Activist to schools: Stop promoting sex

Never mind that a St. Petersburg Times survey showed about two-thirds of voters interviewed support teaching "abstinence plus" sex education in schools. Brandon activist Terry Kemple, president of a local Christian public policy group called Community Issues Council, wants the schools to stop at abstinence only. He intends to fight pending legislation that would expand the sex education curriculum "if it looks like it's going to get legs." And he's even advocating abstinence-only education in colleges and universities. Reporter Donna Winchester caught up with Kemple in her reporting on the issue and had this conversation with him:

What is your role with the Community Issues Council?

What I do is I advocate for Christian values in the community.

And how does that play out in the arena of sex education in public schools?

One of the things that's mentioned most frequently in the Bible is sexual immorality and how we are supposed to refrain from it. Much of the education that our kids get today in school would lead them in exactly the opposite direction. It actually encourages them to become sexually involved at earlier and earlier ages. It's bad for kids and it's bad for our society.

I'm old enough to remember when we weren't encouraged to have sex in school, and we didn't have sex. Certainly there were some who did, but compared to what's happening in the schools today, it's like a marble and a mountain.

Do we teach kids that they're basically animals who can't control their sexual urges, so go ahead and have sex, and oh by the way, be sure to use a condom? Or do we tell them they are actually rational human beings who can avoid early sexual activity? Let's teach them the coping skills to be able to effectively do that.

So are you saying that schools are encouraging kids to have sex?

Yes. There are really two divergent sex ed programs. One is called abstinence until marriage. It encourages kids to be abstinent until marriage. It promotes the merits of monogamous, heterosexual marriage, and it teaches the coping skills kids need to maintain their sexual purity in a society that's awash with blatant inducements to become engaged in sexuality. The other stream, they call it a variety of things. What it does is it says, 'Oh, yes, abstinence is the best way to make sure you don't get pregnant or you don't get a disease.' But a minimum of the focus is on abstinence and the majority of the focus is on contraception using condoms. It says to a student, 'We know you're going to have sex, so be careful.'

There are a couple of major flaws with that logic. The first is that for some diseases, condoms don't provide any protection at all. Plus, condoms have a built-in failure rate. I've heard different numbers, from a small percentage up to 15 percent. I think more important is that when you're talking to a teenager and you say, 'Go ahead, have sex, just make sure you use a condom,' even if they have a condom with them, are they going to be of the right mind when they're about to have sex?

One of the most important things that people who promote comprehensive sex education fail to realize is that irrespective of whether kids get pregnant or get a sexually transmitted disease, there are traumatic psychological effects that take place in kids when they engage in early sexual activity. Drug use goes up, alcohol use goes up, depression goes up, suicide goes up. All of those things come out of early sexual activity. Other high-risk behaviors like smoking cigarettes, violence, all have a direct correlation to the amount of sexuality that kids engage in.

So then I don't suppose you would agree with the proposed legislation called the Healthy Teens Act that would require school districts to emphasize abstinence while teaching students how to protect themselves from disease and pregnancy?

No. I remember reading similar legislation that was introduced last year. I'm sure legislation will continue to be introduced. The purpose of it, regardless of what fine-sounding name it has, is to change sex education information from abstinence until marriage to comprehensive sex education.

Do you plan to mobilize against this legislation?

We'll see what happens and what kind of legs it gets once it gets into the session. If it looks like it's going to get legs, then certainly we'll mount whatever level of campaign is necessary to derail it. Based on the current makeup of the Legislature, it isn't likely to go far because most legislators see through the ruse. This isn't about healthy teens, this is about promoting sex.

The St. Petersburg Times conducted a statewide poll recently that shows Floridians overwhelmingly support the teaching of more than just abstinence in sex education. Do you find that discouraging?

