Sex Education
(

Teen Pregnancy:
Real Causes, Real Prevention
by Anne Neville

Sex education call as teen abortion soars By Erica Cervini
The Age, June 23 2002

The two extremes

There seem to be two extreme views on sexual education. On the one extreme we have those who say that there should be no sex education at all. On the other extreme we have those who say it should start from Primary Education, because, as they reason, children should know about safe sex, from as young as possible. Leaving aside the obvious fact that when young children are exposed to graphic descriptions of the sex act they can be traumatized, one wonders how primary school kids need to be made aware of sex before even they reach puberty!

Another issue to consider is the attempts made by certain elements of the gay lobby to push their own agenda through the sex education. I have nothing against gays, and I fully understand their struggle for equal rights, etc, as made obvious by the special page on Homosexuality, BUT, this does not mean that I have to accept what certain elements of the gay lobby are trying to do within our schools. It is one thing to promote equal rights and full acceptance of homosexuals at schools, even to offer counselling and support services for those in need, but to aggressively promote homosexuality to those confused kids who do not know yet "whether they are Arthur or Martha", is out of line. If the "confused" youths turn out to be gay fine, but what about those who are not gay? By pushing them to act out their "confusion" will only traumatize and confuse them further. Can't they just tell "confused" kids to wait for a while (preferably until they become adults), until they know for sure what they are before they go ahead and act on it? 

In a discussion forum, a non-religious person made the point that the focus of sex education in regards to homosexuality should be the elimination of homophobia and abuse, instead of giving children graphic instruction on how to have sex. He gave as a disturbing example of sex education going wrong the disgraceful program "Fistgate" during which "a group of homosexuals got into explicit instruction regarding techniques to insert ones fist into another person's vagina or rectum. This was done with government funding, and was offered to children aged 14 and up. But FISTGATE isn't an indictment against kids speaking freely. Its about adults being far too graphic, and instructing kids in "how to" have homosexual sex..."

Our secular friend also points out the paedophilic agenda of certain elements of the gay lobby: "There are and have been homosexual activists that are way over the top. In the long run, they hurt your cause. Allowing people like NAMBLA in "gay" pride parades isn't ever going to help (the gay) cause. Ever. That's taken as a sign of unity - seeing pedophiles marching with the "gays"... I still say that anyone who gets sexual ideas or nostalgia around children (same-sex especially) is a closet pedophile... Guess we just have to accept the fact that there are some people that just will never trust and believe that all homosexuals are as "angelic" as they try to appear. "

By employing such tactics, gay lobbyists are giving credibility to the Christian Fundamentalist claim that they are out to recruit our children... Is there some truth in this claim after all? 

It is in these fine points where secular society can benefit from Christian conservatives, who act as watchdogs (albeit, overzealous...) to protect the community from harm. But to listen to the Christian Conservatives and scrap sex education all together seems equally absurd as the first extreme of having sex education in primary schools.

 The Christian opposition to sex education inevitably raises further secular eyebrows. This is not good, because when Christians point out some real problems with sex education we have a case of "crying wolf". It is obviously unwise for conservative Christians to oppose sex education as they alienate themselves further from mainstream society: "It has long been said that any movement which fears education is a movement of oppression. Are the fundamentalists so sure that they're an exception to this rule? Children do not benefit from being kept in the dark. As parents, we need to give them guidance and support, and we may even need to give them discipline. We need to set examples, we need to let them see both sides of an argument, and then we need to let them make an informed choice. If we've raised them properly, they will make the choices that are best for them. But if we think we can force them to follow our wishes by withholding information, then we are doing our children a terrible disservice. We need to tell them the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, because your kids will not respect you if you don't respect them, and respect starts with honesty. That is our idea of "family values"..." (Atheist Morality, Family Values )

Why current sex education programs are bogus

One only needs to read the following critique by Paul Russell (News Weekly Magazine) to be convinced that new innovative efforts to improve sex education programs are missing the mark:

In spite of the outrage over the SHine controversy, South Australian parents still want sex education in the schools. A South Australian survey of parents found 86 per cent wanted schools to teach their kids about sex. The result represents a remarkable turnaround. A decade ago a similar survey in South Australia showed 80 per cent of parents believed it was their responsibility, not the school's, to teach children about sex... (see: Fear and loathing of the joy of sex , by Adele Horin , The Sydney Morning Herald, October 4, 2003)

