Sexual Abstinence, Sex Ed and the Public Interest

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Oh, thanks to ddstory , I was reminded that its sexual issues week.   I've always been really interested in the issue of sex education in the public school because it's an interesting intersection point between issues of public health and interest and privacy and personal morality.  So allow me to recycle, with minor editing,  some comments I made last year in response to news stories about the pope and condom usage.

As a simple matter of morality I'm disinclined to teach my children that the only prerequisite for sex is taking measures to protect oneself from STDs and pregnancy.  I think parents, at least this parent, want their children to recognize the intimacy of sex and teach them that there are reasons other than fear of STDs and pregnancy to not engage in it casually.  But even setting that aside, as aware as I am of the high infection rates for genital herpes and HPV, not to mention AIDS/HIV, I'm much less inclined to teach my kids, "hey, just use a rubber and everything will be okay". I'm much more likely to strongly urge them, simply in terms of risks to health, to minimize sexual activity until they're with a partner about whose past they're very clear and with whom there is a strong commitment (to lower the likelihood of misrepresentation of sexual history).  At this level, I guess I'm agreeing with the pope, condoms don't offer adequate protection and if the choice is between abstinence and using a condom, the safer choice is abstinence and I want my kids to understand that.  The risk-benefit analysis is fairly conclusive here, to my mind.  So, when teaching my kids, I promote and will continue to promote abstinence, while, of course, ensuring they have the facts about pregnancy, STDs and the avoidance of both.  And in light of STD and birth rate data, I'm also sympathetic to the advocacy of abstinence as a public health policy, but possibly parting ways with the pope in also believing that this should be accompanied by clearly presented facts about birth control, STD protection and STDs and access to such protection.  To put the public health policy comment in starker terms, I do think that school sex ed programs should be very clear that sexual abstinence is the safest and ergo likely the optimal option in most situations.   But I think that the biggest problem here is that we've created a false dilemma, I see no contradiction in advocating abstinence while ensuring that protection is clearly explained and accessible.   (Similarly, I intend to strongly discourage alcohol abuse while also making it clear to my kids that they can always call home for a ride if inebriated, without fear of retribution or punishment.)

Questions:
a) Does preparing adolescents for sex increase the likelihood they'll engage in it?
b) Do STD infection rates make you strongly inclined to discourage your (possibly hypothetical) kids from engaging in casual sex even if protected?  (Do they make you strongly disinclined to engage in casual sex?)
c) Should the public interest and public health concerns trump parental rights to shielding kids from sex ed content?

UPDATE: To clarify (c), I'm wondering not only if you think there should be sex ed in public schools but whether parents should be allowed to have their kids pulled out of class when such lessons occur.  (That is now the case, for example, in my kids' schools, parents can have their child sent to the library during the sex-ed lessons.)

Comments

[sgiffy.livejournal.com]

I don't think there is a lot of sex-ed that is just "use a rubber and everything will be okay". Its more here are the tools available, here are the risks, and here are some ways you can make decisions for yourself. There is usually a lot of waiting till you're ready.

But to be honest, the risk of most sex is very very low, and even if one gets an infection most are minor and/or treatable. With protection and a good choice in partners, one can have a damn near zero risk of anything worse than minor infection and even that is quite close to zero. Driving is much riskier and we do that recreationally all the time.

As for your questions
a) No. There is little evidence to suggest that. People have been having sex for a long time and can figure it out on their own just fine. What we need to prepare them for is doing it safely and doing it when they are ready, not when pressured to.
b) Not really. I think my kids should have sex when they are ready and can do it responsibly. I had sex in high school and enjoyed it quite a bit. Sure I slept with some people I regret, but eh, life is full of regrets and its not that big a deal.
c) Yes. I think we go overboard in letting parents shield their kids from knowledge.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

But to be honest, the risk of most sex is very very low, and even if one gets an infection most are minor and/or treatable. With protection and a good choice in partners, one can have a damn near zero risk of anything worse than minor infection and even that is quite close to zero.