I'm not discouraged because I don't know the way the questions were asked. I'm also aware of the misinformation that is available through the primary learning vehicles people have. There have been several major stories both in the newspapers and on TV within the last year that say abstinence curriculum isn't successful. But what they fail to say in those stories is that the group that's being measured is students who may have started in an abstinence program when they were 12 and now they're 18 to 24. It ignores the fact that those students, from the time they were 12 to the time they were 17, were abstinent. You can see from statistics those programs are extremely successful in raising the number of kids who remain sexually pure during the time they are in those programs. Rather than saying we don't need those programs, what we need to do is develop a program for kids from 18 to 24 so they, too, can maintain their sexual purity until marriage.

So you're advocating abstinence only sex education for college students?

Why not? We need to turn that group around and give them some inducement not to be sexually active.

Couldn't a program that emphasizes abstinence but gives kids information about disease and pregnancy protection be a deterrent to kids having early sex?

I think almost all of the programs would provide that kind of information. It would be almost ridiculous to think that they didn't. The difference is what do the programs offer as the method for avoiding those consequences? One side says, 'Abstinence until marriage is the only 100 percent way, let us show you how to do that.' The other side says, ‘You're going to do that anyway, make sure you use a condom.'

So you're saying an abstinence until marriage program would tell kids about the consequences of early sex?

Without question. It would be hard to educate kids about why they should remain pure without telling them about the potential consequences. Again, it's a matter of how do I avoid the consequences? Unfortunately, some of the consequences, the psychological ones, they can't avoid. I wouldn't imagine that abstinence plus even goes into that. How can you tell people you're going to have remorse, but if you use a condom it won't happen? Abstinence plus is a dishonest program that's designed to encourage kids to have sex.

Comments

[Craig Chamberlin]

I think they are making the right decision here. The emphasis is placed upon the 100% preventable with a smaller emphasis on other sex prevention options. I just got out of the public school system and its sex education program did nothing but encourage sexual behavior through telling students protection methods.

It's not like the program is ignoring the existence of alternative contraceptive techniques, its just focusing primarily on the most successul form of sexual health. There have been countless studies in psychology and health by the Center of Disease Control showing the damages of early sexual experiences for teens as well as irresponsible sexual decisions on adults.

I just recently wrote an article myself on the issue entitled Living Together Before Marriage May Sabotage Longevity which discusses one of the statistics found in a CDC study.

Great article.

Craig
http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com

[Craig Chamberlin]

I think they are making the right decision here. The emphasis is placed upon the 100% preventable with a smaller emphasis on other sex prevention options. I just got out of the public school system and its sex education program did nothing but encourage sexual behavior through telling students protection methods.

It's not like the program is ignoring the existence of alternative contraceptive techniques, its just focusing primarily on the most successul form of sexual health. There have been countless studies in psychology and health by the Center of Disease Control showing the damages of early sexual experiences for teens as well as irresponsible sexual decisions on adults.

I just recently wrote an article myself on the issue entitled Living Together Before Marriage May Sabotage Longevity which discusses one of the statistics found in a CDC study.

Great article.

Craig
http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com

[Craig Chamberlin]

I think they are making the right decision here. The emphasis is placed upon the 100% preventable with a smaller emphasis on other sex prevention options. I just got out of the public school system and its sex education program did nothing but encourage sexual behavior through telling students protection methods.

It's not like the program is ignoring the existence of alternative contraceptive techniques, its just focusing primarily on the most successul form of sexual health. There have been countless studies in psychology and health by the Center of Disease Control showing the damages of early sexual experiences for teens as well as irresponsible sexual decisions on adults.

I just recently wrote an article myself on the issue entitled Living Together Before Marriage May Sabotage Longevity which discusses one of the statistics found in a CDC study.

Great article.

Craig
http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com

[Chris W]

Terry needs to confine his attentions to Christian schools where they actually care what he thinks.

[Nick]

Chris,
What's wrong with kids abstaining? Do you think it's perfectly fine for middle and high school teens and college aged kids to be having premarital sex?

