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

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Right, I understand what abuse is, but if it does involve sex then it's also the sex. (Would you say about physical abuse, "it's the abuse, not the punching"?)

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Punching is physical harm.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Indeed.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

It sounds like you are conflating sex with violence

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I'm not conflating sex with violence, but certainly not denying that sex can be used to carry out violence. It's odd to claim, if you are, that the sexual component of sexual abuse matters not at all.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Anything can be used to carry out violence. Why is sex special?

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what you mean by that, have I been attributing some special status to sex wrt violence?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

[The abuse is carried out via the sex, how do you distinguish the sex from the abuse?]

Even though it may be a tactic of an abuser, sex largely is incidental to the abuse. It isn't the sex, it is the violence. You can have sex without abuse, but you cannot have violence without abuse.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Sex is actually integral to sexual abuse, otherwise it wouldn't be sexual abuse. Why don't you tell a sexual abuse victim whose ability to enjoy or engage in sex has been severely affected by their abuse that the sex was largely incidental?

Of course you can have sex without abuse and you can cut someone open without it being an assault, but that doesn't make the sex or the cutting open any less traumatic when it is in fact associated with abuse or assault.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

The fact that we have laws that call out and have different penalties for sexual assault as different from other types of assault is indicative of the problem that western culture has regarding sex and sexuality.

For example: "Sex offenders" get listed on sex offender registries, murderers do not get listed on "murder offender" registries.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

You think that raping someone is no different than, say, punching someone in the face?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Of course not. Stabbing someone with a knife is different than punching someone in the face.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

What I mean is, do you think they're moral equivalents?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

That is kind of an odd question. In the sense that they are both forms of assault, then yes they are moral equivalents but that doesn't mean that all forms of assault are equal. The issue as I see it is, If you are treating rape as a greater form of assault BECAUSE sex was involved, then you are doing so for the wrong reason.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

No, I didn't mean to suggest that all forms of assault were equal. I understand what you're trying to say, I think, you're trying to argue that rape is just a form of physical assault, not any worse because it involves sex. I'm trying to figure out what other kinds of physical assault you'd think it roughly morally comparable to. If there is no physical damage other than bruising would you deem it equivalent to say a hard slap or a punch that resulted in an equivalent amount of bruising?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Not 'just' a form of physical assault. The morality behind assault depends upon the motivation behind the assault. In the case of a rapist it is not for the purpose of sex, it is for the purpose of domination.

In the current culture, there is a stigma placed on sexuality. So in this sense the rape victim is twice victimized. In the long run this needs to change. There is the question of what is practically just vs what is ideally just and that plays into issues of morality and ethics. My point in all of this is that going down the road of 'sex is the problem' is incorrect. It isn't the sex, it is the violence, so address the violence by thinking of it in terms of violence. Society has it backwards in that depictions of sex are taboo, yet depictions of violence are common.