Article regarding abstinence programs failed to cite true facts and figures

NOTE: This article was taken from DT March 06, 1997 edition
I just read Sasha Lillie's article on abstinence education from the March 5 Daily Trojan ("Abstinence program is unrealistic education). I cannot let this article get by without comment. I'm really surprised that a print journalism major would submit an article that is so pock-marked with unsupported claims, frivolous assumptions and illogical conclusions. Though there are many errors in this editorial, I will attempt to address but a few.
Sex education in this country has been one-sided since its inception 25 years ago. The focus has always been that teenagers are going to do it anyway, so why not educate them on the "do's" and "don'ts"? The federal government has spent billions on such programs, and what have been the results? Teenage pregnancy is up 240 percent, sexually transmitted disease is up 107 percent, abortion has increased 98 percent, unwed pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births have increased 400 percent and 33,000 people contract sexually transmitted diseases every day. It is evident that the old program has been an abysmal failure.
There are also statistics available from the abstinence-based programs that have been implemented in various schools on a trial basis. These statistics prove that abstinence-based education has a dramatic effect on teenagers' perceptions about premarital sexual relations. Recently, in fact, 88 percent of teenagers decided not to engage in premarital sex after hearing only a brief portion of what an implemented program would entail. This was taken from surveys administered to 237 teenage subjects in local area high schools.
Lille claims that the government should not uphold fundamentalist Christian principles. What about the laws against murder, theft, etc.? But that's a different topic altogether. To make the assumption that premarital sex is only "wrong" based on Christian doctrine and that this alone is the basis for its "wrongness" is ignorance of the highest form.
Lillie says that teenagers are going to do it anyway because "it's a natural physiological drive." This is true, but so is having a bowel movement, and we don't just do it when and where we get the urge. We wait until the proper time and place, unlike a dog. She also says that the "expected standard of human behavior" is not abstinence. However, this has not always been the case. The sexual revolution was just that--a revolt against the "expected standard of human behavior." That wonderfully foul movement brought us the motto "If it feels good, do it." This is the underlying motive for engaging in premarital sex. It is true that hormones develop and rage during puberty, but self-control is the issue. Lillie does state one good fact when she says that teenagers are bombarded by the media's portrayal of sex, but she ruins it by saying this serves to prove its normalcy or social acceptability. Perhaps she too is a victim of mass media so driven by the need to portray premarital sex as glamorous and desirable that she fails to see that they have helped shape society's perceptions and values. How often does she see the negative consequences of illicit sexual behavior portrayed on TV or in the movies? Rarely, if ever. This portrayal is a lie that ignores statistics. The sexual drive is not "wrong," but how you choose to act on that drive may have negative consequences.
Lillie writes that the government should pay for programs that emphasize "responsible" sexuality. I submit to you that abstinence is the most responsible sexual choice available; in fact, it is the only responsible choice. How does she know that abstinence programs will not work? Why is abstinence considered unrealistic? What's disrespectful is an educational establishment that treats young people like dogs with no control over their bodily functions. The government should not even be involved in this issue, but since it is forced to foot the bill for many of the consequences of society's irresponsible behavior, perhaps it ought to be given the right to control that behavior.
Lillie then turns to the subject of marriage. Once again, statistics prove that people are getting married at a much older age than they used to. Yet, she notes the "skyrocketing" divorce rate and number of children in broken homes. What has caused this trend? Certainly not abstinence-based sex education. Prior to 1963, divorce was rare in America. Then came the sexual revolution. Coincidence? Statistics show that couples that live together before marriage have a higher divorce rate than those that do not. Here is another fact: children born today have a 75 percent chance of being the victim of a divorce before the age of 18.
Today, 50 percent of all sexually active adults have some form of sexually transmitted disease and most don't even know it. In the 1960s, we had only two venereal diseases to worry about: gonorrhea and syphilis. Today there are over 50, many of which make the former two seem like the common cold in comparison.
Virtually any health-related product one buys must be certified by the Food and Drug Administration. An exception is condoms. Why have they not been certified? Because the FDA tested them and found that their failure rate was 36 percent for the prevention of pregnancy--too high to merit certification. And remember, condoms were invented to prevent pregnancy, not to prevent the spread of disease. Most people are unaware of the fact that the latex used in condoms is manufactured with microscopic holes in it to ensure breathability. These holes, though tiny enough to prevent sperm from passing through, are more than five times larger than HIV, giving viruses all the room they need to pass right through and infect the other party. The use of a condom to prevent HIV transmission should be reevaluated by our so-called "sex educators." Let me put forth this question: Would Lillie have sex with someone knowing they were HIV positive, trusting only a tiny film of rubber with her life? Ruminate on the facts for a while, and abstinence becomes a much more reasonable option.

Jeff Wetrosky

Thanks for your time.


Return to the Main index| Return to my homepage