It amazes me how biased governmental reports are. Ok, maybe it doesn’t amaze me, but it should! The latest bullet fired comes in the shape of a federally funded study reviewing “comprehensive sex education curricula”

If there was ever any doubt in your mind about the bias of the people funding this study just take a look at the folder that this document is kept in. It’s called content/abstinence. Isn’t it interesting how a report claiming that Sex Ed is biased toward condom use over abstinence chose sides even before reaching the document level? This is sort of like someone wearing a Republican Party button handing out Obama flyers, you can tell that the content isn’t going to be good! (By the way, I have a crush on Obama too)

As a Sex Educator who does often work with both teens and adults, I was interested in hearing what inaccuracies the government feels are common in sex education.

Here are their biggest complaints:

1) One curriculum used the word dental dam instead of the FDA approved “rubber dam”.

Um, ok, that’s sort of like saying that I offered you a Kleenex instead of a tissue so I wasn’t properly stopping the spread of germs. BTW I’ve never heard anyone ask for a rubber dam, have you? Latex dam yes, Rubber dam no. I think that before today if someone had asked me for a rubber dam I’d have to stop and think before pointing them in the right direction sort of like when I was hanging out in the East Village and a tourist asked me where “Hues-ton” street was. It took me a good 10 minutes to figure out that they were looking for “House-ton” spelled Houston. But I digress. Fine, you want me to call it a rubber dam, no problem, but don’t tell me I’m inaccurate, tell me that I’m biased toward dentists or something else that might actually make sense.

By the was HHS, what about those with rubber/latex allergies…huh huh what about them! Good vibes has them covered with non rubber dams, guess that means we’re breaking your rubber law! Damn you US government. How dare you leave out the consumers with allergies!

2) Three of nine curricula incorrectly said that nonoxynol-9 stops the spread of HIV and STDs.

This fact reminds me of how important it is that all educators have up to date, current education. I would be shocked if anyone at good vibes would make a mistake like that. Nonoxynol-9 is nasty stuff. In fact, the city of San Francisco issued a memo in 2001 telling all agencies to discontinue purchasing products that contain it and to urge clients not to use products that contain it.

3) One curriculum stated first year condom use failure rates as 12% when the correct statistic is 15%.

This sounds to me like a difference of source statistics. Essentially the government is saying if we have a study, that is the number to cite or you’re inaccurate. Obviously, that is not something I agree with. However, I have no problem with using the words “up to 15%”.

4) One study stated that all condoms marketed in the United States meet federal standards, this is not true.

Um huh? Is there some worry about black market condom sales? I’m going to have to look more into this one so I’m suspending judgment for the moment. Good Vibes carries a nice condom selection so just stick with us

They also had issues with “inaccuracies”.

Their main example was that curricula stated that condoms prevent pregnancy 97% of the time. Their argument was that while this is true, 15% of the women who were using pregnancy during their first year of “typical use” got pregnant during the first year and that 20% of the women under 18 get pregnant within the year.

The real issue here isn’t condom effectiveness. It’s what “typical use” is. Typical teenage use of condoms is sporadic & often after penetration has already occurred. This isn’t an issue with the condoms, it’s an issue with the maturity & forethought of the condom user and a problem seen in many adults as well.

I find myself thinking of the car seat controversy. Freakanomics argued that car seats are rarely used effectively and therefore are more dangerous then just strapping your toddler in with a traditional seatbelt once they reach two years old. The government rebutted that the argument was ridiculous and that people should simply learn to read the instructions better. Um….yes….so why doesn’t that same argument apply to condom use?

They also argue that curricula state safer sex more often then abstinence. Perhaps that’s because there are many ways to have safer sex and only one way to be abstinent. I also think that it’s important to note that any time an educator uses the words “choose”, they ARE talking about abstinence. Choosing means that you are making a decision. If a student chooses to be abstinent there isn’t much more that they need to know about pregnancy and STD prevention.

The only way for a teenager to make an educated decision about sex is to tell them what the options & risks are. Education is about giving people the information they need to make choices based upon facts rather than “because I told you to”. Abstinence, safer sex, unprotected sex, & alternatives to intercourse all need to be part of sex education.

One way that the government and I differ greatly is in our goals in educating teens about sex. I have no desire to stop kids from having sex, nor do I have any desire to convince them that they should.

Most of what teens learn in high school has little to no real world value and the lessons that do translate to life situations often don’t come into play for decades. Anyone remember the first time you had to measure square footage to buy a rug or paint your house? Your algebra class from 10 years earlier suddenly may have seemed way more valuable. The same can be said of sex education. Knowing how to use a condom, prevent diseases, communicate with your partner & make educated decisions does not mean that anyone is going to run out and fuck that night any more than learning algebra means you’re going to measure which train will arrive in station B quicker if train A makes a stop in Detroit. It’s just education!

Recently:

Abstinence only sex ed is scary!
Free Speech, Not Free Just Yet
communication combat tactics aka finding your voice