Really? I'm not so sure I agree. The genital herpes rate is very high. Arguably it's a minor infection in some sense but it's incurable and will affect one's sex life forever and increases risks for HIV infection. Similarly, HPV is very common and some types can have serious results and it can be difficult to prevent even with typical protection.

[pmax3.livejournal.com]

Great post. I broadly agree with your line of thinking.

a) Does preparing adolescents for sex increase the likelihood they'll engage in it? - Absolutely not.
b) Do STD infection rates make you strongly inclined to discourage your (possibly hypothetical) kids from engaging in casual sex even if protected? (Do they make you strongly disinclined to engage in casual sex?) - yes, but not 'discourage' in a preachy way
c) Should the public interest and public health concerns trump parental rights to shielding kids from sex ed content? - Absolutely yes

[rev-proffessor.livejournal.com]

"I think that the biggest problem here is that we've created a false dilemma, I see no contradiction in advocating abstinence while ensuring that protection is clearly explained and accessible."

Bravo! I wish more people felt this way. I think Abstinence is a bit unrealistic but it really depends on the individual. I hesitate to trust young people to think critically of their future while sexually excited. That is why hearing you also advocate for protection is really smart, in my opinion. To answer your questions;

a) I doubt it. All kids are capable of putting their hands in their laps, they figure out the rest on their own by about age 2. It's up to the parents to keep them from rubbing it raw. Educate your children.

b) Yes. It's kind of a 'goes without saying' question. Who is really going to answer no to that question who actually has children?

c) Yes. Public health concerns trump personal preferences, whether it involves sex or children.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

a) Does preparing adolescents for sex increase the likelihood they'll engage in it? -- No.
b) Do STD infection rates make you strongly inclined to discourage your (possibly hypothetical) kids from engaging in casual sex even if protected? (Do they make you strongly disinclined to engage in casual sex?) -- I already discourage my son from engaging in casual sex, but he knows how to be safe.
c) Should the public interest and public health concerns trump parental rights to shielding kids from sex ed content? -- Absolutely not.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> At this level, I guess I'm agreeing with the pope, condoms don't
> offer adequate protection and if the choice is between abstinence
> and using a condom, the safer choice is abstinence and I want my
> kids to understand that. The risk-benefit analysis is fairly
> conclusive here, to my mind.

One problem is that your choice as a parent is not if your kids use condoms, or abstain. Your choice as a parent is if you teach your children about condoms, or if you teach them to abstain. Any realistic risk management must recognize the possible lack of linkage between what you teach, and what your children actually do.... especially since they may obey your teaching 99 days out of 100... but it only takes one slip to cause a pregnancy.

So, if I were a parent, I would go with the Belt AND suspenders option. I would teach them that casual sex is a bad idea (for the very straightforward reason that the intensity of the experience can lead to the presumption of unspoken promises, and thus to pain and suffering in for form of hurt feelings and reputations.) But I would also be clear about how sex works and how condoms work.


> I'm also sympathetic to the advocacy of abstinence as a public
> health policy

Public health policy has to be about public health, not moral positions. As humans its too easy for us to get wrapped up in our biases here, so we have to go with empirical data. What are the effects on public health of a Abstinence Only policy, objectively measured? Of a Condom policy? Of a combined Abstinence/condom policy?

> I see no contradiction in advocating abstinence while ensuring
> that protection is clearly explained and accessible.

Agreed. This is the sticking point for many people who advocate abstinence only. They are concerned with articulating a coherent world view which is in step with their moral values, rather than with preventing STDs and teen pregnancy.

As for the overt question...

a) Most studies I've seen say no.

b) Honestly, no. I think worrying about an STD despite proper condom use is like worrying about lightning strikes. Sure, it can happen, but there are other risks more worthy of worry, like traffic incidents. My reasons for dissuading my kids from casual sex are the emotional ones already mentioned.

c) Yes... with the caveat that we're talking about older kids here. Just as a state can demand that kids learn certain aspects of biological science, irrespective of a parents loathing for Evolutionary theory, it can insist they learn certain biological facts about people, despite a parents urge to maintain their child's ignorance.

