Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUpsetting news indeed for young people: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported March 12 that one in four teen girls (approximately 3 million) is infected with a sexually transmitted disease. This study came on the heels of the CDC's December announcement that teen birth rates rose in 2006 for the first time in 14 years.
It isn't altogether surprising, given the prevalence of abstinence-only education programs across the country. These new findings indicate that nationwide, teens are not receiving the sex education they need to protect themselves from STDs and unintended pregnancy. The situation, while disturbing, is not without remedy. Honest and complete sex education is essential to reducing STD and unintended pregnancy rates.
We are thankful that Washington passed the Healthy Youth Act last year. It takes effect this September. School districts must now either teach comprehensive sex education programs or stop their sex education programs altogether. It is up to local school boards to make sure their curricula satisfy the standards set forth in the law.
Comprehensive sex education is age-appropriate, medically accurate information that includes abstinence as an option. Sex education programs in Washington will require teachers to provide accurate information about how STDs are transmitted, the effectiveness and safety of all FDA-approved contraceptive methods and local resources for testing and medical care for STDs and pregnancy.
Some people would rather teens learn about abstinence only; they believe that giving them information about sex will encourage them to have sex. There has been no recognized correlation between comprehensive sex education programs and an increase in sexual activity. Further, studies have shown that many teens become sexually active before leaving high school; giving them medically accurate sex education will only help them to be safer.
There is, however, an increase in STDs and unintended pregnancy following a $1.5 billion effort to promote abstinence-only education in the U.S. The University of Washington recently released a study on the failure of abstinence-only education: It results in a higher teen pregnancy rate than does comprehensive sex education. And there is recent evidence of the failure of incomplete sex education programs in Washington.
Student reporters at Puyallup's Emerald Ridge High School interviewed their peers last month and they found that many were alarmingly underinformed about the repercussions of risky sexual behavior. They also found that 37 percent of students there had engaged in oral sex, believing it to be safer than intercourse. The reporters advocated for the inclusion of oral sex in sex education classes, so that students would understand the risks involved.
When sex education isn't comprehensive, it is the students who pay the price. Prior to the passage of the Healthy Youth Act, more than 300 students rallied in Olympia in support of comprehensive sex education. Students are not asking for these programs so they can have sex without consequences; they simply want to understand what the consequences are.
More than ever, it is crucial for school boards to move forward with comprehensive sex education programs. The boards must go beyond the narrow-minded and unrealistic abstinence-only programs and take action to provide the youth of this state with honest, accurate and appropriate sex education that will keep them safer and healthier.
Alison Mondi is communications director for NARAL Pro-Choice Washington.
©1996-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
31 Comments so far
Show Allhedology - You could have stopped at "too dogmatic and stupid". I do however feel that you comments lumping men into one category is just as prejudice as saying all women are emotionally weak. Neither is true.
The conservative power that be in US of Z have ulterior instinctual motives for not accepting the findings about the benefits of serious education about sexuality and its life implications and hazards. One is some them are just too dogmatic and stupid. Carefully done behavioural and scientific studies do not count, because the necessary education, intelligence and broadness of understanding are not present in a culture that is more about money and exploitation. The second form is what drives exploitation of women in many cultures. Keeping the women ignorant and bare foot is fairly stereotypical behavior of many men towards women. What does it matter that they are locked away, or bombarded with sexualized culture and still kept in ignorance? Both are forms of control.
Of course what is not said here is how much that men would benefit from sexual education and a more enlightened attitude towards women. The article does not mention what proportionate numbers of young men in contact with the study population are likely to be also infected with sexually transmitted diseases.
Also not mentioned is developing a deeper understanding of biological basis of sexuality, and its variations. Such a scope goes too deeply for the Right Wing personality into biological differences, evolutionary heritage, and the meaning of alternate gender issues, and developmental preferences of homosexuality. Would people approve of sex education for homosexuals? Many people of the cruder persuasions cannot take in the depths of understanding required, and even then it is difficult to understand the sexual other. Cultural education is the only real tool we have to understand and modify our instincts for the betterment of some or many. Who gets which education and who gets the betterment is a political battle.
rebel_conservative - If we just made the girls keep their faces covered like they do in arab countries that might help too. Better yet, make them work in sweat shops so they will be too tired to have sex. Just a couple suggestions to try to match the cultures where these problems don't exist...
