High-risk groups still dominate the Aids problem in Russia and China. But allowing the virus to leapfrog into the wider population as it has elsewhere could swallow up resources for African countries. HIV infections in Africa remain far higher than those in the Asia-Pacific nations. In China, 0.1 percent of people aged 15 to 49 are infected, compared with 7.5 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa. But that picture could change quickly. Mr Piot recalled that in South Africa the population affected doubled to 1 per cent in five years and then rocketed to 20 per cent in just seven years. India’s infection rate is also relatively low but the number of people infected, at 5.1 million, is second only to South Africa.Very sobering stuff. For an interesting parallel, take a look at what Matt Abbott has observed in the United States regarding sex education:
According to a story in the Dec. 2, 2004 edition of the Washington Post (link), a congressional investigation, led by Bush-critic Waxman, has found that students taking abstinence-only classes" frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists."Is there a juxtaposition of the two stories? I find one in the Times article with these paragraphs immediately following the dire prediction quoted above:
The experts also criticised the focus on sexual abstinence in President Bush’s £7.7 billion Aids relief plan known as “ABC” — Abstinence, Being faithful and using Condoms. “Millions of women became infected while monogamous and faithful, so focusing solely on personal behaviour and risk absolutely does not go far enough,” said Geeta Rao Gupta, head of the International Centre for Research on Women. Mr Piot added: “Abstinence isn’t an option for women who are violated or abused. Our prevention strategies have to fit the realities of women’s lives. Marriage was not made for sexual abstinence.This is the first time I've heard this line of reasoning in opposition to promiscuity. Let me paraphrase: "Being faithful has no benefit because your lover might not be and you might still be at risk of infection. Thus being promiscuous is just the same. Oh, and abstinence is really boring. Marriage was not made for sexual abstinence so get out there and wrap your legs around everything that moves." The common thread between these two stories is the ideology that everyone is going to have lots of sex with lots of people and to suggest that people do otherwise is bad. What is so bad about abstinence? The first big problem is that the concept is based on one of those "moral values" we have heard so many complaints about so recently.. The other issue is that the experts feel that people have no control over their own sex drive. This argument always seemed kind of self defeating to me. Asking someone to save themselves for a future spouse or to be faithful to their current spouse is completely unreasonable. However, if they are told to use a condom and a squirt of microbicide when exchanging bodily fluids, they will comply. Whenever the action gets hot and heavy, they will take a little break from the action, don the latex and the spread of disease will be stopped cold. I am fully aware that having sex is usually more fun than not having it, but in the same vein, is there anyone who would actually choose a condom over the alternative? (Latex vs. flesh…tough decision there!) Both 'quasi-safe' sex (condoms), 'safe-sex' (monogamous partners who are both faithful) and abstinence are choices that overrule the raw sex drive. I find it dishonest to maintain that two of those choices are impossible to physically achieve while pulling off (or rather on) the other can always be accomplished. By the way, Waxman's issues with the abstinence curriculum are that they "contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins." All that on topics such as the failure rate of condoms, post-abortive suicide rates and the possibility that abortion has a detrimental affect on fertility. Contrary to popular belief, condoms actually do have a failure rate. They can be employed incorrectly; some are defective while others fail under the stress of heat, friction, and passion. They are not 100% effective in stopping sperm cells, and presumably less effective against the much smaller (25-50 times) HIV virus. If you are truly abstinent, which in my definition includes oral and skin contact with the bodily fluids of others, there is no failure rate. It is not possible for an abstinent individual to contract a STD in a sexual manner, something that cannot be said for a faithful condom user. I'm not saying that condoms fail to reduce risk, but they do fail to eliminate risk. Back to Abbott's analysis of the Waxman critique of the Bush plan:
The obvious implication of the story: Abstinence-only education is deficient. And, in a sense, that's true. Sex education should be taught by parents, not the schools. But, that said, I submit that abstinence-only education is better than so-called comprehensive sex education. Consider: Brian Clowes, PhD, author and researcher for Human Life International (www.hli.org), found that between 1960 and 1991, the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases increased 245%; abortions increased 800%; and the illegitimate birthrate increased 457%. Much of these trends, says Clowes, "must be laid at the doorsteps of the [secular] sex educators." Indeed. Abstinence-only education is far from perfect — and perhaps some of the curricula currently being used should be revised — but at least it's telling teens to do what is right, namely, don't have sex until you're married. Planned Parenthood-style comprehensive sex education doesn't do that; it tells teens, "If you choose to engage in sexual activity, use protection." And, if that fails, well, there's always the local abortion mill.It almost seems that the secular perspective on the Aids crisis is that a cure for Aids is needed, and quickly because the pants of the people refuse to stay buttoned. This is evidenced from these words by Geeta Rao Gupta in the Times article: "focusing solely on personal behaviour and risk absolutely does not go far enough". What is left to focus on, aside from making sure the blood supply is clean, medical facilities are sanitary and researchers are working toward a cure? The primary method of transmission of this disease (and many others) is through sexual means. The primary method of prevention has to be by addressing the same. The absolute best way to ensure that you do not receive Aids via sexual contact is to not have any sexual contact at all. It is impossible to argue otherwise. It might not be the most enjoyable method, but it is the most effective. The second most effective option is to be involved in a monogamous relationship where both you and your partner are faithful unto death. All other prevention methods are less effective than those two, which is why the opposition to teaching either of those methods is ridiculous. Granted, not everyone will choose to employ either of these options, but I believe we owe it to them to honestly inform them of the actual risks of all possible methods, including abstinence and being faithful.
