Stampeding toward the clitoris

The question of whether sex education should be included in public school curricula is one that has been revisted often in the media and in countless school board meetings across the country. I would like someone to explain to me how one may go to school, and learn about human history, sociology, science, mathematics, music, the arts, and so on---but not learn about human reproduction? The only reason why such a gap in education is tolerated, indeed, insisted upon in by some parties, is due to the near superstitious belief that the more thorough one's sexual education is, the more likely one is to (recklessly) engage in sexual behavior. This same premise seems to be the impetus driving those who argue for "abstinence-only" programs as well--that is, sex education which explains the mechanics of sex, but does not cover any contraceptive methods.

Now, I could go into studies to show the absurdity of such an argument, but I'd rather just put it to my readers this way: in all of human history, can anyone point out to me one instance where lack of information, and general ignorance led to overall better decision-making? Where a dearth of knowledge regarding potential risks or threats was a good thing, and led to sound choices? Because, I'm just going to put on my Health Studies educator-in-training suit right now and tell you, good readers, I sure can think of many instances where lack of information often leads to poor choices. In short, what you don't know can hurt you. It can even kill you.

And in the case of sex education, I believe incomplete knowledge can and does most definitely harm teenagers and young adults. It is not enough to simply know, for example, that human papillomavirus exists and may be contracted by genital contact; the other part of prevention is knowing how to protect oneself against said virus during sex. After all, the real issue is this: abstinence-only education is designed to meet only the needs of those students who choose to abstain.

But what about those students who will elect to have sex regardless? What about those students who are raped? And what about those students who will marry early, either right after high school or shortly after entering college? Don't they deserve to enlightened as to their particular risks? Do they not have the right to know and understand how their bodies work and how best to protect themselves from dangerous pathogens?

Will someone take them aside and say, "Oh, now you're legitimately sexually active, so we'll go ahead and explain to you how to protect yourself." I doubt it. My husband, who was educated entirely in a private, Baptist school had no sex education provided at all, save what he heard on the street, and what he read in men's magazines. He was at risk of contracting diseases when he became sexually active. And in fact, a girl in his school became pregnant in her senior year, and he knew several classmates who were sexually active as well. Obviously, the "don't talk about it and they won't do it" approach accomplished nothing except see a bunch of horny, repressed adolescents engage in risky behavior sans any factual knowledge whatsoever, and no protection.

Of course, the next logical question would be, "What should a well-designed, and balanced sexual education program look like?" I was thinking something along the lines of a demonstration of a condom-on-a-banana.

Ok, not really. Though I know someone who absolutely rejects the idea of "explicit sex-ed" (how exactly does one teach sex non-explicitly??) in schools because she believes it would involve a cartoonish demonstration of penile-shaped fruits inserted into condoms. Seriously.

But, in case she's reading this, I have included the following video as an example of what every godless, secularized liberal like myself really thinks a sex ed class should look like.

Warnings: staid intercourse, bored teenagers, full-frontal Murphy bed, clothes peg references

Cheerio!