Johnson: Abstinence not a lost cause

Teens still capable of waiting

By Natalie Johnson

Friday, April 20, 2007

The recent findings about the failure of abstinence-only education shouldn’t be surprising, for several reasons. First, there’s the question of how much classroom content is remembered or understood at all. Frequent dismal test scores show that understanding it well enough for a test is hard enough, let alone in the heat of a puppy-love moment. Could you currently pass your 11th-grade history final? Diagram a sentence?

nutgraf

In every civilization but our post-World War II Western one, teenagers were expected to have jobs, help support a family, get married and have children. That a person reaches adult size and proportions at that age isn’t an unfortunate mistake; it’s a biological indication of some adult capability.

Then there’s the matter of what abstinence education has to compete with. Any women’s magazine is replete with advertisements for the pill. Rap songs, pop songs, rock songs, jingles, commercials, and most prime-time TV shows feature sex as a primary subject, object, end-goal, punchline and selling point. Teenagers — who, as a demographic, spend enormous amounts of time on the Internet — are bombarded with advertisements for lotion that makes your skin sexier; pills that make your penis larger; perfume that makes you irresistible. How can some stodgy lesson about the satisfaction of hand-holding compete with that?

It can’t. But that doesn’t mean we — as parents, teachers or taxpayers — should throw up our hands and say, “They’re going to do it anyway — might as well slip a condom in the bookbag.”

Because teenagers, despite the raging hormones and those god-awful moments of angst — aren’t idiots, and they aren’t animals driven exclusively by hormones. In every civilization but our post-World War II Western one, teenagers were expected to have jobs, help support a family, get married and have children. That a person reaches adult size and proportions at that age isn’t an unfortunate mistake; it’s a biological indication of some adult capability.

To be sure, a return to arranged marriages for 16-year-olds would be awful, and all those other civilizations had less freedoms and equality. Also, teenagers are often hysterical, emotional and impulsive — which is why they can’t buy alcohol and are tried differently for crimes.

But they are capable of making difficult decisions. Last year, a 17-year-old in Truman, Minn. — a dying town — bought and managed a failing grocery store with $10,000 he’d saved and a nonprofit group’s help, boosting the dismal downtown economy. Just a couple weeks ago, a 17-year-old boy in Las Vegas ran into a burning house to save seven children.

So it’s not that teenagers aren’t capable of waiting. Holding off on sex isn’t as difficult as running into a burning house. Though more education about sex is better than less, abstinence isn’t a lost cause.

Reducing teenage pregnancy, STIs and out-of-wedlock children are essential goals. But an attitude that those things are inescapable without contraception is extremely dangerous. It’s insulting and demeaning and lends itself too easily to excuses and a lack of accountability.

Before calling for a hold on abstinence-only education, consider the danger of telling 7 percent of the population they can’t control what they do.

Natalie Johnson for the editorial board.

Comments

linguo_the_grammar_robot (anonymous) says...

What a horrid article. You pretty much admit that abstinence only policies have been failing but hey, a 17 year old owned a grocery store! If a kid can run a grocery store (I still fail to see what this has to do with your 'argument') than surely he can be told about STDs and contraceptives in school. Even the sex ed classes which deal with contraceptives and the risks of sex teach about abstinence, so it's not like the kids aren't being told. How much you wanna bet the author is a xtian.

April 20, 2007 at 7:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

s77white (anonymous) says...

LOL..."That a person reaches adult size and proportions at that age isn’t an unfortunate mistake; it’s a biological indication of some adult capability." What does this sentence even mean? This is a seriously misguided and inept editorial. Isn't it about time that we get over our fear of sex?

April 20, 2007 at 10:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The_Matt (anonymous) says...

Linguo,

The author of this article is illustrating a correlation between teenagers being focused enough to choose abstinence and having the dedication to raise money for a small-town grocery store.

She's fighting an uphill battle against idiots that think that the only reason that someone might decide to abstain from sex is that they are an "xtian."

Miss Johnson, don't bother using metaphors or correlating evidence because people like linguo aren't quick enough to pick up on it.

As for s77white, you assume that because someone chooses not to partake in sex they fear it. How "misguided and inept" is that? But, you know, leave it to someone who doesn't have a valid point to attack an author's sentence structure. Wait, maybe I better go ahead and post a poorly constucted sentence so you can have something to reply about. Lord knows you aren't capable of addressing the issue at hand.

I mean, after all, if an article challenges the liberal status quo at KU, then there must be something wrong with it!

April 20, 2007 at 11:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

linguo_the_grammar_robot (anonymous) says...

Matt
Who's complaining about abstinence? I'm complaining about abstinence only education.

April 21, 2007 at 12:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

sdinges (anonymous) says...

Having grown up in Canada, I actually experienced a functional sex education program. We learned about birth control, STDs, babies, along with other gender related issues (in girls only and boys-only classrooms), such as homosexuality, eating disorders, mental disorders, and other health issues - drug abuse, sexual abuse, etc. No subject was taboo. We were allowed to ask our teacher questions anonymously that we wanted to know about.

Somehow, despite the fact that they have sex ed, rap music, MTV, loose morals about pot, and the ability to drink at 18 or 19 legally (province dependant), it is not at all common in most provinces for teenagers to have children or get STDs.

From my personal experience, I somehow managed to stay a virgin until I met my husband and I'm not actually even religious in any way. Between my mother's active education and school, I was so scared of disease, failed birth control, babies and plain old giving it up to a loser, that I kept my pants on. And I'm not unique! A good fifty percent of my female friends were virgins when they hit university. None of them had been pregnant. None had an STD. This was not Kansas - when someone pressured us to have sex, we did not ask "What would Jesus do?", we asked "What if the condom breaks?" And it kept us honest.

April 21, 2007 at 3:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

s77white (anonymous) says...

Wow, Matt...do you always raise such a stink when people disagree with you? I wasn't attacking Johnson's sentence structure, I was asking for some clarification of what she meant. Do you have any ideas other then blind attacks and misguided vitriol?

April 23, 2007 at 9:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Snick (anonymous) says...

"That a person reaches adult size and proportions at that age isn't an unfortunate mistake; it's a biological indication of some adult capability." To answer s77white, this sentence means that teenagers are able to make adult decisions.

I am a 17-year-old female and I feel that society is telling me I cannot practice self-control. It is a slap in the face when the media, doctors, teachers, and lawmakers tell me I have no ounce of control over myself, that I should be on birth control and get the Gardasil vaccine. Teenagers are being demeaned to animals, when in actuality we are capable to control ourselves because we can and we are good enough to do so.

I do not ask "What would Jesus do?" I ask "What am I worth?" And it keeps me honest.

April 24, 2007 at 6:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement