![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mijopo.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsOh, thanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.)
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.)