[sizequeen.livejournal.com]

In the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades, all the girls in my class were taken to the library to watch a 30-minute video on menstruation, followed by a Q & A session with a health professional, samples of tampons and pads, and a booklet to take home to our parents for further discussion. This was one of the best guides to sexual health I ever recieved, including information on where my clitoris was which came in handy later. :-)

As far as I am concerned this is how sex ed should be handled. From about age 12-18, students should recieve a sex-segregated (to make them more comfortable) lecture each year with a Q & A session, take home materials, and a test. Talk about everything and let the kids ask questions. Be frank and do not offer advice on behavior. If a kid wants to talk to you later privately, the teacher should make some time, but don't offer advice on behavior except "talk to your parents."

If teachers focus on the science of sex, pregnancy, disease, and disease prevention, they will more than do their jobs. That means explaining the mechanics of all sex acts(oral, anal, vaginal, and non-penetrative), how pregnancy happens and can be prevented, all the ways that disease can and does occur. This information has no moral or ethical provision. It is science.

At no point, should any teacher tell a student what they should or should not be doing with their bodies. That is up to the student, and if they have any influence, the parents.

The parents are the ones who ultimately guide them with the behavior that the model and with the talks or lack of talk about sex.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

a) Does preparing adolescents for sex increase the likelihood they'll engage in it?
Yes. The trouble with sex ed and other 'prep' programs is they fail to give a real reason why adolescents should not engage in sexual activity. Its a do as I say, not as I do, copout. And, its destined to fail. With sex being so proliferate in media: tv, internet, advertisements. How does one go about convincing adolescents to not engage in sex when "everyone else is doing it"? Completely pointless. Futile. Puny. lol
b) Do STD infection rates make you strongly inclined to discourage your (possibly hypothetical) kids from engaging in casual sex even if protected? (Do they make you strongly disinclined to engage in casual sex?)
Honestly, I don't know. Repression isn't necessarily the answer to everything despite what the current era American mindset may say.
c) Should the public interest and public health concerns trump parental rights to shielding kids from sex ed content?
Shielding kids from sex ed content is a bit pointless considering 4-7 year olds have been documented looking at pornography on the internet in high volume. I would also point out the difficulty in shielding kids from sex ed when 13 year olds are sending nude pics of themselves to their classmates. Shielding is a ridiculous concept. Yappa yap.

[pmax3.livejournal.com]

I agree with your views on a) and c), but as for b) (How does one go about convincing adolescents to not engage in sex when "everyone else is doing it), don't you think the answer is 'by giving them the reasons why you believe they shouldn't be doing so'? If you can't do that, doesn't that mean that either there is a flaw with the way you are presenting your position, or your with convincing power with your children?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

a) Does preparing kids for sex increase the likelihood they'll engage in it?

I don't know, but it stands to reason that it does. Abstinence programs have shown success in delaying sexual activity (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/education/03abstinence.html) (caveats about science reporting in the media noted), so...

b) Do STD infection rates make you strongly inclined to discourage your (possibly hypothetical) kids from engaging in casual sex even if protected? (Do they make you strongly disinclined to engage in casual sex?)

It's definitely a fear that kept me from being as sexually active as I could have/should have been in my past. It's definitely going to be the stick I'll be using with my children.

c) Should the public interest and public health concerns trump parental rights to shielding kids from sex ed content?

Never, and you can replace sexual education with any form of education in this case.

With all this said, I do support sexual education in schools, but I think we need to be much more mindful of the religious and moral aspects of the situation.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Never, and you can replace sexual education with any form of education in this case.

what if parents choose not to educate their kids at all, you wouldn't have the state intervene then?

I think we need to be much more mindful of the religious and moral aspects of the situation.

