Teach Minnesotans Responsible Sexuality

By Andy Birkey
Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 10:29 am

barbanderson.jpg
The Minnesota Family Council held a press conference at the State Capitol on Tuesday, attacking comprehensive sexual health education in public schools. Barb Anderson (pictured) and other anti-comprehensive sex education activists pulled examples of medically accurate statements from the curriculum out of context, and called them “obscene” and “bizarre.”

Anderson and the Minnesota Family Council would like schools to teach sexual health education that does not teach about sexual health: Anderson advocates an abstinence-only until marriage curriculum. (“Just Say No” hasn’t worked for the war on drugs, maybe it will work for sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy?)

more inside Abstinence-only curriculum often leaves out the “obscene” and “bizarre” medically accurate information, and instead teaches that “condoms have the highest failure rate of any birth control method.” Instead of encouraging sexually active teens to use methods of protecting themselves from STDs and pregnancy, abstinence-only discourages the use of any method except abstaining from sex.

The problem with the curriculum Anderson advocates is that it leaves people out. Abstinence-only until marriage puts lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students in a paradoxical place. Can they have sex only in Massachusetts? Does a civil union allow them to have sex? If so, then they better move to Vermont or New Jersey. Or how about if they register for a domestic partnership?

Conservative groups and politicians like to use higher rates of STDs against the LGBT community as a reason why LGBT people are immoral (without mentioning that lesbians have the lowest STD rates of any population). The only solution that these groups offer, however, is “reparative therapy” or “praying the gay away.” This dangerous and unproven therapy does nothing to prevent STDs, and instead causes emotional problems and sometimes suicide.

Abstinence-only sex education would also do a disservice to the vast majority of Americans who have sex before marriage. For 50 years, most Americans have had sex before marriage, even in the conservative dream decade of the 1950s. According to the National Survey of Family Growth (PDF), “Among those born in the 1940s and turning 15 from 1954 to 1963, 82% had had premarital sex by exact age 30, and 88% had done so by exact age 44.” Today, more than 75 percent of Americans have had premarital sex before age 20. Without medically accurate information, they will be ignorant about their bodies, ignorant about STDs and ignorant about pregnancy.

The Minnesota Family Council has a herculean task ahead of it. Somehow, it has to persuade more than three-quarters of the population to stop having sex before marriage so that its abstinence-only approach is effective. Otherwise, its curriculum does nothing but leave people unprepared for the responsibilities of sexual activity.

When it comes down to it, telling teens about the realities of sexual activity will certainly delay the age of first sexual intercourse. I remember sitting in a Planned Parenthood sex education course with my parents way back in 1992 (I was in eighth grade). They talked about “cottage cheese-like discharge,” dying from AIDS, and that our dreams and aspirations would take a backseat when we become responsible for the life of another human being, especially if we have to do it as a single parent. All those things would happen, if we weren’t responsible and had sex too soon, or didn’t take the proper precautions like using condoms when we finally did have sex.

What really helped was our parents were there with us, and did a lot of the teaching.

The Comprehensive Family Life and Sexuality Education Act, if passed by the Minnesota Legislature, would strongly encourage parents and the community to get involved in teaching responsible sexuality. It’s clear that parents or teachers aren’t enough and a comprehensive approach is needed. But an approach that doesn’t teach all the basics of sexual health and mandates waiting until marriage ignores 80 percent of the population and does nothing to foster a sexually healthy Minnesota.

Photo by T.W. Budig, ECM Capitol Reporter

Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter


Categories & Tags:

Comments

8 Comments

Swiftee
Comment posted April 19, 2007 @ 4:45 pm

“Teach Minnesotans Responsible Sexuality” Sage advice from the same guy who coined that cherished rule of thumb: “butt sex happens”..

Pfft.


Andy Birkey
Comment posted April 19, 2007 @ 5:00 pm

Are you saying it doesn’t happen? Really. Prove me wrong. “The survey, released last year, showed that 38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex. Compare that with the CDC’s 1992 National Health and Social Life survey, which found that only 25.6 percent of men 18 to 59 and 20.4 percent of women 18 to 59 indulged in it.”

So yeah. “butt sex happens.” It’s a fact of life. You don’t have to like it swiftee.

Of course, once again your comment does nothing to refute my argument.

Double Pfft.


chuck d
Comment posted April 19, 2007 @ 7:43 pm

How about telling them its unhealthy? The issue is that anal, and anal-oral sex is unhealthy – even with a dental dam.

Follow the link for the press release and a link to “obscene” testimony by Barb Anderson.

http://www.mnfamilycouncil.blogspot.com


Andy Birkey
Comment posted April 19, 2007 @ 9:09 pm

What is your definition of unhealthy? For starters define unhealthy. Hint: It differs from immoral.

How is anal-oral sex with a dental dam unhealthy? And if you answer HPV (you oppose the vaccine, chuck) or hepatitis my head is going to explode. You can get HPV or hepatitis from shaking someones hand who didn’t wash after using the restroom, and we all should be vaccinated for both anyway. You won’t get trichomonas, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, bacterial vaginosis, HIV, or a host of other diseases when a dental dam is used correctly. Of course, if you are monogamous with one partner and both have been tested for STDs, which is what responsible sex ed teaches, then there is not real health risk at all.

You see, the problem with this debate is that you conflate immoral and unhealthy. They are different. I’m fine with injecting morality into the sex ed debate as well, but I’m not going to debate health with folks who really mean morality.


Swiftee
Comment posted April 19, 2007 @ 11:45 am

“Teach Minnesotans Responsible Sexuality” Sage advice from the same guy who coined that cherished rule of thumb: “butt sex happens”..

Pfft.


Andy Birkey
Comment posted April 19, 2007 @ 12:00 pm

Are you saying it doesn't happen? Really. Prove me wrong. “The survey, released last year, showed that 38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex. Compare that with the CDC’s 1992 National Health and Social Life survey, which found that only 25.6 percent of men 18 to 59 and 20.4 percent of women 18 to 59 indulged in it.”

So yeah. “butt sex happens.” It's a fact of life. You don't have to like it swiftee.

Of course, once again your comment does nothing to refute my argument.

Double Pfft.


chuck d
Comment posted April 19, 2007 @ 2:43 pm

How about telling them its unhealthy? The issue is that anal, and anal-oral sex is unhealthy – even with a dental dam.

Follow the link for the press release and a link to “obscene” testimony by Barb Anderson.

http://www.mnfamilycouncil.blogspot.com


Andy Birkey
Comment posted April 19, 2007 @ 4:09 pm

What is your definition of unhealthy? For starters define unhealthy. Hint: It differs from immoral.

How is anal-oral sex with a dental dam unhealthy? And if you answer HPV (you oppose the vaccine, chuck) or hepatitis my head is going to explode. You can get HPV or hepatitis from shaking someones hand who didn't wash after using the restroom, and we all should be vaccinated for both anyway. You won't get trichomonas, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, bacterial vaginosis, HIV, or a host of other diseases when a dental dam is used correctly. Of course, if you are monogamous with one partner and both have been tested for STDs, which is what responsible sex ed teaches, then there is not real health risk at all.

You see, the problem with this debate is that you conflate immoral and unhealthy. They are different. I'm fine with injecting morality into the sex ed debate as well, but I'm not going to debate health with folks who really mean morality.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.