The AP is highlighting a program recently enacted by the State of Tennessee to help lower the number of teen pregnancies in the state, one of the highest rates in the nation.
The bill is being called the “No Holding Hands Bill” because it makes it illegal to teach anything except for abstinence, and it puts an emphasis on preventing what are being called “gateway sexual activities”.
Rep. Jim Grotto insists that Tennessee’s new program isn’t abstinence-only, but rather, abstinence-focused and does allow for teaching children about contraception… But that’s pretty much it.
Critics are up in arms over this bill and many experts offer opinions that the state’s high teen pregnancy rates would be lower if they would enact a comprehensive sex-ed plan. Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager for the Guttmacher Institute, elaborates:
“What we know … from the research is that comprehensive sex education works. It delays sexual activity, it reduces the number of partners teens have, and it increases contraceptive use. There is very little in the way of any rigorous research that shows that abstinence education has any of these long-term benefits.”
Tennessee sees things differently. Teen pregnancies declined 10 years ago when they enacted abstinence programs in the state. But since then, the programs have become more progressive. One parent reports that an AIDS-education group demonstrated safer oral sex using a sex toy and condoms.
Now, I can get behind criticism of bringing sex toys into classrooms of 17 year-olds. To me, that seems a little bit graphic. Why couldn’t they have used a banana like every other high school sex ed program? Teens have different levels of sexual experiences, and showing some teens a sex toy might feel violating to them and is certainly not necessary in order to show they proper application of a condom.
But this law makes it illegal to talk about sex acts, the definitions of which are based upon the definitions of what constitutes sexual assault. To be clear, the law does not make the mention of said “gateway sexual acts” into sexual assault, it merely uses those acts to define what acts educators are not allowed to mention. The AP story explains further:
he sex ed law now uses the criminal statute on sexual assault to specify acts – such as groping or fondling – that fall under “gateway sexual activity.” It also says family life curriculum must not “display or conduct demonstrations with devices specifically manufactured for sexual stimulation.” If such incidents do occur, then a parent can sue and a fine can be imposed of at least $500.
So, for instance, if I were a sex educator talking to 17 year olds, I couldn’t mention oral sex in order to tell teens that oral HPV is now known to be linked to throat cancer (the rates of which are rising in men), and is most likely transmitted via oral sex. Saying “oral sex” would result in me being slapped with a fine of a minimum of $500.
Now, does that make sense? Will teens learn that herpes and other diseases can be transmitted via non-penetrative sex if you cannot explain what non-penetrative sex means?
What do you all think of this new law? How will this affect boys, specifically? Do boys need a different type of sexual education than girls?
About Joanna Schroeder
“Saying “oral sex” would result in me being slapped with a fine of a minimum of $500.”
Its always fun to ask those whom find their social remedies through legislation, “How did we ever make it this far without this particular law? The teen pregnancy issue was not such an issue in decades before, and we did not have your proposed law. Why?”
My kids’ grade-school enacts and installs a new “silly regulation” about once or twice a week. Some I ROFLMAO over:
No more ROLFMAO music (popular last year)
No soda cans, as they can be turned into weapons.
No straws at lunch any longer as spitballs can harm others.
NO public displays of affection, as it can be construed as sexual abuse and harassment.
No walking or riding bikes to school (no one really knows why).
Only school-approved balls can be thrown at play-time (15 minutes) and never in an aggressive manner…but you can never SAY “balls” in any context that may be construed as anatomic parts. You are similarly barred from saying the names of any “private anatomy.”
No drawing pictures of staff & faculty in any negative modes, even within your own notebook.
The kids DO have a really good grasp of “what may be construed as” means.
Ninnies and Nanies. Our school has them both!
Also as this pertains to boys? Boys love. Boys long. Boys want contact not only with their friends, but with love partners. Boys need connection. Let’s not deny them a simple act of connection through holding the hand of someone they care for.
I agree. It’s been proven time and time again that abstinence-only sex ed programs aren’t nearly as effective as a program that instead educates students on safe sex practices. These kids are going to have sex, regardless of what they’re told (in whatever vague terms). The best way to combat teen pregnancy is to educate these children on all aspects of sex. They need to know the consequences of doing it unsafely, yes, but they also need to be taught how to do it safely. Ironically, it’s the ‘family values’ mentality of these red states that’s ruing their idea of the traditional family.
