Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, January 30, 1994 TAG: 9401310262
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-2 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: David McKissack
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
First, I gained no clear understanding of why controversy surrounds sex education in public schools. Most people my age learned about sexual reproduction in biology class. Since this has been in the curriculum for over 30 years, your article left me wondering if something new is being injected into the curriculum which the article did not discuss. Your reporter somehow managed to report on a controversial subject without revealing what the controversy was about.
Secondly, I was troubled by Putnam's assertions. She was quoted as saying, ``You can't say to teens, `Just say no.' That doesn't work. That`s turning your back on the 50 percent who are already sexually active.''
Admittedly, history has shown that a percentage of us, whether from disagreement with the principle of chastity or temporary lapse of will, engage in promiscuous sex. But the percentage varies depending on prevailing social mores. Do certain types of sex education send the message to children that we expect them to be sexually active, and if so, are we then turning our backs on those who would otherwise remain chaste? I don't know the answer, but I do think its important to raise the question.
The article says that ``studies have found'' that many teen-agers don't use birth control because of guilt. Perhaps, but other studies have found that some types of explicit sex education for teen-agers lead to greater sexual activity in that group as a whole. And this is the heart of the matter, because if it is true, a greater percentage of teens may get pregnant and catch diseases than would have if this type of education wasn't offered. Does anyone believe, for example, that if we lowered the driving age to 13, that we would have fewer accidents, regardless of how much driver's education we offered?
In the past two years, five women in my circle of association have gotten pregnant before marriage. In addition, a close friend has contracted AIDS. All of these people are college-educated and familiar with birth control and ``safe sex.'' Two of the women are in highly responsible professional positions. Two solved their ``problem'' with abortion; others got married. I cannot see how more sex education would have changed the behavior of any of these people. They, like myself, were raised in an era when old warnings against promiscuity were viewed as needless and backward. They, like myself, have ``accidents,'' make mistakes at work and in their personal lives. Can we expect teen-agers to have less accidents than adults? I can hardly agree with Putnam`s statement that in our society ``talking about sex honestly is taboo;'' sex and its consequences are something we talk about all the time. The pleasures of chastity and individual responsibility are things we don't talk honestly about.
Finally, I was disturbed that the article, perhaps unintentionally, made it appear that only members of what it called the ``Religious Right`` are concerned about the method of teaching sex education in schools. The article's first sentence says that Planned Parenthood wants everyone to know ``that life is more complicated than you think.'' Later, the article mentions a ``religious backlash against sex education,'' and Putnam says she wants to know ``how the rest of the community feels.'' The clear implication is that if one has any reservations about how sex education is taught, then one is ignorant, religiously bigoted, and a marginal part of this community. Surely an open and honest debate on this subject, as well as the future of our children, is ill-served by this type of subtle personal attack.
by CNB