Why Abstinence-Only Sex Education is Stupid

You know what’s stupid? One takes something that a bunch of people want, sets it out, tells them they can’t have it, and then expects them not to take it the moment his/her back is turned. Yeah, that’ll totally work, but only in a universe where said thing is kept under an impenetrable shield of sorts, perhaps something that shocks the people trying to get it. And you know what? I bet they still try to get it.

What’s similar to the aforementioned scenario? Could it be the asinine concept of abstinence-only sex education? Naw, that stuff works. People will definitely wait to have sex until they’re married if we just tell them to. And they’ll magically know how to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies- I mean, of course they’ll only have sex for procreative purposes…Hey, wait a minute…

The fact is that humans are sexual beings. One might say that the pursuit of sex is a driving force behind existence. One might also say that sex is lots of fun. Me? I like having sex. I like having sex a lot. I also believe that no one has the right to dictate what two (or more) consenting adults do to each other. Personal beliefs aside, abstinence-only sex education is just plain stupid. People are going to do it whether they’ve been taught safe practices. It’s just going to happen. In fact, as long as humans have existed, they’ve had sex. Humans fuck. Trying to restrain people from fucking just isn’t going to work in most cases.

There are those who believe that sex is dirty and wrong. There are others who believe that sex is something that no one should talk about, let alone think about doing, unless one is in the safety of marriage. These ideals are the foundation of abstinence-only sex education, the idea that the only sex education that should be taught is that sex is something that happens between a man and a woman, after they’re married, usually for the purpose of making tiny men and women, who’ll then grow up in perfect bliss because their parents waited until they tied the knot to do the dirty. If anything’s said about pregnancy or STDs, it’s only in a scare tactical manner, meant to discourage any more thoughts about the horizontal mambo.

The advantages of this method of sex-ed? Honestly, the only one that I can think of is that it’s easy to teach: “kids, don’t have sex until you’re married.” Hell, you don’t even need a fancy text book or slideshows or anything like that.

The disadvantages are numerous. The majority of teens who are taught abstinence-only will have sex before they’re married. The downside is that they won’t know about birth control or common methods to lower one’s risk of venereal disease. Not knowing these things leads to riskier sex acts and a greater chance of unplanned pregnancies. Sadly, even if these people do wait until marriage to fuck, they’re still not going to know these useful things. Family planning isn’t a crime, nor is it a bad thing.

So. People like to fuck. People will fuck regardless of their sex-ed syllabus. It’s better to know the risks and what one can do about them than not to know and bury one’s head in proverbial sand before doing the deed. Just because the information is available doesn’t mean that it’s going to give students the idea to have sex or encourage it. Let’s be realistic- they were probably thinking about sex long before class-time and they’ll be thinking about it if they’re taught abstinence-only or something more comprehensive.

I’m not against abstinence. If you don’t want to have sex, for whatever reason, that’s completely up to you. It’s the abstinence ONLY part with which I have a problem.

Sex is fucking great. It’s even better when you know how to be safe about it.