Opinion

Abstinence deserves preference in classroom

Darryn Beckstrom
Also by Darryn Beckstrom:
Sharing Tools:

E-mail this article:




Share on:

by Darryn Beckstrom
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 00:00

Many of us can remember the days of sex education in our high school health classes. And soon, these classes may become a bit more informative.

Earlier this month, the Wisconsin Assembly approved a bill already passed by the Senate that would require schools that offer sex education classes to classify abstinence as the preferred method of instruction. Discussion of other forms of birth control is not prohibited. And now the bill awaits Gov. Doyle's signature.

Unfortunately, Mr. Doyle may have the interests of his party and Planned Parenthood in mind more than the wellbeing of thousands of Wisconsin public school children.

While Mr. Doyle is contemplating his decision, he should be conscious of the fact that even the Centers for Disease Control stresses that no form of birth control is completely effective in preventing pregnancies or the spread of STDs except abstinence.

Furthermore, transmission of STDs can also occur from contact with areas of the body that are not covered with a condom. Condoms do not effectively prevent the spread of many STDs, including genital herpes, which currently afflicts over 60 million Americans — or 25 percent of the population ages 15 and over. The statistics are even more staggering on college campuses.

Contrary to popular belief, contact with the skin is all that is needed to spread many STDs — not intercourse. And most medical experts are quick to point out that the best prevention against STDs is avoiding skin-to-skin contact with those who are infected. Unfortunately, it's often difficult to figure out who is infected these days.

While statistics share one side of the story, life experiences share another.

Shortly after I wrote a column about abstinence last semester, I received an e-mail from a doctor in North Carolina. She discussed the devastating effects and prevalence of HPV among women and wrote: "I cannot tell you how heartbreaking it is to have a 28 year old childless woman have to have a hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer — a sexually transmitted disease. [The cancer was] totally preventable."

Firsthand accounts of the devastating effects of STDs are always more shocking than the reality that 60 percent of the women on this campus will have HPV — the virus that is responsible for genital herpes and cervical cancer — at some point during their tenure at UW.

Our neighbors, including Illinois and Michigan, have laws that are similar to the Wisconsin bill on the books.

Critics of the bill, including Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, argue that requiring teachers to present abstinence as the preferred choice of sexual behavior does not reflect the realities of teenage behavior when it comes to sex.

But, maybe in addition to preventing a few unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs, the addition of abstinence education to health class can also teach adolescents the notions of self-discipline and delayed gratification.

Although some students will walk into the high school classroom with their minds already set on engaging in sexual intercourse, this should not preclude sex education from informing teenagers of another form of birth control and STD prevention — abstinence. Students should not be prohibited from learning about the most effective form of pregnancy and STD prevention.

If parents truly want the best for their children, then they shouldn't leave such an important piece of information out of their son or daughter's minds when it comes to engaging in sexual behavior.

A year ago, I was in Chicago and had the opportunity to meet Libby Gray, the director of Project Reality, an abstinence education program serving schools in Illinois. The previous evening, she had been on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" debating the effectiveness of abstinence education programs, and she brought up an interesting point about the difference between drug and sex education programs.

In junior high, drug education programs are prevalent. And in these programs, adolescents are taught to "just say 'no' to drugs" — as the popular DARE phrase goes. We tell our children that abstaining from drugs is the healthiest lifestyle choice they can make.

Why should sex education for teenagers be any different? Why can't we include a "just say 'no'" line in the classroom? Students will still get information about the other alternatives to abstinence, but shouldn't we also allow students to learn about the best alternative?

Mr. Doyle, get Planned Parenthood out of your back pocket and do something to help the teenagers of this state. Don't make a health issue into a moral issue. Sign Senate Bill 286 into law.

Darryn Beckstrom (beckstrom@badgerherald.com) is a doctoral student in the department of political science and a second-year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public Affairs.


Feedback
Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 7:45am):

Anal sex is as effective as abstinance in terms of birth control.

