The abstinence-only debate continues to rage, and in Tennesse, a new law debates whether schools can and should prohibit sex education that might promote sex. I
previously discussed the law, explaining how inappropriate it is to apply the "gateway drug" concepts to sex. the law was signed into effect in Tennessee last month, barring groups from coming into classrooms, and promoting anything that might potentially excite teens, and convey the idea that any sex is acceptable. This new law was created after a sex education program used sex toys to demonstrate to high school teens ways to engage in safe oral sex.
But, in ongoing debates about the law, it's acknowledged that the Tennessee government really can't define what types of behaviors might ultimately lead to sex, and what types of education can be most appropriate. The whole issue is a fascinating example of the divide between science and conviction, showing that for some people, it doesn't matter how much data is presented that demonstrates that abstinence-only education doesn't work, and in fact leaves kids more unprepared and at greater risk for unsafe sex.
Defenders of the Tennessee law argue that it is not abstinence-only, and that it allows education on contraception, but prohibits demonstrations that might be too graphic. It also prohibits education that might encourage youth to engage is behaviors such as groping, fondling, or oral sex, under the belief that such behaviors might inevitably lead to intercourse.
A fascinating insight into the thinking behind the law is revealed in a quote by a Tennessee politician, who asserts that "When individuals are touching one another's intimate parts ... this is sexual activity that has its ultimate goal of penetration," said Memphis Democrat and minister, John Deberry. So, all intimate contact, all touching, all sexual behaviors, ultimately lead to penetrative sex? This is based upon the archaic notion that penis-vaginal penetration is the only thing that really counts, when it comes to sex.
I sometimes provide a sexuality training for professionals, on the "range of normative sexual behaviors" of adolescents. I use research and data, to explain to an audience how very broad the sexual behavior spectrum is, and how our definition of "normal" is far too narrow to be useful. The presentation includes a few slides, on the behaviors that so-called “virgins” have engaged in. They may not have had “penetrative” sex, but they’ve often done a whole lot of other things:
• In a 1995 study of 15-19 y.o. males, 45% were “virgins.” Of those virgins:
– 22% had been masturbated by a female;
– 15% had received oral sex from a female;
– 12% had performed oral sex on a female;
– 1% had performed anal sex with a female
• A 1992 study with female virgins(9th -12th grades) in Los Angeles found:
– 30% had masturbated a partner;
– 30% had been masturbated by a partner;
– 10% had performed oral sex on a male;
– 10% had received oral sex from a male.
• Similar results were found in Salt Lake City and New York City
The over-emphasis upon preventing penetrative sex is ludicrous. It represents archaic thinking, and ignores the real sexual behaviors that people (including youth) are practicing. But, even more dangerous I think, is the ways in which these laws and arguments attempt to prohibit youth from having the ability to develop and learn intimate skills with their peers. I’m not talking about sexual techniques, but even just the ability to experience physical contact such as kissing, hugging and holding. If these things are prohibited, due to fear that we might encourage penetrative sex, we lose a lot. In prohibitive sex education, and efforts to control and restrict youth sexual behaviors, our adolescents lose the ability to develop interpersonal skills, and relationship skills. They lose the opportunity to develop the skills they will need to have healthy relationships, once it is legal for them to do so. And they lose the feelings that come from intimate contact – as the Beatles said, “And when I touch you, I feel happy inside.”
At some point, all human closeness and connection can be considered “gateways” to intimate contact. Is it really healthy to prevent youth from having developmentally-appropriate intimacy with their peers, under the guise of preventing “penetrative” sex?
No comments:
Post a Comment