Oh noes, politics. Or, why abstinence education is stupid.
I’m not sure if it’s because it’s an election year, or what, but I’ve felt more opinionated about issues lately. Or I’ve just heard more about them and realized the absurdity in the whole debate.
Anyways, a few mornings ago I heard the topic of sex education come up on the radio (Colin Cowherd was on commercial break, so I flipped to that douche idiot station 1300AM). A woman calls in, telling the hosts that she teaches 8th grade, and that abstinence education is important. She explains how she relays the problems of STDs, pregnancy, emotional distress, etc., to the kids, and that the only way to be 100% sure that you’re safe from those is to not have sex.
Well, that’s pretty much bullshit. Take a kid, respected in society as already having poor judgment (there’s a reason they’re not allowed to vote), add raging hormones, and girls developing right in front of them. Oh, what? Abstinence doesn’t work? Yeah, no shit.
When one of the hosts suggested teaching abstinence as the only sure proof protection, in addition to other methods and their ups and downs, the other host chimed in, “well that’s giving the kids options.” That’s another load of bullshit. Everybody has those options - birth control, condoms, (outercourse - sounds like my Friday night - you were at temple) - and you only take them away by not explaining them, because most parents half ass the sex talk and don’t talk about those.
Think of it statistically. If I relay the choices as “you can have sex, have the time of your life, and you have a 16% chance of getting pregnant, 10% chance of getting a disease if it’s not their first partner” or “you can do nothing,” which is more appealing?
Now, introduce birth control, condoms, and explain how it’s a big deal but is not a ticket straight to hell? Pregnancy, worst case, goes to 3%, and that’s assuming nobody explains how to use a condom. Best case, pregnancy goes to like .001%. Not a big deal. Disease? Stress why (1) condoms are important, and (2) don’t sleep with every person you shake hands with. Well, not until you want a promotion, anyways.
Suddenly kids can still be kids, nobody’s condemning them, and lots of ill equipped parents don’t become grandparents in their 40s.
It’s time we start taking a practical approach to society, and drop the theoretical garbage. Theory gets us to abandon school lunches for kindergartners because they’ll lose their sense of self dependence; practice gets us the Internets.
steve elmore said:
Jul 16, 08 at 9:16 pmDude, you are so right on about this. It is a nice theory, but in practical application is just wishful thinking. We have to prepare our kids with useful and “real” information. There is a biological reason kids’ hormones kick in at 13, 14 & 15: propogation of the species. To expect kids to not to succumb to thousands of years of evolution because of abstinence training is just silly.
meezy said:
Jul 27, 08 at 10:23 pmmy parents gave me and my sister the sex talk at the same time using an encyclopedia with photographs. it was awesomely awkward enough to keep from talking about sex to my parents for the next 5 years. funny thing is though, because i was alive, i had already heard about sex, most of its options, and most of its upsides/downsides by then.
so IMO only teaching 14yo’s abstinence is like telling someone about channel 42 after they’ve had the remote for 3 years, chances are they have already seen the other 100 channels long before then. they already know that one option, and they already know there are others no matter what you teach them.
i think what is more important is for parents (and society to a certain extent, but that will never happen, christian fundamentalism FTW) to show kids that they SUPPORT more than just one option.
That being said, if I have a daughter, she isn’t allowed to have sex until I’m dead.