Goodness this is right up there with a few weeks ago when that teacher in New Mexico (I think may have been a different state) caused a stir over talking about and describing oral sex (no visaual displays only explanation) to elementary school kids.
I think measures like these ultimately do more harm than good. The people that support these things may have their hearts in the right place of not wanting their kids exposed to sex but at the same time they are denying their kids the knowledge needed to make informed sexual choices.
In this day and age where girls are learning that their sex appeal is one of their defining values and boys are learning that their sex drive is one of their defining values efforts like this can only end badly.
So, I’m reading this from Scandinavia. Where real sex ed is mandatory. Where we don’t try to teach kids not to have sex. Where parents are in general cool with their teenagers having partners sleeping over. Where that’s seen as a good opportunity to talk about safe sex and about making good choices for yourself. Where anyone proposing “abstinence-based sex education” would be laughed out of town. Oh, and where teen pregnancy rates are <10% of what they are in the US.
You can make your own conclusions. Mine are clear.
The more taboo something is, the more attractive it is to a young person when they are trying to separate from their parents and develop their own personalities.
Besides the obvious problems of not having sex-ed in schools, I think separating girls from boys in sex ed does a disservice to everybody. Sex is a human issue. The best place we can start bringing the sexes together discussing sexual issues is in schools. If we model to emerging adults that discussion of sex is only safe between “same” sexes, then we are immediately teaching a division of communication between the sexes. Having them all together eliminates the problems of exclusion of teens who are not sure or still evolving with their gender or sexual orientation identities. Besides the basic logistics of sex, no one is teaching young people how to talk to each other about it. Who is teaching them how to ask permission to touch, how to respond, how to say what you like, how to clearly communicate your boundaries, how to listen? If we can’t even talk about the basics of how to put a condom on, how are we going to teach, or provide a safe environment for young people to learn about themselves and practice the communication skills to say things like, “I like you. It’s okay to kiss me with your tongue, touch my breasts & nipples, you may touch my vulva and clitoris with your hands only, but I’m not ready for any part of you to go inside me…” …. and have their partner listen. There are adults who can’t even do this because they are weighted down with so much guilt and shame, and the totally unrealistic fantasy that pleasure just happens naturally.
Another thing missing from sex ed is education frank and honest education about masturbation. If I had a young boy, I’d be giving him handfuls of condoms & lubricant to start practicing masturbation *with* a condom on, so when the time finally comes for him to have intercourse, he and his nervous system are ready for a pleasurable experience. If a boy is masturbating all the time without a condom, when the time comes to finally have sex with a condom, it is awkward and may not feel as good. He will be less motivated to use a condom during actual intercourse. If I had a girl, I’d be encouraging her to fully explore and learn about her body & how to pleasure herself as well. Knowing how to pleasure yourself first, and how to communicate what feels good with non-intercourse types of sexual activity to your partner is so important. You can become very intimate and have wonderful sexual pleasure as a young person using just your hands on each other genitals. I know women who have been faking orgasm during vaginal sex with their partners and husbands *their entire lives* because they were not encouraged to find their own pleasure, & even feel shameful about trying to pleasure themselves. If you can’t even pleasure yourself without guilt or shame, how are you going to tell someone else what you need, what feels good, even when you’re finally in a “healthy,” “sanctioned” or socially approved relationship?
I was fortunate. My aunt was a health teacher. She was my only source of real information. My parents and school didn’t prepare me for anything. I even lived with her for a while in high school. She’d let me spend the night at my boyfriend’s house… and his parents would even invite me over to stay. That was close to Woodstock, NY—a small town. My aunt knew my boyfriend since he was a baby, was friends with his parents, in fact knew about every boy in town because she was a substitute teacher for the school. We didn’t get to sleep in the same bed, but of course he’d come sneak in. But all the adults knew we were safer that way being under their roofs. It changed my life. I moved from a place where I had to lie about using tampons because, “virgins weren’t supposed to put anything in their vaginas,” to a place where it was safe and totally acceptable for me to be a sexual being. It saved my life.