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 10:17am):

Planned parenthood is in Doyle's back pocket? That's the most ridiculous accusattion I've heard in a long time. And, yeah, abstinence is SO easy, I wonder why it hasn't caught on? Maybe it's because we're sexually mature at 13, but aren't able to procreate until we're out of high school or college and then have to wait until we have enough money to support a family. Get real.

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 10:58am):

In junior high, drug education programs are prevalent. And in these programs, adolescents are taught to "just say 'no' to drugs" -- as the popular DARE phrase goes. We tell our children that abstaining from drugs is the healthiest lifestyle choice they can make.

But the reality is, teenagers still abuse drugs, despite what they learn in DARE.

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 11:03am):

Darryn, maybe you haven't noticed, but "Just Say No" didn't work in the war on drugs. It wasn't until DARE started educating kids about everything they needed to know about drugs that any non-military or rehab based drug interdiction programs started having any effect.

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 11:16am):

As someone that came from a district that taught the type of abstinence education the state is proposing I can safely say that it does not work. Most of my senior class is still in my home town working blue collar jobs to take care of the kids they had while still in high school. Abstinence education does not work as has been well documented in many studies across the country.

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 11:18am):

It's funny that you should bring up HPV. Recently a major pharma company is in late phase 3 testing and final FDA approval of a cervical cancer (which is caused by HPV) vaccine. That's right - a vaccine for cancer. Who could possibly be opposed to this, you'd ask? Why the religious right of course - the same proponents of abstinence only/major education. Members from Focus on Family and other right wing Christian folks are opposed to the HPV vaccine because it would "encourage young women to engage in sexual activity". Abstinence is a good idea, but with an estimated 40-60% of teens engaging in sexual activity, all forms of education should be the "preferred method", not just one. But then again, abstinence only or abstinence as the main form of education is sponsored by the same folks who don't want a cure for cancer, so what could you expect?

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 11:39am):

The benefits of having lots of sex outweigh the risks, especially when those risks are lessened through condoms and the like.

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 12:35pm):

How pathetic these young do-gooders are! Practice makes perfect!

Boian Popunkiov (March 22, 2006 @ 12:47pm):

The only sure way to prevent all driving accidents is not to drive, i.e, abstain from driving. But driver's ed certainly does not emphasize that point. You don't need a class to teach you how to abstain from driving. You need however to learn how to drive as safely as possible.

Same with sex ed. If you don't want to have sex, then you don't. Should you, however, choose to engage in sexual activities, you should know how to do this as safely as possible. Nothing prevents you completely from disease, but it can come pretty darn close.

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 1:36pm):

"If parents truly want the best for their children, then they shouldn't leave such an important piece of information out of their son or daughter's minds when it comes to engaging in sexual behavior."

That's right. It's the parents' responsibility, not the state's. Why aren't you advocating for parents to be more responsible instead of for a nanny government, which I thought was the nemesis of you conservatives?

Instead, once again you want the state to legislate morality. Like you, I've made the choice to not have intercourse. However, I don't think it's the state's duty to tell me that it's the right thing to do. After all, it's not like in my sex-ed class they told me, "you must have sex! If you're not having sex, you're a communist!" It's pretty clear that it's a choice.

Instead, isn't it better that they tell us what can go wrong and what to do about it? You said it yourself, "[c]ontrary to popular belief, contact with the skin is all that is needed to spread many STDs -- not intercourse." Shouldn't we be teaching that instead, if it's contrary to popular belief? "Sex is bad, mmmkay" isn't the answer.

Under an abstinence plan, the number of people having sex won't change all that much, but infection rates and pregnancy rates will skyrocket. Is that what you want, more disease and more abortions? How is this better?

And speaking of abortions, nice strawman argument with Planned Parenthood. Under your plan, there's be more abortions, not less. I think they'd want to support abstinence education.

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 1:57pm):

Comparing this to the DARE program ruins any semblance of an argument you tried to build. How did the DARE program work out?

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 2:32pm):

Hey, Nancy Drew: You're against drinking, you're against sex...all you need to do now is write a column about how we need to get rid of the Athletics Department, and you'll render yourself completely irrelevant and out of touch with students!