Well said. And Uganda, the one place in Africa that has pursued abstinence, is seeing the rewards of this policy.
oops - should have hit the preview button. Uganda is not the “one place in Africa”, but the one place in Africa where this message was first tried. A few other countries are now trying this after seeing how successful Uganda has been.
Abstinence is the only way to prevent STD’s, pregnancy, and AIDS. I cannot dispute that because it is fact. However, I do not believe that abstienence only policies are laudible. While abstinence should be encouraged above all else, I ask today, where is the harm concerning honest communication about the human experience?
Abstinence breeds fear. I know that I could not talk to my parents about sex. I also know that I have friends, whose parents preached “no sex, no sex, no sex” and they had sex. All that the abstinence only policy did was insure that these children could not talk to their parents about sex. This kept them from getting access to birth control. It also kept them from having an honest dialougue about their life with their own parents.
Not teaching children about sex does not prevent them from having sex. It only prevents them from having sex safely. I do not for a second believe that a class room is the end all for today’s teenagers. Today’s children are sophisticated. They have access to much more information than we can provide. Thus, I believe that information should be provided to them in a logical, well spoken manner from us, before they find it for themselves.
Let me be clear about something, I do not endorse premarital sex. I also do not endorse sex before marriage. However, I have done it. You have done it. The majority of the American people have done it. And that does not make it right. But I believe the right should stand up and realize that fear mongering is not the best way to make a point. Case in point, a report sited in the Washington Post that was mentioned in this blog.
In that report, statistics mentioned by groups receiving federal funding for abstinence only programs were grossly exagerated. Setting aside the issue of federal funding, why do we need to lie to our children? Why do we need to manipulate facts? Why must we side step the truth in pursuit of an agenda? Why can’t we, at this place and time, say these are the facts, make your decision, I will be here for you when it is made?
Once again, I do not condone pre marital sex. I encuorage abstinence. However, I believe that abstinence only programs are a myth and a red hering. I do not believe that the avoidence of information better prepares you for future decisions. In my experience, it ill prepares you. Thus, why should we ill prepare our children with programs not likely to work?
On a personal note, please visit the home of my organization Republicans and Democrats for Positive and Issue Oriented Politics (http://www.rdpiop.com). We have launched our Revolution ’06 campaign, so please feel free to visit, sign up, read stories, from 150 newspapers daily, and correspond on our blog as well.
Raymond,
I appreciate your comments and perspective. I disagree on many of the points, but I can see from where you are coming. I wish many of the others who promote additional training about sexuality would at least recognize the facts as you do.
To help you better understand my perspective, let me explain my situation. My parents explained sex to me at an early age and when I was a teenager, my church also had a class on this (two classes actually – segmented by gender). So an abstinence policy does not breed fear of discussion. I know some folks cannot talk to their folks about sex, but others can. It is a parent/child issue, not an abstinence issue. Likewise, I have liberal friends who had premarital sex and discussed this with their parents (some of these parents even provided the condoms).
I was a virgin until I was twenty-four – my wedding night. So it is quite possible to wait until marriage – I know. Admittedly, my first 18 years the temptation did not really come up – I didn’t date much in high school. But, largely to my surprise, I was quite popular in college and was often tempted in the course of university life. The three pieces of information that kept me going were 1) my own integrity and values (including the desire to make my wedding night special for me AND my bride), 2) my religious beliefs, and 3) knowledge of the risks of premarital sex. Would my will have been sufficient without item 3? I’d like to think so, but I don’t know. I can say that item 3 did cross my minds at times and it is certainly possible that it also made a difference.