Having gone through sex ed in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and on grades in this area, then having worked in the school system, I find it laughable that they think sex is promoted. No- sex is often promoted on the internet, on TV, in movies, on commercials, etc. Giving kids educational tools to prevent disease is not encouraging them to have sex. How does one come up with that? They are attributing an attitude to the teachers by talking about "you'll do it anyway", not addressing the lesson. This tells me there is nothing valid to the argument.

It's like saying teaching them to try and prevent lung cancer equates to telling them to smoke. Or that learning about WW2 would tell them to create a bomb. Giving them information does not mean that will use it- just as teaching abstinence will not mean they will abstain. So does it not make sense to give them all the educational tools possible?

Aside from the seemingly unfounded accusations regarding teacher attitude, Mr. Kemple seems to forget that public schools are not Christian schools. I also find the "heterosexual" comment to be absolutely inappropriate and further indication that this about agenda pushing. Keep *your* religion out of public schools.

Yes, often sexual behavior at a young age is accompanied by depression, drugs, etc. But it also often as a result of previous abuse, not sex. The sexual activity is often another symptom, not the cause.

[Nick]

"Giving kids educational tools to prevent disease is not encouraging them to have sex."

Yes it is. Children give you exactly what you expect from them. Teaching little Mary how to put a condom on a cucumber is tantamount to promoting it or encouraging it.

I better not catch a teacher teaching that to one of my three daughters. My wife and I can teach them just fine, thank you.

Besides, abstinence works, why would anyone oppose something that works?

[Mike]

Nick, if your wife were good at putting a condom on for you, I don't think you would have three daughters.

Sarcasm aside, its great that you feel your Christian value system should be pushed on everyone outside of the science class as well, but can we be frank here? We live in a society where marketing has figured out that sex sells, where parents like to set their kids in front of TV's as a method of baby sitting, and where parental involvement is not the norm.

Abstinence works as long as youths practice it, but once that threshold is crossed (and you're ignorant if you think not teaching about sex will stop kids from having it) wouldn't you rather they know about what they are doing in a preventative measure? Hormones tend to be a little stronger than a father's will.

[Chris W]

Mike:

I have two daughters, and that thought keeps me up at night. The best description I have ever heard was this - when you teach your kids to drive, you do everything you can to make sure they don't get into an accident but you still buy them insurance in case they do.

[Mike]

Chris,

While that description is great from the parents perspective of educating your children in a broad spectrum for situations that arise that you don't want to occur, I just want to clarify that a human trait is far different from a natural trait. I'm sure very few parents teach their kids how to actually have sex, but safe sex is something that a good majority hope their kids practice when they do engage.

An open question, if your daughter was on birth control, would you teach her about safe sex from STDs at that point or assume that you and the school ignoring the point of sex or preaching not to have sex will be enough for her to overcome the peer pressure, fitting in pressure, pituitary gland and experimental drunkenness that are a part of a middle to high schoolers life while they take the "it cant happen to me" pill ?

So Nick, by that logic kids smoke when they learn about the dangers of nicotine. They learn about war, so they create war. They learn to read, so they read smut. They learn to draw, so they vandalise. They know how to put Band Aids on, so they cut. It has nothing to do with the expectations they have been raised with, nothing to do with their own personal choices and boundries. Not a lot of faith in teens, eh? I choose to have faith in them and have repeatedly been proved right.

Kids *will* often behave as they feel others expect them to- teaching them safe sex does not tell them they are expected to have sex anymore than preventative smoking classes teach them to smoke. Where is the correlation and why does it only apply to sex? It's the job of the parent to instill the moral code or values the kid will make their decisions by. If teaching a subject related to health undermines that, then the parent did a piss poor job and/or there were already problems with the kid and authority- which could also go back to the home. The school is in no way encouraging kids to have sex. They are giving them basic knowledge about their health. They are also giving *correct* information to kids who very often have wrong information.

You are giving kids knowledge by teaching. Not teaching restricts their knowledge. Pretty basic.

I like the insurance comparison. Very apt.

Fact is, teens have *always* had sex. They *always* will. Give them the correct tools they need to make the most informed decision possible.