Sex Ed: More than going beyond second base.
The Ministry of Education is going to revise its Sexuality Education Programme (SEP) which will emphasise sexual abstinence over contraception. According to The New Paper (as reported by Yahoo! SG), this programme, the strangely-titled ‘Breaking Down Bridges’ (can anyone explain?) will be taught to Secondary 3, first-year junior college and centralised institute students.
I was rather surprised to read this news. From my own experience of sex education while in high school, I already thought that there was too much emphasis on sexual abstinence. How can there be any more emphasis, short of insisting that all teenage girls take the veil?
The Yahoo! article only quotes from Catholic parents with children in Catholic schools, which is strange. Did the Ministry of Education consult with other parents and teachers and experts before they decided to change the programme? It would certainly be worrying if the SEP was changed for all Singaporean schools just because Catholic parents disapprove of contraception. Isn’t our education system supposed to be secular?
Perhaps this is what we need for our girls? (Image: culturemap.com)
That aside, the very idea of emphasising abstinence over contraception is problematic. Firstly, what is the definition of “emphasise” that is being used here? As I already said, my experience of sex education in school did not at any point give me the impression that contraception was being emphasised at all – unless the term “emphasised” is supposed to be read as “mentioned”. If that’s the case, are we to assume that decreasing “emphasis” on contraception would involve decreasing the amount of time educating students about it?
I would really like to see what this ‘Breaking Down Bridges’ programme is like, and just how it emphasises abstinence.
Emphasising abstinence isn’t necessarily a great idea. Although it is true that it is the most effective way of avoiding teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases/STIs (the same way never leaving your house is the most effective way of avoiding getting hit by a bus), the idea that teenagers/young adults are all not going to have sex is just highly impractical.
It’s dangerous, too, because if you emphasise abstinence too much and shy away from talking about safe sex and contraception, you’re just going to get generations of confused teenagers who are probably going to get up to some hanky-panky anyway, but very little idea of how to protect themselves.
That said, I have no problem with teaching abstinence as a possible path to take. It’s a personal choice, and one that everyone should respect instead of mock. But what I have a problem with is the singling out of one path above others as more desirable, because then we’re no longer on neutral, comprehensive educational grounds, but subjective moral arguments pushed onto people who might not hold to the same value systems. That’s when we turn it from a personal choice into a “behave like this or society will shun you” scenario.
Image from queenslyfe.com
Very often the teaching (or “preaching”) of abstinence becomes tied up in highly subjective moral values (and, as we can see from the quotes from Catholic parents, religious values too) and judgement. We might end up finding that teenagers will end up abstaining from sex not because of the potential pregnancy/health concerns, but because they have been taught that it is a shameful thing, because teenage girls who get found out for having sex will be judged as “sluts”, because sex is big and scary and bad, very bad.
“What’s wrong with that?” one might ask. “If it keeps our kids safe from teenage pregnancy and STIs, scaring them is fine with me.”
Okay. But what happens when they grow up, and still carry that fear and stigma with them? Then you have a whole generation of sex-negative people, who not only judge other people for their sexual choices (even if these choices are consensual), but also feel ashamed of their own bodies and urges. Is this really healthy?
When we teach sex education in schools, we’re not just talking about STIs and unwanted pregnancies. We’re talking about how we view our bodies, how we view sex and how we judge each other’s attitudes on the subject. We’re talking about relationships and how we deal with intimacy and being comfortable with another human being, and being able to express our desires/discomfort because we aren’t afraid of taking ownership of our own bodies. It is about so much more than teenagers wanting to go all the way.
We need to stop getting into a moral panic about our kids knowing about sex. Providing a comprehensive sex education doesn’t promote pre-marital sex, or encourage more teenagers to have sex. Learning about sex and intimacy in school doesn’t make one into a sex maniac. After all, I learnt about science in school and I didn’t become a scientist.
Well said.
I wonder why they named the program, “Breaking Down Bridges” when they’re actually breaking down bridges to the right information and free thinking. LMAO
I don’t get it either! This sex ed issue just reminds me of the whole RH Bill debate in the Philippines, although we’re fortunately not quite as extreme (yet).
