#1. All sexual experiences carry risks. The safest form of sex occurs within one, monogamous, life-long relationship, but even married partners are vulnerable, both spiritually and emotionally. (Personally, I think emotional consequences of sex are far scarier than the physical ones.) But, even if you believe humans are nothing but "bodies" and sex is just recreational, don't forget that pills and shots and condoms don't protect us 100%. It worries me that parents feel comfortable their teens are being "safe," because they've learned about "safe sex" in school...
#2. I strongly question the impact of a "comprehensive" course which omits instructions from the Creator of sex.
When I was growing up, I was taught God's command to keep the marriage bed pure, and I heard that self-control was a virtue for all ages. Now, however, parents seem to think their teens are crazy, clueless masses of hormone, at the mercy of their own sex drives. "Young people will experiment with sex, no matter what, so the best we can do is prepare them."
I believe this approach needs serious reconsideration. This attitude, held by parents and teachers alike, makes teen sex "normal." So, although I don't have a problem telling kids about penises, gonnorhea, the NuvaRing, menstruation, Syphilis, and really anything, there is a huge difference between teaching facts "in theory" and expecting kids to use their new information.
I think the situation is similar to a conversation I had with a 6-year-old at the daycare regarding "how to rob an office building."
Boy: What's that flashy light on the wall?
Me: That's the alarm system. It keeps people from coming in here at night when the daycare is closed.
Boy: Why do people want to come here at night?
Me: Most of the time, they want to steal money and computers and telephones.
Boy: Does the light lock the door?
Me: Actually, it calls the police if somebody opens the door or breaks a window.
Boy: (wicked grin*) I would just hit that light with a baseball bat!
Me: Sorry, but that calls the police, too...and then they take the burglars to jail.
(And so, the chat continued until his bus came to pick him up)
I was willing to answer all of his questions, hypothetically. But I wasn't preparing him for a life of breaking-and-entering. In fact, a few minutes into our talk, I told him plainly I would be very disappointed if he ever tried taking something which wasn't his.
That little disclaimer makes all the difference between informing and condoning.
Frankly, I think schools can try whatever version of sex ed they want (and I'll even tolerate the term "comprehensive" despite ignoring the spiritual side of a person's health). But they can NOT tell me those classes are necessary to keep teens "safe," when they go through their "inevitable" sexual experiences. I was a teen who waited until marriage, and I have many friends who did as well. All of our questions were answered about body mechanics, STD's, and contraceptives, but there was an important disclaimer at the end:
Understanding all of these things does not mean you're prepared for "safe sex." You are spiritual beings, with a responsibility to control your urges until you find the safety of a marriage relationship. We will be disappointed if you do not wait.
----
A couple days ago, I asked my Christian readers, what would make you remove your kids from the public school system? Is the state-version of sex ed a problem for some of you? In my opinion, go ahead and give the kids all the facts they want, but don't normalize teen sex. What do you think?
It wouldn't be a problem for my high school kids. They're going to get that message pretty loud and clear anyway (I was homeschooled, and still heard plenty about my inability to control myself), and we're going to have discussions about it anyway.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it would be a problem for kids younger than that. If my grade schooler hears something, I'll explain in an age-appropriate manner. But if they never hear anything, I see no reason to bring it up except for "good touch, bad touch."
And I should add that, though I wouldn't pull my high schoolers out of school for it, I do think it's a real problem for those kids who *don't* have anyone to tell them they can control themselves. So, if it came up as a voting issue or something, I would definitely vote to take out the sex classes.
Hm...your response puts me in an interesting situation. For once, I'm going to make a more "liberal" argument: Don't you think it's better for kids to get question answered in the classroom, versus getting it from the internet?
DeleteI TOTALLY agree with you, that kids who aren't taught self-control at home (and don't know how to combat that subliminal message "You will have sex before you're married!") are much, much, much more likely to fulfill that prophecy, if they get confidence about "safe sex" and a handful of condoms at school. But, even though the solution isn't "better" sex education, I don't believe the problem is, either. If we take the program out of schools, those kids STILL won't have strong-valued parents, willing and able to teach them what they need to know. When parents do their job, sex ed isn't "good" OR "bad"...it's just supplemental.
But, for those kids whose parents DON'T do their job, isn't a skewed, sex-preparation class better than nothing at all?
Well, I don't think they're getting better answers in the classroom than online, so... no, I don't think a classroom is better. Actually, if they're finding it online, at least it isn't backed by reputable adults. At least some of them will look at it with the critical eye they use to view everything else online.
ReplyDeleteAs for your last question, what exactly do you see as being the benefit to the skewed sex-preparation class? (This isn't rhetorical. I'm not sure of my response until I know where you're coming from.)
Well, there are statistics that say kids are beginning to wait longer to have sex, and teen pregnancies are on the decline again--both of which have been attributed to "better" sex education. I agree the ideal situation would be for kids to understand God's plan for sex and wait *until marriage* versus just "longer." But, I guess I'm asking: if we can't rely on ALL parents to convince ALL teens to abide by God's rules, wouldn't we at least want them to be aware of the risk of infection and pregnancy? At least sex education alludes to the consequences of immorality, even if though doesn't use the term "immoral."
DeleteAgain, I'm making the liberal argument here... I really don't have a strong opinion about keeping or abolishing sex ed.
Yeah, I see your point. I still don't know, though.... Sorry for not having a more conclusive statement.
ReplyDeleteAs long as I am informed what is being taught to my children I don't have a problem with it. If I am kept in the dark, then I can't help my children to filter what is a world view and what we who believe in Jesus believe is true. I attended public school and in the 1970s and 80s we were taught how to protect ourselves from STDs. However, my parents taught me that my body is precious and sacred and that I should protect it. I had the right filter to screen the information I received at school. I believe I can protect my children the same way, by providing them a filter of truth. That is my responsibility as a parent and no school can take that away from me (at least, not yet!)
ReplyDeleteDefinitely! Nothing concerns me more than the practice of overriding parents "if it's in the best interest of the children." Nobody knows their "interests" better than me! As you said, I'll tolerate quite a bit of secular garbage, so long as I always have the final word with MY kids. :)
Delete(You might be interested in another conversation Bethany and I had, about whether it's wise for Christians to take their kids away from secular organizations, if they "go too far.")
http://selfishintoservice.blogspot.com/2012/01/ya-guys-want-some-cookies.html