Yeah, I’m basically in agreement with all the sex-positive comments. I do want to add something though…Joanna you asked why they’d bring in a sex toy instead of a banana? Well…I mean that’d depend on what exactly was brought in, but perhaps they wanted to bring in something that was a bit more anatomically correct. Using a banana or whatever still ends up relegating what should be an explicit education about the subject into euphemism.
Open, explicit and honest communication between potential sexual partners is essential, and I think one of the best ways to make that lesson hit home is by having open, explicit and honest communication about sex in class.
Yeah I feel sorry for a 17 year old that cannot handle seeing a sex toy. In fact I’d go as far to say that someone that couldn’t handle SEEING or touching a completely unused/sterile sex toy is a candidate for therapy. People use objects for sex toys, bananas, hair brushes, all sorts of objects are makeshift sex toys. How are they going to learn how to put a condom on an uncirmcized penis? Maybe make a fake penis with a foreskin and sell to the schools for sex ed.
We trust 17 year olds with cars but we don’t trust them with sex toys or sex, what the fuck kinda mindblowingly stupidity goes on in this society? A car is a 2 tonne weapon that requires a lot of responsibility, in fact there is probably more responsibility and skill required to successfully drive a vehicle on the road then to engage in safe sex. The law is stupid.
At 17, some of us were totally scrambled in the head from years earlier. I for one use to dissociate out into space with any display, handling of, explanation of, and otherwise sex-ed-use of one of those things.
1 in 6 of us (at 17) can have a very difficult and painful emotional reaction to such stuff. To 1 in 6 of us, sex is not a natural or “good thing” for people to engage. Rather, its a horror.
I use to give my health teachers holy hell due to my reactions. I was the only kid I knew of who had to repeat Sr-level health…which was just one more reason it took me 5-years to complete High School.
Um…I’m curious where you got the 1 in 6 statistic from, and what exactly it is referencing.
I believe he may be referencing abuse/assault and a statistic that 1 in 6 (I’ve read 1 in 7) men have experienced some level of sexual assault. Which brings up a very good point. We may not know (likely will not know) in a classroom what students have suffered sexual abuse.
Ah okay, that makes the comment make more sense. I understand. Hmmm…as a former sex educator I guess I just don’t quite know how best to structure a sex ed class around the possibility that a student may have been the victim of sexual assault. It seems to me that’s something that’s going to be handled on an individual basis…that it’s up to the teacher to keep an eye out for students who are reacting particularly badly to the discussion.
More info at http://1in6.org/
Thank you Tamen. It’s just information that needs to be out there.
If the class is offensive to an individual for a certain reason then they may opt out, isn’t that how most are run? Pretty sure that happened here in Australia. Would sex toys themselves be the trigger or would the entire class do it? I still believe in giving the utmost best possible information for sex ed, whilst allowing those who can’t handle it to opt out. There are still at least 5/6 students that need that education to have the best chance to avoid pregnancy, stds etc. I wouldn’t want a class restricted because of the chance of someone being triggered, that would be something each student has to decide before attending because the subject itself can be triggering regardless of banana or realistic penis.
I’d be extremely pissed if my own education was stifled because some were offended, regardless of the reason, their right to not be offended doesn’t trump my right to education, they can leave the classroom and not participate. It’s a hardline stance of course but censoring stuff based on the few being offended isn’t fair to the many. A penis should never be offensive to the majority of people, and those who have been through traumatic experiences…well I wish I could say abrakadabra and remove that pain but that’s something each person has to deal with in their own way. Sorry if I sound like an asshole, I sympathize, I just have a very hardline view that sex-ed needs to be top notch. I had an 18 year old female friend tell me she thought babies were born from her anus, I shit you not. It was one of the saddest things I’ve ever heard. I don’t think she got any sex-ed.
Part of sex ed here is information on consent I believe (or it better be!), information that not everyone hears outside of sex-ed. Stuff like consent whilst you’ve had a few drinks (legally there is no ability to consent after alcohol here in Aus) yet so many people get drunk at parties n do stuff. Information is one of the best defenses we have against all sorts of exploitative and evil acts.
In my HS, “Health” was the course and it spanned two years at least. Sex ed was composite with the anatomy etc. One of the three “health” teachers had more “hardware-oriented” curriculum than others. It was with her that I clashed in total revolt. It was 100% ptsd-based and my instincts got me thru 7 years of hell (see 5 minute video if you want the story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw92fus15Ek ). Participation was not an option. Standing-up and leaving was not allowed, but I did it anyway, causing me to repeat senior-yr “health” class.