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 2:33pm):

Teaching abstinence as the preferred method of birth control and std prevention IS a good idea, but the decision on curriculum should be made at the local school board level, NOT mandated by state government.

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 2:36pm):

umm, isn't planned parenthood a women's health organization whose ideals are to support the decisions of OTHERS'S REPRODUCTIVE WISHES. But YOU think they're biased.
I had full-blown sex education, I havehad few partners, no diseases. In fact, I am sure most people that receive fully adequate sex ed know that sexi never perfectly safe and thus make better decisions (always using condoms, etc) besides, what's so offensive bout a passionate and safe experience between lovers, friends, or aquaintces. I usually like you opinions. I was surprised at this one.

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 2:38pm):

abstinnce s not the only way to learn self-discipline and benefits of delayed gratiication: team sports, JOBS, school work.
~Captain Obvious

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 2:43pm):

"Mr. Doyle, get Planned Parenthood out of your back pocket and do something to help the teenagers of this state. Don't make a health issue into a moral issue."
"But, maybe in addition to preventing a few unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs, the addition of abstinence education to health class can also teach adolescents the notions of self-discipline and delayed gratification."

So you see, you are pushing our morals that people need to learn delayed gratification and self-discipline through abstinence. Your are pushing your morals. students need to learn to form their own opinion. Even in education that educates safer sex, abstinence is always discussed as the safest way to go. What that bil will do is not allow people to learn safer sex, just abstinence-only education. PS-Planned Parenthood is not biased. their motto is helping others do what THEY want no matter what. You seem to have good ideas but nee more background research. Good luck!

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 2:58pm):

Oh-my-God! You really met Libby Gray?? I am, like, so jealous!

Way to drop than little tid bit in there Darryn, despite the fact that it added nothing to your column. Couldn't you have just said that "Libby Gray has said . . . ." and spare us from your thinly veiled attempt at self-aggrandizement?

Kate Zingsheim (March 22, 2006 @ 5:10pm):

I'm going to go ahead and agree with pretty much everyone else's comments about this article. It is incredibly naive to think that abstinence only education works, considering the fact that endless research has proven that this type of education increases both sti's and pregnancies. Also, you clearly state in the beginning of your article that the bill waiting for approval classifies "abstinence as the preferred method of instruction" so I am not seeing your problem with this bill. Abstinence IS taught in Wisconsin's public schools as the only way to ensure safety, but teenagers also taught the other information they need to know in order to make safe and healthy choices. As you intelligently point out, if children do not learn that in some cases skin-to-skin contact can spread disease, how will they learn how to make the right choices? People need all the information if they are going to make informed decisions, that's just common sense.
I also want to point out that you are correct in stating that the woman with HPV's "cancer was totally preventable". True, she could have abstained entirely from sexual contact (because HPV is transmitted through skin-to-skin contact), but if our government would wisen up and approve the HPV vaccine, she wouldn't have had to worry about getting cancer in the first place. HPV can be preventable, but the same people that are promoting abstinence only eduaction are trying to prevent us all from receiving a vaccine that could reduce the risk of cervical cancer for all women.
Look at all the facts before you criticize our educational system. Abstinence is taught to Wisconsin's students, but it is taught alongside other critical information. Teenagers have the right to learn all they can about their own health, and this includes information about sexual health and safety.

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 5:52pm):