The "sexual education will reduce pregnancies/STIs/abortions" idea ignores the fact that pregnancy rates, abortion rates and STI rates are increasing, despite over twenty years of comprehensive "sex education" and at increasingly early ages (this is particularly true in the UK).
Across the pond, one in four American girls (14-19) has an STI, it is as high as 50% among African American girls. Sex-education, far from tackling these issues, is simply perpetuating the problem it is designed to control. Sex education encourages children to engage in reckless sexual activity. People would suggest I was insane if I was to propose teaching children how to smoke weed 'safely' because "they're going to do it anyway" But this is the logic that is used in favour of sex-ed. Don't forget that sexual activity involving children under the age of 16 (or 18 depending on the state) is illegal.
It is also dangerous to give children (yes, that is what they are) the illusion that condoms are 'safe.' Even if we accept that they are over 95% safe when used correctly, impatient, inexperienced children are not really capable of using a condom correctly thus rendering the "safe-sex" argument null and void.
Added to this is the fact that teen sexual activity frequently goes hand-in-hand with alcohol and drug use and you have a recipe for the current problems. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-08-19-teen-survey_x.htm)
Sex-ed is only part of the problem, the bigger issue is the sex-saturated culture. I disagree with the earlier poster who says that Republicans wouldn't oppose businesses using sex to sell products, true, some wouldn't, but most social conservatives in the party certainly would. There are already laws against "purient" advertising and I for one certainly would like to see the government enforce these laws and end the objectification of women in our culture.
http://rebelconservative.blogspot.com
Kids will have sex but you can at least make sure that they are well informed
I'm currentyl a highschool student at a school that teaches abstinence-only. There are students in my school that are completely unaware of the risks of engaging in sexuality activity. several students aren't even aware of what condoms are, or that birth control pills are available to students the physicians.
In highschool sex is glorified and with out being taught the truth and facts it is overwellmingly easy for young student to become caught up in the pressure and push aside the risks.
at the end of last semester a friend and i conducted an anoynonmous
survey of our graduating class and the results were disturbing.
72% of students had had sex(including oral)
but only 12% of those students vouged that they used a condom every time. and of that 12 % only 15% of the girls said they used birth control methods.
14% said they had had sex before they were 14
28% had sex before they were 16
60% before they were 17
There are 958 students enrolled at my highschool
there are 268 in my graduating class
150 of them are girls
and in my graduating class there are 8 pregnancies
and 10 mothers
all but one of them is a single parent.
over half of the girls in my grduating class said they had had a pregnacy scare.
of the 72% of students that had sex
only 10% had themselves tested for STD's
I think better sex ed is a basic need in my highschool. but because our area is so poor and we recieve money for our abstinence only policies....no change in in sight.
It is sad that we have such an ignorant population that schools have to take on the role of sex education. Has anyone tried to correlate STD frequency with education levels of parents? Wanna bet that the correlation is much higher than the form of sex ed in the schools?
It's sad to see all the fuss about sex education. I guess there is a place and time to learn. However, schools are being given authority over parents.
ivoireconsultancy.org
I know what it's like to defend a good sex education curriculum to a parent who is convinced a conspiracy is afoot to corrupt her child.
PASIPHAE: We obviously hold different meanings for the words RAMIFICATIONS and INTIMACY. Thirteen is too young for the genuine element, nor mature enough to take responsibility for things like disease or pregnancy.
esteban@asis.com
Of course we would like to see a real end to the prudishness in which we swim. Just like we'd like to see an end to bigotry in ALL its forms, an end to selfishness and obtuse negativity and all the rest of it.....
