Just another fist shake at abstinence, really

YES! Just the engaging topic for a Monday morning… What was that, it’s Tuesday? Oh, well, can I still write about it? I’m at work? and should be doing the job I’m paid to do? Oh fine, I’ll be quick…

This article that popped up on Huff Post made me want to bang my head into a brick wall: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/08/tennessee-sex-education-b_n_1411100.html?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily%20Brief&utm_campaign=daily_brief

To summarise, Tennessee in the US has an “abstinence only” law for it’s sex education curriculum. In itself this is nothing but shameful. Sex is a primal urge and teaching kids to say “no” to it isn’t going to take that urge away!!! But, what’s even madder is that they’ve amended the law to state that schools should also teach kids to say no to “gateway sexual activity”. Now the article points out that no one has been specific as to what constitutes “gateway” sexual activity, but could be interpreted by individual schools to mean kissing, hugging, even just holding hands, which if you can recall your early teens, was the most innocent but most thrilling sensation ever!

These poor gateways. Pot is a gateway drug, toy guns are gateway weapons, holding hands is gateway sex… next cheese will be gateway fast food, and be banned.

The sex education in Australia is poor enough, but the sex education in the US sounds insanely pathetic! Haven’t these conservative parents/schools/law makers heard that ignorance is NOT bliss? Education, in all facets of life, is so important, don’t they want their children to make informed choices, rather than struggle against perfectly natural hormones, fail, and end up putting their health at risk? GRRRRR I wish I had the answers; I wish I could make people see abstinence is not the answer! The end of the article states “a 2010 study published in the journal Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine found that abstinence education can delay sex among teens”, but what it doesn’t state is that, once these teens do start having sex, even if it’s “delayed”, they may not be having safe sex; fully understand how to negotiate consent around different sexual acts, or be too afraid to speak to people if they are having issues related to sexual activity.

You’ve reached the end of another pointless rumination. Leave a comment to show that you care!

Politicus USA

I came across the following article posted on Politicus USA, a liberal, independent news site focusing on American politics:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/wisconsin-high-school-student-endorses-biblical-death-penalty-for-gays

In a nutshell, a 15 year old Wisconsin high school student wrote an article for his student paper, and parts of it were then published in the local paper. The article focused on what the bible says about homosexuals (they should be put to death) and what the student thinks about gay adoption (it's completely wrong, as the child will grow up in sin).

Oddly enough, a gay couple found the article somewhat offensive, and the school apologised. At which point a conservative action group decried "bullying" of the school student, and discrimination for having religious views.

Get it? Got it? Good. Now, my question is, as much as I believe the boy to be an absolute moron, and as the school said "cultivating a negative environment of disrespect", he also has the right to say it. Or does he? I always find this Free Speech and Censorship issue a hard one to get my head around. How much does Hate Speech actually influence society? The answer to that would effect my answer to whether controvesial topics should be censored.  Other issues I have grappled with in relation to Censorship include

- Pro anorexia websites, which include tips on how to hide your habits
- Pseudo child porn websites, where the participants are of legal age (18) but drerssed and edited to look much younger
- Websites selling Neo Nazi paraphenalia
- Facebook groups that trivialise rape ( see http://rapeneverfunny.wordpress.com/).

I'm interested to hear what people think, about this particular incident with the Wisconsin student, and Hate Speech in general. I know most of my friends are intelligent enough to not be effected by such articles, but what about more impressionable people, the young, the uneducated? How much responsibility can we place on individuals to consume media wisely, and how much power do we give the law to shut down people who are spreading words of inequality?