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?
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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: https://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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
“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.… Read more »