Abstinence teaching not enough

Two weeks ago, in this space, I spoke about clueless teenagers. Now, to balance the scales a bit, here's something about clueless adults.

Federally funded sexual education programs known informally as abstinence-only programs received increased support from the Bush administration as a way to educate children and teenagers about sex.

These programs have been repeatedly assailed by medical groups and organizations such as Planned Parenthood, as well as a congressional investigation by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and another report by Columbia University researchers.

Then, the Waxman report came under fire by right-wing, anti-abortion crusaders such as Jill Stanek as well as Bush administration officials such as Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the U.S. Department of Health.

While all this partisan bickering goes on, millions of teenagers keep waiting for somebody to talk straight to them about sex. Meanwhile they're getting their education about sex from their friends and the TV, which most of the time are as misinformed as they are, and having sex, while they are at it.

I am not condoning teenage premarital sex, but it is a fact that teenagers today do not have the same outlook on things that teenagers in the 1950s did. Teenagers today are having sex. Good or bad, that is the way it is.

You could spend millions of dollars in studies and reports and you would reach the same conclusion: Becoming sexually active is not the rite of passage into adulthood it used to be, as it is taking place place much earlier than it used to.

Kids today need somebody to talk honestly to them. Forbidding something "because it's bad" has not cut it ever since the days people trashed Elvis records. They need to be told the truth.

Is abstinence the safest way to go? Yes. Is it the only way to go? No. Lying to teenagers about how safe condoms can be and how you can get AIDS through sweat and tears is a huge disservice to today's and tomorrow's youth because it's the kind of "wisdom" they will pass on to their kids once they begin having them.

Look, would it be great if all kids waited? Yes, but they don't. Would it be great if all kids drove the speed limit? Yes, but they don't. And yet, we don't tell them to drive the speed limit as an alternative to not wearing a seat belt.

However, that is what we do with sex and teenagers. Those teenagers pledging virginity and waiting until the I do's are much less likely to use contraceptive methods later, because they are not told about them.

There is nothing wrong with a virginity pledge. What is wrong is pretending that a virginity pledge will keep a kid from getting an STD.

Adults pledging never to smoke again get help from patches and gum. Adults pledging never to drink again receive education and therapy. Why do we keep insisting that a pledge is all an immature teenager needs to stay away from sex?

Sebastian Moraga is the city reporter for the Columbia Basin Herald.