Actually the programme is called Breaking Down Barriers. Yahoo got it wrong.. or perhaps TNP. That’s why reporting on something somebody else reported on is flawed. We really have no idea what the actual programme is outside the Yahoo hype of the TNP hype. Here’s a link to the original info (which is scant) at HPB. The programme is an HPB/MOE joint initiative:
http://www.hpb.gov.sg/programmes/article.aspx?id=2292
Thanks for this. It does help to see that it is meant to augment, and not to replace the current programme. It’ll be interesting to see what the actual programme is instead of the little bits of information that we currently have.
I agree that the emphasis on abstinence is not needed. We’re already a conservative society and pushing abstinence might just tempt them to find out anyway, that never stopped me haha. There’s too much negativity already with the way we perceive sex and as the secular country as we are supposed to be, the influence of religion on such matters are in my opinion, to be strictly personal.
Honestly, the catholic presence does not bode well, or another religious group’s presence for that matter. Information is what we can give and rest is what the young will make of themselves.
Hi Kirsten,
Well said girl! I remember my own sex-ed class 2000. I remember it because it wasn’t one.
Nowhere in that terrifying 1 hour session was there any mention of condoms, contraceptives, and other safe sex practices. Instead, we were treated to a horrifying moral discourse on the evils of sex, nudity, masturbation and going out without the proper undergarments. (I swear I’m not making this up)
And then to round it off- they showed us was a horrifying video of a live abortion (complete with the gore and blood etc), and then concluded with a “this is what’ll happen if you have sex! You become baby killers!”.
The idiots.
~deviousDiv
I think we watched the same video of live abortion. Was it called the Silent Scream? I remember being utterly terrified and upset and leaving that school that day thinking that anyone who even *considered* abortion is a murderer. It wasn’t much later before I started reading up on the other issues, and also the fact that such a late-term abortion (as shown in the video) isn’t even actually legal in many countries anyway.
WTF is the thing about going out without the proper undergarments?!
Hi Kirsten,
OMG yes it was the same one- I think it was by some Christian organization- who had no business being in a secular school teaching “Christian values”. I remember thinking I will never become a child killer ever, and like you, it was only when I researched the matter later, that I found out that much of the video was sensationalism, and footage from illegal back alley late term abortions. Some of it may have even been wax figurines.
And do you remember the “Silent Scream’s” answer to everything as being “Prayer”? Bastards!
But on a side note, its easy to make assertions like “I’ll never abort ever” when you’re looking at it as an academic argument. But when I had friends, tuition children, and students (from when I relief taught) who found themselves pregnant at 14, 20 etc, I found myself unable to stick with my pro-life tendencies.
Would bringing a child up with no money and formal education really be the best thing for it? And who am I to judge a situation I have no comprehension of?
That marked my transition into the wiser “pro-choice” camp.
As for the undergarments thing? The blame for that one lies with the School principal, who was the one who conducted this class (called us back on a Saturday some more. >_<)
She said, and I quote, "The failure to wear proper undergarments is an advertisement that you are loose, dirty and behave in an improper fashion. If you fail to wear them you will attract attention from construction workers, gangster boys and flashers."
I believe she saw some kids in the school bus stop and somehow determined they were going commando. I remember thinking to myself, "Why on earth was she even looking in the first place. Disgusting female."
Ah well- school sex ed- its the fastest way to permanently cure kids of the urge.
~deviousDiv
Agreed. My views on abortion were largely theoretical and based upon the horror of what I’d been told, rather than on facts and real life. I was firmly anti-abortion until I came face-to-face with the issue in a real life context (as opposed to a textbook one) and I found that there is just so much more that needs to be considered and so many more variables. As you say, I find it difficult to believe that it is better to bear a child if the parents are neither inclined nor prepared to love and care for it, or if the family feels that they simply cannot provide. Most of the time it’s not an easy decision to make, and as outsiders it’s not for us to judge.
The undergarments thing really blows my mind. Perhaps she has X-ray vision.
