At a recent Board of Education meeting in a middle school, a debate was taking place. It was an open meeting so the public had the option of speaking out on any of the topics being covered at the meeting.

At the end of the meeting, the topic for which the public was waiting, was opened for opinion and discussion. This particular topic caused the meeting to get hot, with raised voices and threats of legal action being shouted by both the board members and the many parents in the room.

What was the issue that was being so hotly debated and causing those present to have such strong opinions? The issue was sex education in public schools.

Most people think that the area of sex ed is something relatively new, most likely begun around the 1960’s. Actually the NEA, (National Education Association), first recommended teacher training programs in the area of “sexuality education” as early as 1912! The United States Health Department saw the teaching of sex ed as an “urgent need” in 1940 and strongly advocated teaching it in the public schools. In both instances, the debate over whether or not the subject should be taught at all in a public school began almost immediately.

Organized opposition, aimed at barring the teaching of sex ed, began in the late sixties, continuing to the 1980’s. Opponents called it the teaching of “raw sex and smut.” They argued that teaching the subject would cause teens to become “sexually active.” The debate has continued in one state or another, sometimes limiting the content, at other times barring it completely.

While the United States advocates the teaching of sex ed, and has allocated over $250 million dollars for the program, very few people know that the program is severely limited in content and has been actively pushed to legislators by various lobbyists for fundamental groups. The law states that to be eligible to receive annual allocations of $78,526 to over four million during the next five years, states must agree to the following terms:

1.that abstinence is the only absolute way to avoid both pregnancy and STDs

2.that sexual activity is only to be considered for married couples in a monogamous situation

3.that sex outside of a marital relationship is psychologically and physically harmful

Given a choice, all concerned would advocate abstinence as the best decision for teenagers. However much we may desire it, abstinence, as the only taught method of birth and STD control, is not practical. Unfortunately too many teens will have had sex with at least one partner before the age of eighteen and some will have had multiple partners. Pre-teens are fast catching up with their teenage counterparts.

The idea of all teens remaining abstinent until marriage is an unreal assumption as is the idea that if teens learn about birth control, they will automatically become promiscuous.

A good sex ed program doesn’t only teach about birth control, it teaches about the human body and its functions during all stages of sexual development, along with the proper terminology. Birth control is only a part of the program. It should also teach respect for oneself and for both male and female bodies. The program can help to debunk myths associated with sexuality, fertility, hormonal changes, and sexual health.

Should it include frank discussions about sexual reactions and intercourse? Of course! We are sexual beings. Even those who espouse celibacy are created as sexual beings.

Sex is not “dirty” nor is it sinful. A good sex ed program will address issues that concern our children. It will not turn them into promiscuous teens and adults.
A good program will enable them to know the dangers of unprotected sex while teaching them that they should think long and hard before becoming sexually active, if at all.

Sex education is needed in our schools. Preventing the program is harmful. Teaching just one “standard” form for sexually acceptable activity, e.g. marriage, is dangerous.