But in this frightening real world, the Internet is where lots of young people are hiding out. My suggestion: ALL PORN SITES SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO POST EDUCATIONAL LINKS ON ALL PAGES. Seriously. Porn is where our kids hang out when they fantasize, are bored, dream, feel horny. And most of it is gonna have to be just OK cause Porn is Us. Educational stuff can be pretty hot too...remember the 70's "educational sex" films? Lets get to Work on this idea. Write me at if seriously interested.
Someone's kidding right? Reliable sex education on the Internet where it belongs, huh? Why can't we talk person to person anymore,whether it be educators or parents? I'm one of those abstinence BASED, family planning educators that present accurate facts as we know them in the schools. The U.S. far outscores Europe in teen pregnancies, unplanned pregnancies and STD's. The reason? Probably because it's discussed more openly and accurately in those countries and birthcontrol and protection is readily available. The U.S. scores first in prudish-ness and inability to discuss sexuality. But we splash it on the tv, music and Internet in an unrealistic way. When is the last time you searched thru the channels and 50% of what you see is the promotion of female body parts? Let's get real and responsible; stop glorifying sex and at the same time pretending it doesn't exist. Why should we keep our young people in the dark when we're supposed to be educating them for adulthood?
Kids crave information. They want to know. By and large teenagers are wiser than too many people give them credit for.
People who have forgotten what it was like.
Sure, sex ed should be developmenatlly appropriate. But by the time they get to HS they need to know everything.
Will all of them do the right thing? Will all of them do the smart thing? Of course not. They're just like adults in this regard.
By and large they can be trusted. But they need and want more than just the word "condom." They need and want other words like "relationship," "respect," and "resposibility."
Abstinence only programs promote only ignorance.
SSW - to say no parental consent required would be in reality the legalization of abduction and unautharized surgery. Such laws (that already exist) permit the pedophiles and rapists to hide their crime through the death of the unborn child and the scarring and assault of the young mother.
Why not be honest with yourself and us and load them onto boxcars.
The only sex education teens need is "ALWAYS use a condom" then being given free ones once a month.
Abortions should also be strongly encouraged an be made available cheaply and confidentially with no parental consent required. Pill and surgicalabortions and this methi i done in all countries.
What planet can Ms. Mondi live on to suggest that any teen is ignorant of the facts of sex. Or for Siouxrose to say that a 13 year old in this culture is "hardly of an age to understand the ramifications of intimacy" They can't cop a plea of ignorance in this sex saturated culture; Grade schoolers know what condoms are nowadays, and AIDS has been a household word for a couple of decades.
The honest fact is that Teens Just Wanna Have Sex and like, "whatever"about the consequences. To blame the teaching of abstinence is baloney.
What planet can Ms. Mondi live on to suggest that any teen is ignorant of the facts of sex. Or for Siouxrose to say that a 13 year old in this culture is "hardly of an age to understand the ramifications of intimacy" They can't cop a plea of ignorance in this sex saturated culture; Grade schoolers know what condoms are nowadays, and AIDS has been a household word since before they were born.
The honest fact is that Teens Just Wanna Have Sex and like, "whatever"about the consequences. To blame the teaching of abstinence is baloney.
Just follow the advice of pop star George Michael, "gotta have faith." Condoms would only lead to more sex, which is the usual garbage spewed forth by backwater local right leaning conservatives. Let me guess, the other alternative, jail them, which is usual answer. Just being sarcastic. However, kids these days, are just too d--m ignorant or careless for their own good. Gotta teen, then you know what I'm talking about. Add in single parent, probably a teen herself when first child born, too much tv and a predatory male adult who probably has other children from other women/teenagers, and you get the picture.
"Some people would rather teens learn about abstinence only; they believe that giving them information about sex will encourage them to have sex." Bull-noogies!
We don't say that about being educated about diabetes, heart disease, cancer, illicit and rx drug use, driving while drinking, overeating, watching too much TV, eating fried foods, etc. Only when giving kids the type of education needed to protect themselves from STD and well - pregnancy, do we get the message that dumber is better, not even more dumber!
People who push for abstinsence only "education" have their heads in the sand and should be run over while they aren't looking.
