s not a coincidence that the Bible belt has the highest divorce and familial strife in the nation. They have awful, terrible ideas about how to make and maintain peaceful homes.
I agree with that comment so ridiculously much.
A friend and I have been watching that show about the Duggar’s on and off this semester, and it weirds me out for than anything else that the oldest Duggar and his fiancee waited until their wedding day to have their first kiss. When they finally kissed at the alter, it looked like the most awkward thing in the world, and when he finally pulled away, you could tell by her face she was sorely disappointed.
I can only imagine what the rest of the night was like…
The only families I have known that were founded with the husband and wife kissing/sexing for the first time on their wedding night are extremely Puritanical, naive, and just plain weird, mostly because they have no problem boasting about their past inexperience.
Talking about the beginning of their marriages is always awkward because they typically act exactly the same way now, 5-25 years later. And that’s not a good thing. They don’t show affection in front of their kids because they feel ashamed of…loving each other?, and any mention of sex (other than that awkward first time, of course!) makes them extremely uptight and embarrassed.
It’s thoroughly depressing, especially because I can’t convince myself this is a generational trait. A girl in one of my classes is getting an English degree so she can home school her children, but she asked my professor to change the subject when we were discussing sex in literature, stating that it wasn’t appropriate for a Christian learning environment. So Christians can’t have sex…? Actually, I’ll amend that to not enjoying sex. I love how she has all these plans for her kids, but can’t even hear about how they’ll be created.
Like JH said, it’s scary sometimes how some things haven’t changed throughout the ages. So many people are still practicing that close-your-eyes-and-pray-it’s-over-soon mentality, and it’s just sad.
but she asked my professor to change the subject when we were discussing sex in literature, stating that it wasn’t appropriate for a Christian learning environment.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA.
But you guys are missing the chicken/egg thing with those folks. They are uncomfortable with sex, possibly asexual people. They gravitate toward evangelical/fundamentalist groups because it’s the only place they can receive praise for being who they naturally are.
I’ll tack that on to my list of “Reasons Why I Don’t Belong at Harding.”
You sexual deviant, you.
I bet that list is too extreme, even for the internet.
Doubtful.
Becca could probably best me.
Haha, oh, my list!
sorry becca, but i don’t think i can fully agree with you on this one. i just don’t see many societal benefits coming from increased public funding for elementary school sex-ed. sure, someone should warn the students about pedophiles, molestation, etc., but it sounds like you’re asking for a more comprehensive sex-ed program for these kids. aside from the political firestorm that this would create, i just don’t think it’s worth it. we would spend an extra couple million dollars a year for this stuff, and for what? the possibility of keeping some white-trash family out of the tabloids every couple of years?
i just think that if we’re going to lay the blame for this incident at someone’s feet it’s got to be the parents’ (or possibly the 15 year-old cougar-mom). perhaps, though, there isn’t anyone to blame. maybe this is just one of those really weird random things that happens somewhere in the world every couple of years that could not, and will not ever be prevented?
Latest news: The story is a sham or at least may be a sham.
“Also, the whole idea about how teaching kids about sex will lead to them having lots of sex is like saying that teaching kids about the holocaust will lead them to become members of the nazi party.”
This is by far one of the funniest things I have ever read. Bravo.
The problem with NOT having comprehensive sex ed in public schools is that those kids will have sex, not be prepared, get pregnant, and raise children in a home environment that isnt healthy.
Another thing I never understood is why they allow comprehensive Drug education and awareness in public schools, but are hush hush about sex education?
Are we encouraging students to use drugs by teaching them about them and what they do?
No
Just like we wouldn’t be encouraging our students to have sex by teaching them about it and telling them what it does.
It really comes down to the fact that parents are more afraid of there kids having sex then they are taking drugs.
But that’s related to our cockeyed view of sex on a societal level. Why it’s okay to consume the amount of violence we do every day from TV and movies, etc. and have the limitations we do on sex makes no sense. Unless this is one of those ‘where my heart is, there shall my treasure be also’ kind of things. We likey the violence.
i just don’t see many societal benefits coming from increased public funding for elementary school sex-ed.
For about six years, I lived in a town where it wasn’t scandalous to have 5+ 7th grade girls pregnant every year, where being a grandmother by 30 was the norm. All anyone tried to do to fix it was preach Jesus to these girls, and we all know how well that works. The poverty in Monticello is ridiculous because of all these girls dropping out of high school to raise their kids. It wasn’t just the occasional white trash family having to deal with babies having babies.
Also, Neffs, I hadn’t really thought much about the asexuality issue. I’ve heard that 10% of humans are asexual, so I find it odd that it’s not talked about more. You don’t actually hear people talking about being asexual. Maybe it’s not a big deal for them and they don’t feel the need to talk about it, but it does lead to asexuality being an almost forgotten about part of humanity.
And I’m sorry, I have a problem with the idea of the 10 percent of people who might be asexual also being the 10 percent who make the cut to go to heaven. Seems like a convenient collision of fractions. I’m pretty sure God doesn’t work like that. If He does, I’ll just take my seat on the hell tram and shut up about it.
To go back to the teenage pregnancy issue, I find it pretty interesting that Bristol Palin of all people now thinks that abstinence education is ridiculous. And the anti-abortion folks need to understand that a certain portion of the population only hears that you want to limit the rights of women by outlawing abortion–for as long as women can be impregnated against their will, they will need a reliable way out of that, or equality between the sexes can’t really happen. I think the two groups could come together over reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place by providing reasonable and effective sex education–the only reason it’s in the schools is that’s the only way you can reach the populace of a certain age. Then once you have that and it’s just the homeschoolers getting pregnant, then there you go. /me runs off
Hey, what do you guys make of this? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29546030/