Crystal Blomquist, Spring 2010
Many of you may not want to know what happens in your child’s sex education class, but you need to. In my class I sat watching a man tell us how sex was a horrible thing to do, unless you were married. I had listened to the same sermon a priest gave me that Sunday. Most of my classmates were supporting their heads with their arms; their eyes barely open. The few who were paying attention asked questions like, “What’s the best condom?” which my “teacher” would ignore. I left that class feeling like I would’ve learned more from watching porn on Cinemax. The abstinence-only philosophy was failing my class, especially when one member got pregnant. Her case was not the exception. This type of sex education doesn’t work, and a new method, incorporating other options should be the standard.
On its surface abstinence may seem to be the perfect safe sex practice. Not having sex does prevent all sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy. The problem is teens are not listening to the message: according to a report by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a respected sex research organization, “there were 750,000 teen pregnancies” and “9 million sexually transmitted infections” (1). This is a serious problem, and I’m asking you to tell the government to stop putting millions of dollars towards this method of sex education, not only doesn’t it work, but it also violates the Constitution of our country.
Abstinence-only education has its roots in religion. Religion has been used as a way to control sexuality for centuries, telling people when and where to put it in, and what position to do it in. This in a sense was the first form of safe sex education. These beliefs have passed down mainly out of tradition, eventually planting their seeds into the educational system. The government funding these programs is an endorsement of these religious beliefs, which is unconstitutional. Prayer is not allowed in public schools, so why should these principals be okay to teach?
What is being taught to students is often misleading and false, often based on these religious beliefs and not actual fact. Some of these “facts” are in the government’s 2005 Waxman report, an investigation of abstinence-only education, which include:
“that a boy can impregnate a girl by touching her genitals;… that 10% of women who undergo abortion are sterile;…that 50% of gay male teenagers are HIV-positive; that HIV can be spread through sweat and tears;…and that condoms fail to prevent HIV 31% of the time and result in pregnancy 13% of the time” (182).
This shouldn’t be too surprising since some of these people believe that a pregnancy happened without the benefit of sex, and that we were all born with leaves over our genitals. The real harm of these lies is that kids told this information will make less informed decisions about sex, such as not using protection, which is the opposite of what sex education should do.
What would work is a sex education program that balances abstinence with contraception methods. Sex is natural, and teenagers have hormones that tell them to get some. These biological triggers can’t be shut down by saying “no” to what’s between your legs. Ask any guy who’s had an erection in class, or a girl who has had her period before the prom. It is just not something that can be done, and people know this fact.
The first thing that has to happen is that the government needs to stop funding these abstinence-only programs. To do this the government will need to change its system of sex education funding, which is very constrictive, according to an article in Insight on the News, “…funded programs must promote abstinence exclusively, and they are prohibited from advocating contraceptive use…” (Richards 47). The money could be spent on other safe sex methods, and no new taxes would be needed, the money would just be shifted, though this isn’t the only problem.
The curriculum of sex education is boring, as I experienced. I would’ve rather sat through a dental cleaning than my sex education class. If teens aren’t listening they aren’t getting anything out of it. I’m not saying we need to make it like a circus show, just shown in a different manner. We need to also show all birth control method, such as masturbation. Masturbation may be taboo for some of you, but it is a very realistic alternative to abstinence, and has the same benefits. The current curriculum also doesn’t address homosexuality and safe sex for those who practice it, which is like teaching the Civil War and leaving out Ulysses Grant.
A one size fits all approach doesn’t work well for clothes, so why would it work with sexual education? Teens are being subjected to serious diseases, unwanted pregnancies, and millions of wasted tax dollars because of this approach. I ask you to let our government know that we prefer the condom to the cross. Change will only get done this way, and it needs to be done for the future of this country.
Works Cited
Facts on Sex Education in the United States. Washington: Guttenmacher Institute, December 2006. Academic OneFile. Web. 18 Apr. 2010.
“Most US abstinence-only education curricula contain false and misleading information.” Reproductive Health Matters Nov. 2005: 182. Academic OneFile. Web. 17 Apr. 2010.
Richards, Cory. “Q: Should Congress be giving more financial support to abstinence-only sex education? NO: Withholding information about contraception and teaching only abstinence puts sexually active teens at risk.” Insight on the News 10 Nov. 2003: 47. Academic OneFile. Web. 17 Apr. 2010.