Opinion
Abstinence education short-sighted
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Mike Skelly:
- America gripped by entertainment news (November 22, 2005)
- ASM must raise campus awareness (April 19, 2006)
- Death penalty demands certainty (December 2, 2005)
- Diversity vital on UW campus (May 3, 2006)
- Rhetoric polarizes holiday season (December 6, 2005)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
A piece of legislation currently awaiting the signature of Gov. Jim Doyle would institute preferential treatment of abstinence-based education in Wisconsin public schools.
Proponents of the bill rest their arguments on the central tenet that abstinence is the only form of contraceptive that is certain to prevent disease and pregnancy. However, while the inclusion of abstinence in all sexual education programs is both merited and necessary, to do so by limiting the access and awareness to the range of information on the subject would be detrimental to both the health and knowledge of those students enrolled in the programs.
The legislation is part of a recent trend that has resulted in much of the current sexual education curriculum being supplanted by programs that are predominantly stressing the importance of abstinence while simultaneously downplaying the effectiveness of contraceptives. This movement has found supporters on all levels, most notably the federal government. Since 1998, the government has spent roughly $890 million on abstinence programs throughout the country. Yet the vast majority of these funds — $779 million — have been spent during President Bush's tenure in office.
While abstinence programs have found supporters, counter-movements have begun to question whether the programs are adequately informing students sufficiently to make educated decisions, and whether the programs include accurate information. Many have found that abstinence programs do not contain the requisite amount of necessary information and are sometimes misleading students. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Rhode Island Department of Education ended its use of a federal abstinence program in March due to "medically inaccurate information, as well as possible religious instruction."
People opposed to the predominance of abstinence in sexual education are advocating a "comprehensive" program that would include abstinence, but also expand upon it by including a broader range of topics such as contraceptive use and statistics on STDs. The comprehensive program has found support among many influential groups that deal with teenagers, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine and the National Parent Teacher Association.
The liability of any abstinence program is that its effectiveness relies solely on its ability to indoctrinate its students into believing its central dogmas. This is an especially hard task to accomplish, given the sexual inclinations of teenagers and societal pressures about sex and sexuality.
As a program that relies on an emphasis of a singular, uncompromising belief, it must necessarily exclude or detract from the gamut of ostensibly contradicting information that is both relevant and educational.
This often leads to abstinence proponents employing fallacious correlations in their reasoning. Many in favor of abstinence often argue that creating access to contraceptives would increase the likelihood of promiscuity. A similar line of logic could draw the conclusion that access to members of the opposite sex increases the risk as well.
Furthermore, the obvious religious undertones create the potential for religious indoctrination to permeate the public classroom.
The strategy employed by abstinence programs should appear suspect to anyone who favors supplying students with all the available information, a goal that public schools should adopt in every field. The aim of these programs should be to address all aspects relating to sexual education in a responsible, appropriate manner. By creating access to information on not just abstinence, comprehensive sexual education includes relevant information for everyone. This would help to empower those who wish to abstain while allowing others to learn the associated risks of sexual activity and the preventative measures necessary to protect themselves.
To increase the sexual health of the nation, it is essential to realize that while an abstinence program may help to curtail pre-marital sexual activity, it will never eradicate the practice. There is a moral obligation of the state to create access to both the information and the resources necessary to protect individuals who engage in sexual activity. As the government cannot regulate adult sexual activity, it is more beneficial for the state to supply all the information on sexual education before any claim to regulation expires.
The ultimate purpose of sexual education should be to create a realistic program that encompasses and informs the variety of choices regarding sexual activity and allows all possible avenues the utmost protection. It should not be obtuse to the advances in science and include new products, such as the HPV vaccine, regardless of the vague and baseless speculations by legislators to the effects on promiscuity. If the end sexual education seeks is health, then by all means it should seek to fulfill it.
Mike Skelly (meskelly@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in finance and political science.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Everyone knows what happens when you tell kids not to do something... they do it. Teaching abstinence does nothing to eliminate the curiosity factor. "Say no to drugs," they say. Why? I know absolutely nothing about drugs, but I've been told their bad. What a stupid concept, thanks Nancy Reagan for that briliant campaign. Twenty years later there's not a drug problem to speak of, right?
Just say no to sex, because I said so.
Hey Mike, maybe if you were to come up with a better way of avoided STDs we'd be willing to consider it. Abstinence is the only method that no one has ever really tried. Face it, kid, there is simply no other way to avoid STDs or unwanted pregnancy. Contraceptives are not 100% effective and they WON'T protect you from STDs.
Apparently, you'd rather young people in this country ruin their lives by following the advice of those whose only purpose is to subvert us into becoming a nation of hopeless nymphos! No wonder the rest of the world look at us and shakes their heads.
The rest of the world shakes their heads at us because of our destructive foreign policy, not because we are "a nation of hopeless nymphos." In fact, Europe is far more open about such issues than we are.
In regards to percent effectiveness, abstinence is not 100% either. Abstinence really requires a committment to it. Otherwise, everyone who is reading this, unless they are having sex right now, is abstinent. The majority of people who take abstinence pledges break them within a year. So if we're talking about the best way to prevent STIs and pregnancy, abstinence pledges are actually less effective than condoms.