We have the most extensive sex education in the world. We have junior beauty pageants for very little girls. We have E D ads on 24/7 detailing the number of hours your erection should last. Movies and television shows that have numerous casual, unprotected, and kinky sex episodes are the standard. Home pole dancing kits are available. We have abstinence only education pushed as the only objective education - even for the 25% of young people who have std's.
We also have people pushing abortion as some kind of solution.
What we don't have is effective fact and experience based sex education that many adults have learned the hard way and could be taught to young people. We also don't make much effort to help anyone who makes an error in the sexual minefield we push them into.
These kids today are growing up in a media atmosphere that radiates sex 24/7. Music videos and their teen idols blatantly project sexual energy. Movies seldom don't have sexual sub-plots, and advertisers use the human need and desire to be wanted, as a basis for selling products. The pro-business Republican agenda would never touch these for-profit tributaries of culture, but would instead push the abstinence trip on kids.
Sex is a wonderful thing, but it's being foisted on children, persons who are 13 are hardly of an age mature enough to understand the ramifications of intimacy. Some of these kids will be marked for life with these diseases, others will bring children in before they are ready; and few will escape a broken heart. Sex is empowered by a culture that evidences respect for life, and respect for BOTH genders. That is hardly the case in America, although few nations of the world have come close to any ideal of couples acting as equal helpmates to one another.
Stay out of cars and you won't get in an accident. Abstain from breathing and you won't get lung cancer.
This is just one of the many abuses of children in school. Curriculum control by corporations was sold to us as a way to keep religious fanatics from dominating curriculum. The way it works out is that the corporations don't care what other ignorance we shove down their throats.
@ Peskywolverine:
The rates for men would actually be lower, not identical. Because of the anatomical differences between men and women, and the mechanics of sex, women are more likely to contract an STD than men.
A sarcastic / irreverent sort would be quite tempted to opine that high rate of STD's and teen pregnancies in the Bible Belt is God's punishment for their ignoring of nature (human sexuality) as created by the Almighty. I merely find it pathetic, regressive, and barbaric instead.
Do we "assume" another 3 million boys (1 in 4?) are infected with an STD? Since STD's are non-discriminatory is there a reason for the "girls only" estimate by the CDCP?
Re:brontoburger
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result? I thought that was the definition of the Bush administration or the religion of your choice. The real problem is that this country continues to follow twisted puritanical views re: human sexuality. The fact that talking about sex, a natural and beautiful aspect of being human, will get you close to lynched in some locals is proof of peoples fear and stupidity about sex and why we need comprehebnsive sex ed. Being truely informed will greatly reduce stds and unwanted pregnancies. Unwed mothers are a totaly different subject. The road to hell is paved with people who keep their heads in the sand.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.
With 30 years of so-called comprehensive sex education, promotion of drugs and propholactics with, as well, an increase in teen pregnency, abortion, unwed mothers, and massive transmission of STD.....please tell me why we should go down this road to hell (good intentions have paved it but its to hell nonetheless).
DD,
Good point. Parents should use the internet wisely to read up on sex education on the internet and then use that knowledge to teach their kids. Even with heavy workloads, I'm sure they can give even a few minutes every now and then rather than taking their gas guzzlers out on frivolous trips and parties all too often.
The future of decent sex education is on websites, not in schools. Local teachers trying to tell other adults' children what they need to know about sex is a just a recipe for fights at the school board meetings. Always has been. Will remain so.
Porn is on the internet. Responsible education needs to be there too, accessible to all and as common as beans.
Every study ever conducted on a local, regional, national, or international level has consistently proved that comprehensive sex education is the most effective way to reduce teen pregnancy, STDs, and promote safer, wiser sexual practices. Every government that has turned these scientifically-proven methods into legislation has experienced gains with respect to healthy teen (and lifetime) sexuality. There is simply no logical reason to disregard all of these successes and promote abstinence-only sexual education, which has been repeatedly proven to worsen healthy teenage sexuality. Our country needs to drop our Protestant-centered, Victorian age conception of sexuality and move into the realities of the present day.