So far we’ve talked about personal situations. While this may help us understand each other’s perspectives, personal experience is a very risky method of making decisions. Otherwise we run the risk of sounding like a liberal New Yorker who is honestly bewildered why President Bush won – everyone she knows voted for Kerry so she was sure Kerry was going to win in a landslide…
You stated Not teaching children about sex does not prevent them from having sex. It only prevents them from having sex safely. While this may or may not be true, what about the alternative? According to EVERY survey I have seen on the issue, teaching children about sex (with how-to instructions about condoms, etc.) invariable leads to a higher incidence of premarital sex along with higher incidences of STDs, pregnancies, and abortion. This is especially true in the US where we mostly teach hormone-driven teenagers that sex is risk-free.
You brought up the issue of exaggerated statistics, but then didn’t provide any links or references. So I cannot address this point other than to agree misleading people is wrong. And even if the other side does it too (like Elders not telling kids that they were given defective condoms because it would make them scared of condoms and reduce their faith in government), that does not make it right.
I’d support properly educating the kids about sex. In addition to promoting abstinence (and I would promote it), I would discuss the other methods, the failure rates for proper usage, the failure rates for actual usage, and the percentage of people who actually properly use these other methods. I would spend much time educating kids about each STD that they might be exposed to and ensure they understood the long-term consequences of each STD. Now you might call inducing fear or you might support this. But I see it as an important part of raising an adult who should understand the risks to himself and to his future family.
BTW, I clicked on your link – it just took me to a picture.
Great comments from all parties. My primary argument in the essay above is the objection to abstinence as a viable option to be taught to kids. It is certainly the most effective and should be the number one recommendation. I am not foolish enough to believe that simply teaching it will cause kids to stop having sex. However, if it is taught right, along with what some other options are and their success rates in comparison to abstinence, I think it will make a bigger difference than the current curriculum.
Parents have to talk to their kids about sex. I’ve already had talk number one with my boys (12 and 11). There will be several more as they progress through puberty. Sex is more than a good feeling and a sticky mess. I believe it creates a bond between a man and a woman at a physical, emotional and spiritual level. I’m not advocating they teach all that in school but my boys will get a healthy dose of it. I do feel that the emotional damage caused by meaningless coupling is something that should be addressed in general sex-education.
Great post.
Here’s another view of the “problem”. No matter what the solution, there will be some failure rate. Let’s say that the solution with the lowest possible (unknowable) failure rate is 2%—meaning 2% of the people will be infected with AIDS.
Using any other solution will result in more AIDS infections.
Nobody knows that it is 2%, instead of 1%, or even 3%; there is no good way to find out.
I believe a responsible abstinence only education, with BLAME to those who fail, will achieve the lowest failure rate. All the Sex ed solutions will have a result of more folk with AIDS. The Sex Ed solution providers will claim it is because the education is not “good enough”. But, if my belief is correct, the fault is that the minimum failure rate of optimal Sex Ed is higher than the minimum failure rate of abstinence only.
There will not be good ways to prove one or the other. However, every time I see condom statistics on effectiveness, I see the caveat—“used correctly”. This is hogwash. Sex Ed in the real world ALWAYS means more sex, and more sex always means more sex with condoms used incorrectly (or “missed"), just as birth control pills are always, in the real world, occasionally missed.
What’s extremely annoying is that the pro-Sex Ed folk refuse to accept they merely have a belief in their method, and exclude actual results based on a theory of “correct usage”—which is never seen in the real world.
In fact, Raymond had a fine point. I failed to avoid promiscuity before marriage—and I was lucky to avoid problems. I now feel I was making a big mistake.
Even if ABC is the best, it will not be Perfect. The Unreal Perfection is often the enemy of the good; and even the best.
http://king-of-fools.com/blog/trackback/1480/a2dPjMhg/
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published recommendations from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV infection after exposure to HIV through sexual intercourse, sexual assault, injection drug use, or accidents....
As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consi...
Each week, the Watcher Of Weasels sponsors a writing contest in which members of The Watchers Council are invited to submit....
This week's Watcher's Council votes are in and here are the winners: Sex and Disease by the King of Fools and How Far We've Come by Victor Davis Hanson. My own entry finished in a tie for second with the very strong entry from e-Claire, starti...
First off... any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now... the winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Sex and Disease by King of Fools, and How...