Adele Horin says that "the newly released Secondary Students and Sexual Health survey confirms the vital role schools play. Based on a poll of 2388 young people in years 10 and 12, the national survey, commissioned by the Federal Government and conducted by La Trobe University, reveals that school programs are now young people's main source of information on sex and sexual health. It seems only yesterday Australians were hotly debating whether sex education had a place in schools at all. Now the question is how useful and relevant the programs are..." (ibid)

Australia has one of the worst records for teenage pregnancy in the industrialised world, and a high teen abortion rate. The new survey shows young people's knowledge of HIV has declined since 1997 and knowledge of other sexually transmitted diseases was patchy. Young men in year 10, especially, need better information. By year 10 one in four has had sexual intercourse, and 40 per cent oral sex. By year 12 just under a half of all students have had intercourse. With young people reporting relatively high rates of forced sex, as well as high rates of sex while drunk or high, there's no room for complacency... Yet there's no universal provision of sex education across Australia. It is ad hoc. States have programs of varying quality and relevance..." (ibid)

In defence of the experimental program by SHine SA, Adele Horin argues that the negative feedback comes only from the "religious right" and conservative parents that represent only a tiny minority (2%) while the overwhelming majority of parents support the program. She says: "it is instructive to learn what happens when a state education department tries to introduce a cutting-edge program which is explicit, comprehensive, and talks to young people in their own language. All the old fears resurface. In March, South Australia began trials in 15 high schools of the Sexual Health and Relationship Education (SHARE) program. More than five years of research underpin the program, and it draws from best practice in the European countries with the lowest teen pregnancy rates..."

"The religious right has come out with guns blazing, whipping up hysteria and misinformation. Staff at SHine, formerly Family Planning South Australia, the organisation behind the program, have received death threats from anonymous fanatics. And so have MPs who support the trial. The police are investigating. Members of the lunatic fringe have sent a barrage of hate mail - some addressed to "Satan's Den" - thrown eggs at SHine's headquarters and accosted staff members. At the same time, legitimate protest groups, such as the Australian Family Association, the Right to Life organisation, the Concerned Parents Group and Family First, an organisation linked to the Assemblies of God, have lobbied the State Government to end the trial..."

"A letter-writing campaign has been organised, community meetings held and pastors have preached to huge assemblies on the evils of the program. As well the Liberal Opposition has lined up with the religious right to call for the pilot to be stopped. Almost daily, there's a fracas in Parliament..."

"So far the Government has remained resolute, and 10,000 students, with parents' permission, are involved. Only 2 per cent of students are not participating. Yet the unexpected fury from a vocal minority, along with the Liberal Opposition's stance, means the program has an uncertain future..."

And her concluding remarks: "What has inspired such outrage? Critics are incensed with resource materials such as "scenario cards" which introduce characters including a young, gay Asian man and a lesbian TV star. Designed to prompt discussions about diversity, the cards have hit the homophobia button. As well, the critics object to an exercise with cards intended to promote discussion about alternatives to penetrative sex. The religious right thinks schools have no place teaching about sex. The rest of us have our fingers crossed, hoping schools are doing a good enough job. In NSW the K-6 syllabus was introduced in the late 1990s without fuss, and a new 7-12 syllabus comes into effect in 2005..."

"But what all school programs avoid, even in South Australia, is open acknowledgement that sex is about pleasure, giving and receiving. To mention the word "pleasure" in a classroom, said SHine's battle-scarred chief executive, Kaisu Vartto, would be "a red rag to a bull". It's a bit sad that sex education has become acceptable in a climate of fear about HIV and STDs. At school, the main focus is on risk and how to minimise it. Parents have a role in these times: to convey the joy of sex. Being positive might be the hardest task of all..." (ibid)

It is always interesting to see the two sides of every debate (isn't it amazing how each side seems "right"?) and the above example with the controversial sex education program (SHARE) proves the case.

The above example also proves the need to have "unsavoury" conservative groups around. I am not talking about the Christian Talibans that send death threats, etc. They are mentally ill. I refer to the "legitimate" protest groups Australian Family Association, the Right to Life, the Concerned Parents Group, Family First, etc. Although they are not always honest, and to be frank, they are quite unsavoury, these religious right groups are useful as watchdogs... They miss the mark however mainly because they fail to acknowledge that they are a tiny minority. No matter how controversial or "sinful" the SHARE program is, the fact remains that "10,000 students, with parents' permission, are involved. Only 2 per cent of students are not participating...". Also, whether they like it or not, the fact is that "school programs are now young people's main source of information on sex and sexual health". As data from overseas shows, in regards to teen-pregnancy prevention, sex education is better than no sex education, even if sex education is flawed. Since the religious right condemns abortions, they should get with the program and allow schools to teach sex education. As for their own children, conservative parents can teach them their values. No one stops them... If they know how to raise their children in a loving way they will empower them to digest appropriately the sex-data they are being served at school. One has to be really naive to expect their children never to hear or learn about sex outside the home. At least at school sex education, children get to learn the medical risks involved with sex...

