Source: Imgur.com
No, our kids may not be wizards. However, defense against common realities is still a crucial practice and in our best interest as parents.
Because here's the thing: even though it can be uncomfortable to consider (especially for parents) most kids will eventually grow up and have sex at some point.
This means that young people need to learn about sex and they need to learn about it well before their first sexual encounter—whether they are waiting until marriage or not.
Young people need to learn about sex and they need to learn about it well before their first sexual encounter—whether they are waiting until marriage or not
However, according to SIECUS, just 27 states require sex education at all and 16 states also don't require sex ed instruction to be evidence-based or medically accurate; 39 states require abstinence to be emphasized whenever sex ed is taught.
Though it may seem counterintuitive, abstinence-only education can actually make it more difficult for youth who want to wait until marriage to have sex to reach their goal.
Source: Anna Hecker/Unsplash
This is because it generally fails to teach them the skills that can help them reach that goal (e.g., empowering students to say "no" to unwanted sex, and normalizing hearing a "no").
Abstinence-only education can actually make it more difficult for youth who want to wait until marriage to have sex to reach their goal
Other ways that abstinence-only education has backfired:
- Some research has found that it produces no delay in age at first sexual experience
- The Guttmacher Institute reported that abstinence-only sex ed does not lower teen birth rates, and may actually be associated with higher birth rates among teens receiving this form of "sex ed"
- Research has also found evidence that abstinence-only sex ed does not reduce the rates of STIs among teenagers
With all of this in mind, it's likely no surprise that comprehensive sex education is actually associated with later first sexual experience and lower rates of STIs and teen pregnancies.
Comprehensive sex education is associated with later first sexual experience and lower rates of STIs and teen pregnancies
So, if evidence points to comprehensive sex ed as the way to go, why are so many parents and policy makers insisting on Umbridge* sex ed—I mean abstinence-only sex ed?
A common logical fallacy that is likely behind why young people aren't getting the sex education they need is that adults often assume that, by teaching them how to safely engage in sexual behavior, they must be giving youth permission to do so.
But if we apply this logic to other situations, it doesn't hold up.
For example, when we put a collar on our dog with our contact info, we aren't giving her permission to run away; we are increasing the chances that she will be safe if she ever does.
Source: Wade Austin Ellis/Unsplash
When a flight attendant gives the safety demonstration before a plane takes off, he isn't suggesting that the pilot plans on crashing the plane. Instead, he is maximizing the likelihood that the passengers will be safe if something happens.
By putting our insurance information in our glove compartment, we aren't "asking for" a car accident to happen. When we do so, we are making sure we are prepared if we ever are in that situation.
In summary, the purpose of comprehensive sex ed is not to encourage kids to engage in sexual behaviors; it is intended to give them the tools they need to make safe and healthy choices both now and in adulthood.
The purpose of comprehensive sex ed is not to encourage kids to engage in sexual behaviors; it is intended to give them the tools they need to make safe and healthy choices.
If you live in a state that doesn't teach comprehensive sex ed to young people, consider contacting your state reps to request that they support legislation that helps facilitate the sex ed your child needs.
We may not live in the wizarding world, but a world where youth get the information they need before they need it doesn't have to be fiction.
Source: Aditya Vayas/Unsplash
*Note: If you aren't familiar with the Harry Potter series, Prof. Dolores Umbridge is the Defense Against the Dark Arts "teacher" during Harry's fifth year at Hogwarts.
Her approach to "teaching" is to give the students as little information about how to actually fight the dark arts as possible. This is because she believes that they won't actually be in a situation where they would need these skills; this is also the reason abstinence-only sex ed has been compared to Umbridge's version of Defense Against the Dark Arts.
Not sure what to say in your letter to your state legislators? Click here for a free template to use.
Not sure what specific issue to write about? Check out this Sex Education Legislation Tracker from SIECUS.
Not sure what the state of your local sex ed is? Take a look at this map from SIECUS.
Not sure who your state legislators are? Find them here (click on "state" after entering your info).
Responses