This morning NPR's Diane Rehm show had a panel discussion about abstinence only versus comprehensive sexual education. I only listened to part of it, but it struck me that the panelist in favor of abstinence only sex ed thought that teaching students how to have sex safely before marriage would make it likely that the students would do so.
That's a common argument against sex ed, that giving the information in school also gives permission, and I've heard that argument before. But today I thought about what else is taught in school and therefore has the same authority and acceptance; iambic pentameter for example. Various forms of poetry are taught in high school English classes, but parents don't worry much about their children becoming poets against their wishes.
Clearly there is something about sex that entices kids that poetry, history, chemistry, or other school topics lack.
I'm in favor of comprehensive sex ed; I think children should have the information and that parents can try to guide them about whether or when to use it.
Remember that kids talk to each other. Someone who won't have sex before marriage likely has friends who will. Let's educate everyone so that the locker room conversations can be accurate and useful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The logic that you don't need to know about STDs and safe-sex if you are abstaining till marriage is also flawed. With the high percentage rate of STDs in the population, you still need to know how to have safe-sex in a monogamous marriage if one partner is a carrier and doesn't want to transmit it to their spouse. Or does your marriage automatically mean you are required to share the same diseases?
WG
Post a Comment