I read this article in Monday’s ST: ‘Time to stop trying to silence safe sex advice’. The main point was that ‘advice on safe sex should be taught concurrently with the message of abstinence’. I do agree that young people must know about safe sex, but I don’t agree with how such knowledge is seen as the answer to the teenage sex ‘problem’.
Some excerpts from the article and my two cents’ worth.
The journalist says:
Preaching safe sex to youth does not equal giving them the go-ahead to indulge in wanton romps in the bedroom.
Arming someone with the knowledge of how to conduct himself responsibly in one area of his life is simply an act of empowerment.
There is no subliminal message advocating premarital sex - unless you choose to interpret it that way. After all, telling someone how to drive safely doesn't mean you're encouraging them to speed recklessly.
Wow.
Preaching safe sex does not prevent young people from indulging in wanton romps either. In fact, it tells them that there is a ‘safe’ way of indulging in wanton romps, if they want to. ‘Empowerment’?
Teaching young people ‘safe sex’ does not necessarily ‘arm’ them with the ‘knowledge of how to conduct (himself) responsibly’. Knowledge about ‘safe sex’ simply tells young people that they can prevent pregnancy, avoid contracting STDs, etc. Yes, preventing these things is ‘responsible’ behaviour in its own way but how ‘responsible’ are teens if they are having sex in the first place? Are they able to act ‘responsibly’ if all the preventive measures fail and the girl gets pregnant? Are they acting responsibly practising ‘safe’ sex with ‘unsafe’ partners?
‘There is no subliminal message advocating premarital sex’. That is true. There is no subliminal message because the message is pretty overt, and of course there will be some who ‘choose to interpret it that way’.
If someone is underage, or not qualified to drive for whatever reason, do you teach them how to drive and tell them, ‘I’ll just leave the car key here, just in case you need to drive’?
The journalist goes on:
While the syllabus is comprehensive, sex education can do only so much. There needs to be more concrete support outside school for safe sex among youth.
Presently, women can get contraceptives only from general practitioners, and have to pay an average of $40 a month.
That has to change.
Make contraceptives and morning-after pills free and easily available to women, but equip them with the right knowledge at the same time.
How many of us would be comfortable with contraceptives and morning-after pills being ‘free and easily available' to our (possibly hypothetical) daughters? Who is going to ‘equip them with the right knowledge at the same time’? Outside of school, mind you. (Actually, I read before that morning-after pills are available in schools in some countries.)
The journalist’s conclusion:
But let's face it. With nearly one in three young teens already having sex, advice on safe sex should be taught concurrently with the message of abstinence, because concentrating on the latter alone is not proving very useful.
She is indeed right that ‘concentrating on the latter alone’ does not work for some young people and as I said in the beginning, I do agree that young people need to know about ‘safe sex’. However, I don’t see ‘advice on safe sex’ (= practical knowledge of how to do it without getting pregnant, etc) as something that is on the same level as the ‘message of abstinence’ (values, morality, etc). OK, to be fair, she doesn't actually say they are of equal importance, but that's the impression I get from the way the article is written.
If there is something wrong with the way the abstinence thing is put forth to students in school, the solution is to improve the teaching method or whatever. The ‘values’ element of this problem should not be diminished just because it is difficult to deal with. Shouldn't it be the context within which any discussion of 'safe sex' is carried out? Someone has to find a way to do it meaningfully so that it makes sense to young people. It is easy to dish out info about safe sex but tough to handle the ‘values’ part and so there is something to be said for whoever at MOE came up with the concepts for the sex ed syllabus, for not choosing the easy way out.
Now, just how should they deal with the difficult way out?
Wah, I don’t know, lah! Such a toughie. I’m also wondering how.
Some excerpts from the article and my two cents’ worth.
The journalist says:
Preaching safe sex to youth does not equal giving them the go-ahead to indulge in wanton romps in the bedroom.
Arming someone with the knowledge of how to conduct himself responsibly in one area of his life is simply an act of empowerment.
There is no subliminal message advocating premarital sex - unless you choose to interpret it that way. After all, telling someone how to drive safely doesn't mean you're encouraging them to speed recklessly.
Wow.
Preaching safe sex does not prevent young people from indulging in wanton romps either. In fact, it tells them that there is a ‘safe’ way of indulging in wanton romps, if they want to. ‘Empowerment’?
Teaching young people ‘safe sex’ does not necessarily ‘arm’ them with the ‘knowledge of how to conduct (himself) responsibly’. Knowledge about ‘safe sex’ simply tells young people that they can prevent pregnancy, avoid contracting STDs, etc. Yes, preventing these things is ‘responsible’ behaviour in its own way but how ‘responsible’ are teens if they are having sex in the first place? Are they able to act ‘responsibly’ if all the preventive measures fail and the girl gets pregnant? Are they acting responsibly practising ‘safe’ sex with ‘unsafe’ partners?
‘There is no subliminal message advocating premarital sex’. That is true. There is no subliminal message because the message is pretty overt, and of course there will be some who ‘choose to interpret it that way’.
If someone is underage, or not qualified to drive for whatever reason, do you teach them how to drive and tell them, ‘I’ll just leave the car key here, just in case you need to drive’?
The journalist goes on:
While the syllabus is comprehensive, sex education can do only so much. There needs to be more concrete support outside school for safe sex among youth.
Presently, women can get contraceptives only from general practitioners, and have to pay an average of $40 a month.
That has to change.
Make contraceptives and morning-after pills free and easily available to women, but equip them with the right knowledge at the same time.
How many of us would be comfortable with contraceptives and morning-after pills being ‘free and easily available' to our (possibly hypothetical) daughters? Who is going to ‘equip them with the right knowledge at the same time’? Outside of school, mind you. (Actually, I read before that morning-after pills are available in schools in some countries.)
The journalist’s conclusion:
But let's face it. With nearly one in three young teens already having sex, advice on safe sex should be taught concurrently with the message of abstinence, because concentrating on the latter alone is not proving very useful.
She is indeed right that ‘concentrating on the latter alone’ does not work for some young people and as I said in the beginning, I do agree that young people need to know about ‘safe sex’. However, I don’t see ‘advice on safe sex’ (= practical knowledge of how to do it without getting pregnant, etc) as something that is on the same level as the ‘message of abstinence’ (values, morality, etc). OK, to be fair, she doesn't actually say they are of equal importance, but that's the impression I get from the way the article is written.
If there is something wrong with the way the abstinence thing is put forth to students in school, the solution is to improve the teaching method or whatever. The ‘values’ element of this problem should not be diminished just because it is difficult to deal with. Shouldn't it be the context within which any discussion of 'safe sex' is carried out? Someone has to find a way to do it meaningfully so that it makes sense to young people. It is easy to dish out info about safe sex but tough to handle the ‘values’ part and so there is something to be said for whoever at MOE came up with the concepts for the sex ed syllabus, for not choosing the easy way out.
Now, just how should they deal with the difficult way out?
Wah, I don’t know, lah! Such a toughie. I’m also wondering how.
Comments