I'm actually sort of inclined to agree with you here, which is why I'm probably inclined to allow parents to remove their kids from the classroom for sex-ed in particular.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

The perils of newspaper reporters doing scientific analysis:

http://www.chicktalkdallas.com/blog/?tag=john-b-jemmott

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

a) No. The stats from the Red States with their fondness for abstinence-based non-sex-ed and skyrocketing teen pregnancy rates provide an easy counter to that argument.
b) Listen, if there was an STD that caused spontaneous human combustion, we'd still be out there having unprotected sex. No one thinks bad things are going to happen to them - and teenagers more so than the rest of us.
c) Again, see Red States for what happens when socially conservative agendas are followed. Parents who want to shelter their children from reality are fighting a losing battle, especially once their precious little snowflakes hit college.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

The stats from the Red States with their fondness for abstinence-based non-sex-ed and skyrocketing teen pregnancy rates provide an easy counter to that argument.

I'd be grateful if you could point me to some data.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

a) Does preparing adolescents for sex increase the likelihood they'll engage in it?

Quite the opposite IMO, NOT Preparing them for it increases the odds that they will engage in it although even that is a rather small effect because for the overwhelming majority of teens the only thing preventing them from being sexually active is opportunity and there is little anyone can do or say to change the fact that when the opportunity presents itself to them to have sex with a person they find desirable the overwhelming majority will.

b) Do STD infection rates make you strongly inclined to discourage your (possibly hypothetical) kids from engaging in casual sex even if protected? (Do they make you strongly disinclined to engage in casual sex?)

No, not really. I mean I'm not gonna advocate they start participating in multi partner orgies at age 12 or anything but I am not going to allow them to grow up thinking that sex and sexuality is something to be feared either. Sex is normal and natural, true it is best in a committed relationship but that hardly invalidates the benefits of more causal encounters, so do what you can to make yourself as safe as reasonable and don't live your life in fear of what may happen.

As for me, no fear of STD would never stop me from having sex, plenty of other reasons would but not fearing an STD



c) Should the public interest and public health concerns trump parental rights to shielding kids from sex ed content?


No. Short of cases of real abuse and neglect nothing should trump parental rights.

UPDATE: To clarify (c), I'm wondering not only if you think there should be sex ed in public schools but whether parents should be allowed to have their kids pulled out of class when such lessons occur. (That is now the case, for example, in my kids' schools, parents can have their child sent to the library during the sex-ed lessons.)

While I think such activities on the part of parents are pointless, self defeating and idiotic (sure pull your kids out of class, so they get get an incomplete story 2nd hand from their classmates on the bus) that does not mean they should not have the right to do it.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

At this level, I guess I'm agreeing with the pope, condoms don't offer adequate protection and if the choice is between abstinence and using a condom, the safer choice is abstinence and I want my kids to understand that.


You know, that's so incredibly obtuse on several levels, that I can't believe it.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Really, could you list the levels for me and explain why you think it "obtuse"?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

What is so special about sex that some people believe ignorance is a virtue?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Suppose I came to you with a proposal for a new Driver's Ed curriculum. In it students would learn about the internal combustion motor, the varios kinds of transmissions, necessary fluid levels, the electrical systems, starter motors, alternators, tire pressure and wheel balance. Suppose I certify that every student who takes this course will get a first rate understanding of automobile mechanics and design. The only thing that will be left out is, you know, how to drive safely.

Would you support of oppose this curriculum?

[oportet.livejournal.com]

I never had Sex-ed classes, and I never got 'the talk' from my folks.

A small part of me understands that not everyone can just figure shit out on their own, but a bigger part of me doesn't.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

You know I'm actually with you on that one.

I never had a sex ed class and my parents never talked to me about sex at all and yet somehow I was the one everyone came to for advice about sex when I was in High School. I mean it is really not that hard to comprehend.

Tab A goes into Slot B, unless Barrier C is in place Babies or Diseases can result. It's not rocket science

[cresty-on-ry.livejournal.com]

a) Does preparing adolescents for sex increase the likelihood they'll engage in it?

