katisara:
So yes, teen pregnancy is a problem. But teen sex is also a problem. In my personal (limited) experience, the people who are for abstinence-only education requirements in school* are also against legalizing homosexual marriages. It's a moral issue, not a social one.
Okay, while not totally surprising to me now, it has open my eyes a bit to hear someone say so explicitly. All the arguments tend to be about social issues, which perhaps seems to be the wrong track if this is the case. I mean, I can sympathize with conservatives making the arguments they think will be most effective, but if their reasons for taking their position are actually different from the ones they're arguing, it seems like we're like to going in a lot of circles as a society trying to figure out what to do! Nothing new, I guess, but interesting to realize none the less.
Tycho:
If we could make teen sex risk-free, would conservatives still be quite as opposed to it as they are now?
katisara:
I think so, yes. However they'd lose some political steam. Teen pregnancy, being a social issue, gives the issue a certain boost it might not otherwise have.
Hmm. Again, probably shouldn't be surprising to me, but it is.
Tycho:
1. If there was a sex education that was proven to reduce the number of teen pregnancies (and for sake of argument, STD transmission too), but increased the amount of teen sex going on, would you be in favor of it?
katisara:
For teenagers? Like high school and middle school? Yeah, I'd have a problem with that.
Wow, I guess I just find that position somewhat foreign. Interesting, but hard to wrap my head around.
Tycho:
2. If there was a sex-ed that was proven to reduce the amount of sex that teens had, but increased the rate of teen pregnancies for those who did have sex, would you be in favor of it?
katisara:
I don't know. That's tough. I think it would depend on the numbers. If a program helped 20% of middle schoolers to keep from having sex until after high school, but resulted in a 1% increase in pregnancy or STDs, yeah, I'd be okay with that.
Hmm, wow again, I guess.
quote:
For me, sex isn't a bad thing, even for teens; it's just a potentially risky one.
katisara:
I've seen a number of studies which seem to disagree. Adults who had sex before 14 suffer more stress and worse health later in health.
I'd argue part of that falls into the "it's potentially risky," and part of it falls into "correlation is not causation." I'd expect it's more likely that people with, say, low self-esteem, self-confidence issues, etc., are more likely to get pressured into having sex before they're ready, and also more likely to end up with higher stress levels and worse health. In which case having early sex is more of a symptom rather than the cause of the problem (and probably one that abstinence-only education is likely to address). Before 14 does seem very young, as well, so much more "potentially risky" I'd say.
katisara:
Plus, this isn't just education for your children; it's education for EVERYONE'S children. I think I would be upset if my kids' school taught them sex is okay, as long as they use a condom. And, while I have less space to complain, I would be upset if my kids happened to miss all that day, but they went back to school surrounded by people who believe sex at 13 is okay.
But those in favor of abstinence-only sex ed are also pushing for what other people's kids get taught, so that cuts both ways.
Hmm...reading the last line of yours there, I had a bit of a thought. I don't really view comprehensive sex ed as teaching "sex is okay." That's more of a moral judgement. What I view as proper sex ed is giving just facts, not morality. Let parents teach morality. But the risks involved with sex, and how those risks can be reduced seems like something it's good for everyone to know (even if (or especially?) if their parents think sex is just morally wrong). I don't really want schools teaching kids that sex is right or wrong, but I do want kids to know where babies come from, how to use birth control, what the potential risks of sex are, etc. To me that seems to be the version that doesn't impose any morality on anyone else the way abstinence only sex-ed does. Abstinence-only sex ed tries to tell kids what they
should do, whereas I think what's important is that they get all the facts to make an informed decision, not just at the age where they get the class, but as they grow older too. People who don't get told the facts when they're 13 can end up making bad decisions when they're 18 or 20 or beyond because of that lack of knowledge.