Then again, my school had bra checks, where teachers (female) and prefects had to check to make sure you weren’t wearing coloured bras. But that was more for “character-building discipline” and less for “wanton sex nymphs”.
Oh my! I watched the “Silent Scream” during my secondary school days more than 20 years ago (in the mid-80′s)! They are still using the same video that is already slammed by the medical community? Cue: *face-palm*
Have to say, I was actually rather alarmed by the “fetus struggling” scene when I was young. It has since been pointed out by the medical community that the ‘ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is sped up when surgical instruments are introduced to give the impression that “the fetus is thrashing about in alarm.”‘
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream#Medical_community
I have personally known people who chose to abort and also those who chose to keep the baby. It is never a simple pro-life or pro-choice thing and people have been known to switch sides when they have to make that difficult choice personally. E.g. The potential parent(s) may find herself (themselves) considering the feasibility of providing well for a disadvantaged child (e.g. Down’s Syndrome kid).
I don’t know if it’s still being shown to students. I hope they’ve stopped it. It’s incredibly traumatic, horrific and confusing for young teens who might not be aware of the other issues surrounding abortion, or the misrepresentation/outright falsehoods that have been identified and highlighted by the medical community. I remember just being incredibly upset and scared, but at the end of the day I didn’t really understand anything about the debate around the issue of abortion at all.
Good piece Kirsten. Thanks..
I am circulating this among family and friends.
Excellent response. Thanks for writing this. I’m sharing it with everyone I know, if that’s OK.
Thanks for your kind words!
Feel free to share it.
I want to congratulate you for your excellent article. I took the liberty to post it in my Facebook and share with my friends. It was such a brilliant analysis on the issue from your personal perspective. Your work needs wide circulation and I do hope that the youths will read and be encouraged with your point of view which certainly leads to safe and responsible sexual life. I want to express my deep appreciation to you and hope that you will continue to blog and support one another as we face different issues if life. – Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao
Thank you very much!
Believe it or not, Kirsten, the Catholic Church has the same approach to teaching about sex that you propose, in that it does not teach from a standpoint of fear about sex or the human body. Rather, it teaches that the human body is beautifully designed and that sex is a beautiful act through which spouses show their love for one another and by which they enhance their relationship with each other. It also the primary means by which married couples participate in God’s plan of creation to propagate human life on earth. Therefore, seen in such a light, according to the Church, the rightful place of sex is within the sacrament of marriage, for it to fulfill its beautiful, divine purpose.
That sounds great, but unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be coming through from what we’ve read from the Catholic parents…
I have nothing against the Catholic faith at all (my own grandparents were Catholics, although they haven’t been to Church in a long time), but more about the issue of one religion being able to heavily influence education syllabus, as well as a lack of provision for comprehensive sex education to teenagers.
The Yahoo article seems to slant it that way, that one religion, particular Christianity, is heavily influencing the education syllabus. But is that really the case, simply because the Yahoo reporters only chose to interview Catholics for their responses to the SEP? In my view, Yahoo did a really shoddy piece of reporting by only interviewing Catholic parents, and thus giving the impression that the Catholic Church is behind the recent changes in the SEP. Abstinence is not an exclusively Christian or Catholic concept, so I am not sure it is fair to say that it is solely Christians that are behind the new “emphasis on abstinence” in the SEP. Christians could have played a part in it, but there could be other reasons why the MOE has chosen this make this change in its curriculum.
That is definitely true. I thought it was strange as well that only Catholic parents were interviewed; there should have been other voices to give us a more complete picture.
That said, I don’t think it’s just about which parents are demanding what, but the very idea of emphasising abstinence instead of giving comprehensive sex education is problematic to me.
I attended secondary school in the early 90s where there wasn’t a module regarding sex ed. I turned out fine in the end.
No sex ed in school during my time – though must admit it wasn’t the age of the internet so kids weren’t given as many ideas/graphic images that might have led to more curiosity and experimentation on the side …
On a completely unrelated note, is that 2nd graphic from MB’s RH:MiT?