No one; (and especially not a public school sex-ed or “health” teacher who has never considered the existence of an abused student) would ever get me to agree to sit through any one-size, one ideal, one mode, my-way or the highway, self-enthralled curriculum.
I invoked religious-based objection because at 17, I was not ready to tell the “health” teacher about being ass-fkd for 7 years. The school would have none of my excuses. Their ideal had better fit down my throat or out-the-door.
Drop the “Mighty Curriculum Guy for Down Under” crap with your future students please. In Aus you have LOTS of sex-abuse victims. be aware and sensitive of that, and we won’t feel like we’ve been fed a giant shit-sandwich again. Its not all daisies and sunshine for every student!
And my ideals on sex-ed ARE in fact highly varied from the arrogant state curriculum. In Minnesotta, they made my ex-wife cry in the first grade with their in-your-face curriculum.
I am not a teacher. I simply want access to the best possible education. I am aware and sensitive of that, thing is that is their issue and what should be done about it? Change sex ed for the 5/6 students who haven’t been abused? Make a tiered sex ed where people can get a basic version in one class that is less likely to trigger, others can goto more indepth ones?
Do you understand where I am coming from? Do you want the class to be less specific/in your face for all people based on the fact some have been abused or do you mean the teacher needs to be aware of those who’ve been abused? What happens when the teacher finds someone has been abused? Do they stop educating the full curriculum so the few aren’t offended? I’m sorry but I don’t want the few dictating the education of the many, if the few cannot handle it then a different class needs to be made so both can learn to their full extent and no one gets held back.
The in your face stuff may make some cry but what about the people like me who were intrigued and wanted to learn more n more? Do we miss out because some can’t handle it? No way in hell would I support anyone having their education stifled because some can’t handle it, separate the classes if you must or have additional classes with the more advanced stuff in it that isn’t mandatory.
It may not be all daisies n sunshine for every student, but I can tell you this, it sucks bigtime to miss out on education because of this one size fits all style of learning we all seem to love, some of us are held back in our learning and I learned shit from google that I should have learned in school. Stuff that should be taught to most people.
I find some things triggering but never would I want other peoples education or even their lives censored because I can’t handle it, just give me the option to do something else. And here I remember there were a few students who handed in notes from their parents and they didn’t have to go through sex ed, and I believe they had the right to opt out at the start of the class and they went to the library or somewhere and did a different class. Is that acceptable?
Archy,
I did just realize that my reply ended-up as a “reply to YOU.” I apologize profusely for that. My message was a conglomeration rant.
I do agree with you Archy that sex-ed is one of the most important topics for kids to recv coverage. I’m hyper sensitive to the one-size-fits-all treatment the topic get in most public schools in the US. You’ll never see any bananas or hardware coming-out into view in the private schools of New England. “That garbage is for the rabble,” as you’ll hear in marriages of honesty and liquore.
Private schools here shove nothing non-academic down anyone’s throat.
But as to your remedy; Yes, an opt-out would cure every aspect of my objection. In the US however, more and more state requirements have become fully inflexible (mostly in reaction to individualism’s clash with the “collective mentality” and to beat-up on home-schoolers and some of the religious types). Objecting in many states will result in a red-flag on the adult and the child.
So, sex abuse victims are likely to suffer (truly suffer) in silence.
Sorry again for appearing to throw it all on you Andy.
ARCHY..not Andy….God, I need coffee.
Ahh, makes sense now. No problems.
Whilst I think it’d be great to give sex-ed to as many people as possible I realize some as you say can’t handle it so I definitely think opt-out is neccessary. Some stuff I can watch others might find horrifying, like the autopsy we had on SBS tv here in Australia, to me it’s very intriguing and quite informative as I have an interest in medicine/biology but others might get nightmares from it.
I am a bit fan of tiered learning, people who can do a subject fast can go on to the next tier. I use to breeze through computer studies and sat 80% of the lesson bored shitless n making trouble by talking because of the one-size-fits-all approach. Too much is age based instead of competency based, and sometimes we’re just not ready to learn about some subjects.