Friday, March 18, 2005

The Boston Globe has an interesting set of editorials on teenage/child sexuality, permissiveness and the "obsession" over abstinence by the current administration.

On one hand, there is truth in that statement that kids, if they want to be, will be sexually active anyway, so they might as well be educated about this. On the other hand, it might behoove parents/caretakers to teach their kids about cause and effect - that there can be repercussions for certain acts.

I don't think that teaching abstinence to the exclusion of other things is the way to go, as I am a pragmatist. I also believe it to be counterproductive to use scare tactics instead of facts in the abstinence programs cited in the op ed. I do, however, think that abstinence should be presented as an alternative to "safe sex" - or any other sexual practices at all. People mature sexually far sooner than they are allowed to mature emotionally in our society, and it just seems like a bad idea for parents/society in general to be treating sex as though it were "just another thing." It isn't.


On a similar note, this amused me: I was out with a number of girlfriends in the recent past, and a couple women were lamenting the fact that there was no 100% foolproof birth control method out there save for sterilization. I brought up abstinence, and was immediately asked by one woman if I was a Republican.

No comments: