|
Weather at the Frozen North
This is my personal blog. My professional blog is The Customer Service Survey I've written a book called Gourmet Customer Service. You can buy it on Amazon. (in)Frequently Asked Questions AIM Screen Name: DFNfrozenNorth
Categories
Statistics
Last Updated: Aug 07, 2008 03:30 PM
|
Sunday - May 16, 2004 at 02:07 PM inSex Ed: What Works vs. What Parents Want
Fascinating research from the U.K. which suggests that teaching teens about forms of intimacy other than intercourse is more effective than other kinds of sex ed at reducing intercourse and teen pregnancy. I don't know how well-supported this research is, but if it's accurate, it leads to a serious public policy dilemma: what's more important to teach when there's a conflict between what's known to reduce teen pregnancy and what the parents want the kids to hear?
The message of this curriculum, called "A Pause," is that you don't need to have intercourse to be intimate with a boyfriend or girlfriend. Oral sex, petting, etc., can be fun but don't carry nearly the risk of pregnancy and disease as intercourse. I would guess that many parents in the U.S. would object to teaching their kids that "oral sex is fine, just don't have intercourse." Yet, if the research is borne out, this message is extremely effective at reducing teen sex and pregnancy. Speaking as a parent, I feel very strongly that the schools should respect my wishes when it comes to teaching important issues of sexuality and morality. I don't have any objections to this particular curriculum, in large part because I went through a very frank sex-ed program, and I thought it was very healthy and appropriate (nor did it turn me into a raving sex maniac--though She Who Puts Up With Me might disagree). But speaking as a former child, not everything my own parents felt strongly about turned out to be right. And speaking as someone with a scientific background, I know that a lot of people's opinions in this area are not based on logic or rationality, but pure emotion. So, the question is....if the state (i.e. all of us) can cut teen pregnancy by 20%, saving the taxpayers a ton of money at the cost of teaching about sex in a way which many parents will object to, which principle is more important? Is it more important to reduce out-of-wedlock births, abortions, and high school dropouts (all major consequences of teen pregnancy); or is it more important to teach about sex the way the parents want? I don't have an answer. Posted at 02:07 PM | Permalink | | | |