TALKING sex isn't sexy because social conservatives make it a taboo topic. It's time we change this.
The federal government, according to an American Psychological Association report, subsidized $250 million in education that only teaches abstinence in 1999 and it continues to do so. This was a ridiculous waste of money.
These expenditures get a symbolic golden fleece award for extravagant and unnecessary spending. We shouldn't oppose fun, which is what sex is. Abstinence movements -- those that oppose sex until marriage or other similar such monogamous situation -- have a moral agenda.
This agenda, whatever it is, is uncertain and inconsistent. If abstinence is right because only sex between a consenting man and woman in a marriage situation is right, then these federal expenditures are merely operations in brainwashing children in the prejudices of our misguided lawmakers. If it's safety that the government is concerned with, then pure abstinence programs are insufficient. Students need to be educated about protection during sex as well. But this money doesn't go to teaching safe sex, so we're left with the first alternative. Well, one more alternative does remain. Perhaps our legislators simply stand against fun and their aversion to fun translates into sullying children's minds, making them think sex is an icky and disgusting thing, when indeed it should be encouraged. Well sexed people probably are much happier people.
|
But sex agendas aren't limited to conservatives. Feminists tend to stand against prostitution because it degrades and objectifies women, or so the argument goes. Yet at the same time they stand for choice because a woman should be able to do with her body whatever she likes, even if it's shedding a potential life. Fine then, why can't a woman objectify her body and offer it up for sale? If she can give of her body for free, why can't she give it to someone for money? This should prove that sexual inconsistencies come from both sides of the aisle. We all could benefit from a greater willingness to openly discuss sex, which begins with children in the classroom.
That's why federal dollars going toward educating students on the virtues of abstinence and nothing else is bad. In the first place, children probably will discount lessons that are obviously one-sided and incomplete. They might even rebel against them. So, in a perverse way, lessons on abstinence may result in more promiscuity. But for the rare student who becomes a slavish devotee of the "Just Say No" programs, this may be a recipe for sexual repression, unhappiness and depression, and its attendant social ills.
Let's clear one thing up: Sex isn't even a bad thing. Educated people who take this line of argument do so because they perceive that with sex comes disease transmission. University of Rochester professor of economics Steve Landsburg observes that "increased activity by sexual conservatives can slow down the rate of infection and reduce the prevalence of AIDS," citing recent research from Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("More Sex is Safer Sex," Slate Magazine, July 5, 1996). The basic intuition behind this is that if more people who are less likely to be infected have sex more often, the rate of AIDS infection would drop because each person faces fewer dangerous suitors on any given night.
So programs that scare off the sexually timid, those that should be offering their sexual services more if they cared about their neighbors, are programs that may result in a more disease-stricken nation. This obviously is not what educated people would want. In fact, it's what they think they oppose when they oppose sexual promiscuity. The people that these programs will scare into abstinence are the sexual conservatives; for others it probably will have the reverse effect. When all is said and done, abstinence-only education is undesirable, not to mention an incredibly large waste of money.
What we could all benefit from, even schoolchildren, is more open discussion of sex and sexuality. This means discussing both costs and benefits of sexual activity. Yes, benefits, of which there are plenty -- such as fun. Right now, the federal government subsidies go toward educating kids on the costs but none of the benefits, which is incredibly dishonest and in the end not believable.
So let's cut the crap. Sex isn't bad. We shouldn't tell children that it is. And we definitely don't need to spend $250 million saying it.
(Jeffrey Eisenberg is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at jeisenberg@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