I think that your article, as with much of the debate surrounding sex education, rests on two dangerous assumptions. First of all, this whole "abstinence only/comprehensive sex education works/doesn't work" rhetoric is very problematic. How do we measure the degree to which these programs are working? Is it by the number of children having intercourse and participating in sexual behaviors? Is our goal to reduce, or somehow eliminate, these numbers?
We all know that there have always been men and women, and boys and girls, who choose to or not to have sex. The job of educators is to give children the tools they need to someday make an informed decision about sex: when to have it, how to do it, and with whom to have it.
The second dangerous conclusion you draw is that we only need to teach children things that are relevant to them when they are hearing it. For most people in this country (particularly those most at risk for HPV, HIV and the like, who are also those least likely to have insurance that would help lead to early detection), education ends at high school, so our curricula needs to be basic and comprehensive enough to give children the tools they need to make good decisions when they are adults. Withholding relevant information about family planning and safer sex practices deny children the fair education public schools are designed to provide.
PS--Your slam on Gov. Doyle was really lowbrow. I could suggest that Rep. Underheim and Sen. Roessler can get Wisconsin Right to Life out of THEIR back pockets, remove its lips from their asses and hold a public hearing about standardizing Wisconsin's ER's policy on offering emergency contraception to rape victims, but I won't because I have tact.

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 9:36pm):

Every week Beckstrom makes some sort of fringe statement which typically takes the tone of moral superiority over those who do not agree.

Every week many crazy and several personal attacks are posted.

Every week many, many comments are also posted with excellent counterpoints and evidence to disprove Beckstrom's stance.

I challenege Breckstrom to answer these posts for once. It's pretty gutless, in my book, to continually take that morally superior tone and never truly answer your detractors. I thought you GOP'ers were against "cut and run".

Frankly, I tend to agree with the poster above who questions Beckstrom's relevance on this paper. What exactly do you bring to the table by wagging your finger at the huge majority of us week after week? Do you really think taking a caustic tone is going to change anyone's mind? Ever hear of catching more flies with honey? You may be blinded with pride over your academic accomplishments but what are you trying to accomplish with the tone of your column???

PS Boian....awesome point! If DARE is apples to apples then so is Drivers Ed.

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 9:46pm):

Now I see why someone's on the editorial board...because she couldn't even cut it as a college rag journalist.

HPV is NOT responsible for genital herpes. Duh? Of course, I can't expect people who apparently grew up in caves to know that. Oh, I meant to say "had abstinence-only education." Don't pretend that that's not what this group wants...literally, it is not fooling a single person.

I bet most people would not have a problem with the bill, except for a few things.
1. It's a completely transparent ploy. Baby steps to your ultimate goal.
2. Sexually Transmitted Disease. Does that not explain well enough that it is transmitted through sex? Duh?
3. How many kids don't know that adults "prefer" kids to abstain? Duh?
4. The Christian Right's minions in the government are already doing enough to give people AIDS, here and in Africa.
5. Abstinence education increases the percent of sex that isn't safe. Fact.
6. It came out recently that abstinence education in the US is riddled with blatant falsehoods.
7. What kind of idiot do you have to be to have to be TAUGHT to do what you've done for your entire life? Duh?

In closing, given the dishonest and delusional people pushing this, the tactics they have used in the past, and the people they are killing and infecting with lies and ignorance...pardon us if we have somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to this bill.

Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 7:33pm):

interesting, this informations was very useful for me. i am a college student and i'm currently writting a reaserch paper, so i'm looking at a lot of informations and yours is very good.

Anonymous (March 26, 2006 @ 7:11pm):

Yes, an important distinction: HPV does not cause genital herpes. There are about a hundred different types of HPV, a few of which can lead to genital warts, but many go undetected unless they cause dysplasia (and potential cervical cancer, if undetected for a long period of time), which is found by performing a liquid-based pap smear of a woman's cervix and then through a colposcopy. The trouble with HPV is that it is virtually undetectible and untestable in men (unless, of course, warts are present for biopsy), so it is spread among partners, for the most part, without either of them knowing. Also, HPV is problematic because it can lie dormant (i.e. not cause dysplasia) in a woman's system for up to 20 years.
This information, of course, is not a part of your beloved abstinence-only curriculum, so I understand why you made such a mistake.
Might I kindly suggest that you print a correction in your next issue because such a factual error is problematic, especially considering that 80% of women will contract HPV by the time they are 40. We need to know the truth. We need comprehensive sex education.

Place a shout-out!
Top Classified Ads (view all)

Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!

DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!

Place a classified ad

Advertising