When it comes to sex, America is considered prudish compared to the rest of the world. The rest of the world sees itself as liberated, without the moral boundaries that some in the States still cling to.
From England, we read this shocking piece of news:
More than 450 teenagers below the age of 14 terminated pregnancies between 2005 and 2008, including 23 girls aged 12, the statistics from the Department of Health disclosed. Over the same period, 52 teenagers terminated four or more pregnancies before they reached their 18th birthday, as the total number of “repeat terminations” hit record levels across England and Wales. [Telegraph – Scandal of the girls as young as 12 having abortions every year]
I would argue that a society’s attitude toward teen sex has a direct correlation to teen pregnancy. Now, most people will say they are against teen pregnancy—hence why this article is titled “scandal”. We all agree that we do not want teen pregnancies, both for the health of the mother as well as the child.
The problem is that we’re inconsistent in that the society glorifies and encourages a sex saturated environment in which experimentation and random coupling are seen as great things. Our movies and television shows glorify this culture, and rarely show couples dealing with sexually transmitted diseases1.
Society knows that sex leads to babies, but they also want the pleasure that’s involved with intimacy. So they seek to justify their inability to practice self control with a panacea—they require sex education. This is so that, instead of educating that sex outside of a monogamous relationship (read “marriage”) is wrong, they can feel good giving their children enough to make them dangerous.
It’s like giving a child a loaded gun, and saying, “Hey, here’s how you pull the trigger, and here’s the safety. Now, this gun won’t do anything without the safety off, so don’t turn it off. But feel free to go play with this gun with your friends.” No parent would do this with their kids, but we’ll give them some birth control and let them go out and sleep around knowing that they’re “this close” to contracting an illness they’ll either have for the rest of their life or kill them.
Is that knowledge really that beneficial without the moral guidepost, or does it do more harm than good?
- We’re shown people with these diseases, but always in the context of “they don’t stop me” in commercials advertising drugs that the infected will have to take for the rest of their lives.