Adult Abstinence programs
USATODAY (via Instapundit)
The federal government’s “no sex without marriage” message isn’t just for kids anymore.Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.
The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it’s a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.
“They’ve stepped over the line of common sense,” said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that supports sex education. “To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It’s an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health.”
I don’t like this sort of thinking at all. It assumes that teens are inherently irresponsible and cetegorically different from adults.
If abstinences is good for unmarried teens, then I see no reason why it is not good for unmarried adults. Conversely, if abstenence only programs are not correct for adults, I see no reason why they are correct for teens. I think a case can be made for or against abstinence, but I don’t think a you can make a logical categorical difference simply based upon age. From my understanding, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy work the same for people 15 year olds as they do for 25 year olds.
One of the problems with this concept, and other age based prohibited activities is that it expressly makes the behavior we seem to want teens to avoid engaging in a rite of passage and part of the adult world. If it is ‘grown-up’ to smoke, drink and have sex, then teens who are naturally trying to become ‘grown-up’ will have an added incentive to engage in these behaviors. Added to this is the obvious hypocracy of trying to preach that these things are undesirable when you are 15, but perfectly acceptable and enjoyable when you are 25.
I am not fond at all of abstinence only sex education. I believe that teens have the capacity to be rational and moral actors, and that in the interest of promoting that behavior we should give them full, accurate and complete knowledge. Their may be good moral reasons for abstinence (Pope John Paul II’s writing on this is quite fascinating) additionally, there may be valid social reasons for promotion of abstinence, as an addition to rather than a substitute for, in sex education and where those reasons would seem to apply regardless of the age of the participant.
Trivializing teens as being incapable of making rational and moral choices though merely helps to ensure that they will not make rational and moral choices. It is a mistake.
(the relationship between parents and teens is of course somewhat different, as most teenagers are dependent upon their parents slightly different rules apply, however I think most parents would be better served by having the same standards for themselves as their teenagers.)



What do you think should be the minimum age for a driver’s licence?
How about the minimum age for carrying a gun?
Minimum drinking age?
Minimum full contractual age?
How is about the right to vote - what age?
What is the minimum age for volunteering for military service?
All of these (bar one - guns) are currently being hotly debated once again in NZ. I have very mixed feelings about all of these, as you might recall from my postings when the minimum drinking age was reduced from 20 to 18. That debate, along with the minimum driving age, has resurfaced. On the latter, there was the case this last week of a 15 y-o getting his provisional licence, taking possession of his birthday present - a high powered Japanese sports saloon - and killing himself three hours later doing 135kph. He had not been drinking.