Book: Aging Beyond Belief by Don Ardell

If you plan to age, prepare yourself — it's later than you think. The challenge of aging well should be taken seriously, but not grimly! Whatever your age, it's never too soon, or too late, to learn and apply the fine art of aging well, really well. Discover what aspects of aging can't be changed and improve the rest that can. Mold your own realities with REAL wellness, Ardell-style.

The 69 tips — one for each year of the author's life — are thought-provoking, challenging, eye-opening, manageable and fun to read. And all provide practical guidance for intelligently designing your own life-style evolution.
Learn more

Don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.
Read Don's blog!

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

An Alternative To Abstinence-Only Sex Education

Tuesday August 7, 2007

The good news is that ample data are now available to support what common sense has suggested all along, namely, that abstinence-only sex education programs don't work. Such programs, funded and promoted by Republican politicians beginning in 1981 (the Reagan Administration) and continuing unabated through the woeful Bush years, simply don't produce measurable results. This seemed self-evident at the start of such programming, but evidence was lacking. No more. Given the preponderance of data showing the failure of the "abstinence-only" debacle, the American Academy of Pediatrics' and other expert sources recommend that teens have access to birth control and emergency contraception, a stunning rejection of the abstinence-only approach fervently favored by religious groups and the current Administration.

Funding for such "don't mention condoms or other ways to reduce risks during any kind of sexual activity that adults don't want kids to think about, much less engage in" has been quite generous. In the ten years between 1996 and 2006, Congress invested $1.5 billion tax dollars on "abstinence-only-until-marriage" programs. So far this year, $176 million has been channeled through three separate funding streams for these head-in-the-sand "don't ask, and whatever you do, don't tell" endeavors. The Great Decider, who has not stated publicly whether he himself abstained from sex before marrying Laura, has proposed $204 million for the coming year. Imagine that -- another $204 million down the national toilet bowl for a program proven to be ineffective. It boggles the mind.

Alas, it does not matter to Republican fundees that such programs do not keep Republican or even Democratic kids from having sex to a greater extent than they would if educated about sexuality. (Put another way, telling a kid that the choice is either my way - "don't do it" or the highway - "goeth thee straight to hell, fornicator") does not incline the lad or lass to choose option one - abstinence.) You would think the right-wing family values crowd WOULD care about effectiveness, but they don't because they WANT to believe ignorance works, despite evidence to the contrary. The alternative, that kids might engage in sex, is just too awful to deal with. For the abstinence-only diehards, it must be preferable to demand perfection even knowing such demands will be ignored than to accommodate unacceptable realities that are unsetting to think about.

The irony is that abstinence-only sex education makes children of Republican adults (and others) more vulnerable to pre-marital sexual activities than if educated fully about the facts, options and consequences of choices available. Maybe sex educators should point out that adolescent sexual activities are not even limited within proper political boundaries; some kids from respectable Republican families can and do engage in unprotected sex with peers whose parents are Democrats. This should be the last straw for the abstinence-only family values crowd who persist, along with President Bush, in support for added funding to promote denial, ignorance and misinformation with abstinence-only programming.

Not to fret and anguish over this sorry state of society any longer. I have a more positive alternative, a sex education program idea that might work. I can't guarantee it, but I am hopeful that my approach to sex education, the very opposite of abstinence-only, can, at least, be quite popular with the target population for all these programs.

I propose a supervised, regulated sexual-indulgence program. Before having a heart attack, think about it for at least a moment. A sexual indulgence, "hands on" (so to speak) education initiative would be based on principles nearly everyone favors, namely:

Knowledge is better than ignorance. Dr. S. Paige Hertweck, a pediatric obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of Louisville, stated "teaching abstinence but not birth control makes it more likely that once teenagers initiate sexual activity they will have unsafe sex and contract sexually transmitted diseases. ("Doctors denounce abstinence-only education," Associated Press, July 5, 2005.)
Children and especially teens need guidance and supervision in nearly everything, especially sorting out their own sexuality. We would not want adolescents as driving instructors or administrators of driver license tests. Why allow ill-informed peers to be the default educators in matters of human sexuality not addressed in the abstinence classes devoted to one message: "Don't you dare!"
Human sexuality need not be, in fact should not be, a shameful life function shrouded in secrecy, misinformation, danger and anxiety, to mention but a few of the negative conditions that exist for many if not most kids, now and in the past.
The fact that 45 percent of high school girls and 48 percent of boys have had sexual intercourse and that about 900,000 U.S. teens get pregnant each year, all during the sexual-abstinence-only era, is not a good thing.

I propose that abstinence-only programs be modified to prepare kids for future indulgence in sex in ways that will be safe, sensible (if such a thing is possible), skillful and ethical, caring and considerate. With sexual indulgence programs.

It is human nature to be sexual. Kids are driven by such desires and fantasies, just as you were, when you were a kid. They experience hormonal tsunamis, hurricanes and tornadoes that dismay and discombobble most if not all of the time. No wonder they can't be like we were, perfect in every way. To paraphrase the lament in "Bye Bye Birdie," THAT'S what is the matter with kids today.

A sexual indulgence program based on common sense would qualify kids for their own sexuality, and increase the chances that expressions of that sexuality would be safe, if not appropriate, harmless, if not memorable.

Whenever a well-informed, responsible and capable teen chooses to indulge in this always hazardous but often momentarily fulfilling activity, he or she should do so, without guilt or worry. Indulgence education could include testing and interview processes. Indulgence programs that emphasized science, maturity, love and mutual respect could be designed by well-regarded, experienced secular groups, such as Planned Parenthood. Kids would be encouraged to demonstrate knowledge of relevant facts, possess emotional stability and meet certain standards in the common decencies.

Of course, those who insist on abstinence-only-sex-education will not be thrilled with the idea of sexual-indulgence-education. However, this will not be my first idea not endorsed by Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, the Bush Administration and other abstinence champions. Yet, for those who believe, in the words of Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, that abstinence-only messages "fly directly in the face of everything all ordinary Americans know about teens and sex and are contradicted by everything that medicine and science know about teens and sex," it might have some possibilities. Caplan also said, "There may be a sillier strategy for dealing with sex among teens than promoting the choice of 'abstinence-only-until-marriage,' but I am not quite sure what it is." I'm not, either.

In Charleston at The Citadel on July 23rd, Democratic candidates for president Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were asked if they have talked to their kids about sex using medically accurate and age-appropriate information in doing so. The latter was not defined in the YouTube conveyed video question, but it was not a surprise that neither candidate replied that her/his abstinence-only counsel was always medically accurate and always age appropriate.

All the best. Be well. Abstain-only from grumpiness and failure to look on the bright side of life.

Domain: purpose
Subdomain: relationships

Search other reports in the Don Ardell report archive.

	Custom Search