That's how many teenage girls in the country have an STD, according to a report running through the news right now. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I imagine it wouldn't be news if this wasn't an increase. My question is this:
I grew up in an era of classroom sex education. I know that kids half my age are getting sex education. So why is the proposed answer more sex education?
I question the efficacy of sex education, though it's not posible to know what would have happened without it. Maybe the rate of infection would be higher. Maybe it would be lower. But I'd be interested in a study that compares rates of infection and pregnancy among those who have and have not participated in sex ed classes. I'm not saying sex ed classes are evil (a debate for others in another place)... but I want to know if they have a measurable impact before accepting the pundit's knee-jerk "we need more money."
I think the odds are strong that there are much more pressing root causes of tenage sexual activity - poverty, broken families, and the like. If those are the deeper causes, then sex ed may simply be a flimsy band-aid on a gaping wound. And if that's the case, we are grossly negligent if we merely apply the band-aid and consider ourselves skilled healers.
1 comment:
I think it is a different type of education that needs to be applied. I have heard of teens having to care for real babies as a way to help them understand being abstinent. I can't find it on the web right now, but I think it is a good idea.
Post a Comment