I honestly really don't know. I did go through sex-ed when I was in 8th grade and then when I took a health class in high school (I'm now a senior in college) and while a lot of my friends engaged in sex either before or prior 8th grade, some of them, myself included, decided that sex wasn't part of what they wanted to do until they were married. Some of them who decided to abstain until marriage have a religious reason (like myself, and I'll wait for people to throw stuff at me for being religious), and some of them just felt like they weren't ready to have sex yet because they didn't want to just go out and hook up with someone, even when they were in college.

b) Do STD infection rates make you strongly inclined to discourage your (possibly hypothetical) kids from engaging in casual sex even if protected? (Do they make you strongly disinclined to engage in casual sex?)

Again, that's a decision that I'm not sure how to answer with a direct yes/no answer. I would want my hypothetical kids know about the dangers of having casual sex with random guy/girl because kids are dumb. They think they are invincible when it comes to contracting a STD/HIV and that they'll never have to worry about ever getting one. As I mentioned above, my friend decided that they needed a deep emotional connection with said person before they went out to have sex with them and not just a drunken one-night stand. I was (and still am) the same way, just now I have religious reasons to abstain. Truth be told, I was never one of those people who decided that casual sex was "okay" since there is NO emotional connection and no regrets if a STD is contracted or if a pregnancy happens.

c) Should the public interest and public health concerns trump parental rights to shielding kids from sex ed content?

I don't think that the public interest should trump parents, since I don't like when the public is above the person/people living with the kids, but I think that the public health should "trump" parents to a degree. As long as kids know that having sex could indeed lead to a STD/HIV/pregnancy, that's okay with me. I don't think that public interest/health should "teach" kids how to do various types of sexual activities since that could be a bit overboard. At the same time, I do also think that parents should have a check in regards to allowing their kids to go through sex-ed because of any possible situation (ie possible sexual abuse in the past, extreme religious beliefs, etc.).

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I am with you, mostly. What you learn in most sex education classes is the least important part of what you should learn about sex. And that other stuff you need to learn about sex can't really be taught by the state, or even be directly taught by parents. It flows from a life time of watching two people interact in a loving, respectful and affectionate way towards each other 24/7.

a) I think it depends on what you mean by preparing. The preparation for sex that I got in school was, at best, neutral. The preparation I got from my parents, especially my father, on the other hand insured I kept my fly zipped up tight for a long time.

b) Yes, but the STD infections are, it seems to me, the most easily curable negative fall out from early exposure to sex. The emotional and psychological fall out is much scarier and harder to treat with penicillin. That is what I would want to guard against for my child.

c) No. Despite thinking that it would be a silly choice, I am pretty much an absolutist on parental rights.

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

It's funny - I learned in school that abstinence is the only 100% sure method of not contracting an STD, and I also learned about condoms, birth control, and all that stuff. I just thought it was normal to learn about all the options. I never understood why "abstinence-only or sex ed" was always established to be a false dilemma - I think it's mostly misrepresentation by the "right wing of sex ed," as you don't get a lot of sex-prep advocates denying that abstinence is the best way to prevent STDs/pregnancy.

I also agree wholeheartedly with rasilio - education be damned, teens are generally horny sumbitches, and they'll get it on any chance they get. There are SO MANY more direct factors determining teen sex rates that the concept of school-based education being the breaking point is an absolute joke.

[alyoshas-world.livejournal.com]

Does anyone know if reliable statistics are available showing how frequently people use various birth control methods properly versus improperly?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Some facts here are warranted:

http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S-Teen-Sexual-Activity-Fact-Sheet.pdf

"Teen sex stats show that making sex forbidden doesn't have an impact on the trends. Perhaps treating teenagers as adults, with respect for their intelligence and decision making ability can help where other methods have so far failed to stem the tide of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in the US."

http://www.familyfirstaid.org/teen-sex-statistics.html