I personally believe that programs like SHARE miss the mark, not so much because of their controversial contents and explicit material, but because of their lack of depth. They are one dimensional as they approach sexuality from a clinical point of view. As Adele Horin points out "what all school programs avoid, even in South Australia, is open acknowledgement that sex is about pleasure, giving and receiving...". I agree. But sex is much more than that. Sex is about vulnerability, trust, dignity, care, and most importantly, about commitment and responsibility. Sex is about relationships, and children should be taught "the facts about sex" within the context of relationships. They have to be taught that their future sexual partners are real people and not objects. 

Is the controversial sex education program developed by SHine SA the only example where experts miss the mark? Hardly. It seems that most current sex education programs in Australia are missing the mark. 

An academic recently said that AUSTRALIA must improve its sex education program. The Child Health expert said this after publishing a report showing that the country has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and abortion in the developed world
(see: Calls for sex education shake-up)

"It is imperative that Australia develops a coordinated policy to adequately cater for the reproductive and sexual health needs of adolescents," said Dr. Rachel Skinner, a senior lecturer in adolescent medicine at the University of Western Australia's School of Paediatrics and Child Health. Collating data from across the country, Skinner's report showed Australia has the sixth-highest teenage pregnancy rate and the third-highest abortion rate among the world's most developed nations. She also found that more than a quarter of adolescents in Australia had suffered from a sexually transmitted disease. "We cannot continue to ignore the high rates of transmitted infection among Australian teenagers, and the potentially disastrous consequences of teenage pregnancy," Skinner said. (ibid)

Her report said teenagers are the most frequent users of emergency contraception at family planning clinics, while nearly half of sexually active Australian high school students do not use condoms consistently. Abortions were the second-most common reason for women aged 12 to 24 to be admitted to Australian hospitals in 1997-98, Skinner found. Aborigines, who generally suffer far worse health than other Australians, were at particular risk, Skinner said. In 1999, 21.3 percent of Aboriginal births involved teenage mothers, compared with 4.2 percent of births for the rest of Australia. "Improving the sexual health of our teenage population will be a secure investment for the future," Skinner said in the report, published in the respected Medical Journal of Australia. (ibid)

The question is how do we improve sex education problems? Another expert, Alison Campbell suggests that sex education programs become more value-based, as opposed to neutral-value based. It is no good to simply teach kids the medical facts about sex, or how to practice it "safer". Teenagers also need a workable framework of values in which they can develop their understanding of such a complex issue as sexuality. One very important value is self-respect and dignity. Kids need to be empowered to say NO, whenever they are pressured to do anything that makes them feel uncomfortable, and this includes sexual behaviour. They should also be taught to respect one another without taking advantage of the more vulnerable ones. In other words, predatory behaviour must be exposed as evil. This way, kids will be empowered to vend off older predators. One major reason most teenagers fall victims to paedophile predators is their lack of empowerment to say NO. Any sexual program must include this basic human expression. The ability to say NO. Is this so hard? Or does the school system have a different agenda regarding the "socialization" of children? 

Value Based Sex Education

How can Churches contribute to the current debate over sex education? I believe that both liberal and conservative churches can at least agree in one thing: Value based sex-education is better than value neutral sex-education. But churches should stay clear from imposing their religious assumptions about sex. Since many of the religious assumptions about human sexuality are tainted by the renunciate mindset, it is best to promote the humanistic paradigm (ie. respect, dignity, kindness and care for the human person). There is nothing wrong with teaching our children traditional sex values, as long as they are not taught within a religious/renunciate context. 

Lets teach our kids to be able to say NO. Let us teach them to respect themselves and others. Let us teach them the values of dignity, self-determination, self-control, freedom and responsibility, care, kindness, benevolence, and above all, love.

 Disclaimer: This site is not intended to be a substitute for proper medical, professional or spiritual advice for those who suffer from the type of problems that the site covers. The site or its editors cannot take any legal or other responsibility for visitors and readers' responses to the site. It is the responsibility of visitors whether they choose to read the features and articles, and whether they choose to follow any advice therein. The site and the articles are intended to be helpful and positive. Also please note that we cannot take any responsibility for the quality or nature of the external links to other web sites which are found on this site.