UNC paper: Abstinence-only doesn’t work, gay students need better sex-ed

The Daily Tar Heel, the award-winning daily newspaper of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, published a staff editorial on sex education on Tuesday.

In it, the staff said that sex education in North Carolina should be expanded and that abstinence-only education doesn’t work:

The idea of teaching tolerance of everyone and defining words such as prejudice is progressive and stands in striking contrast to North Carolina’s out-of-date abstinence-based curriculum.

Teaching eighth-graders about homosexuality, like in Montgomery County, might seem too early or inappropriate to some people, but neglecting to teach 10th-graders other options for staying safe besides abstaining might seem equally inappropriate and questionable.

Let’s face it, teenagers do have sex, and they do experiment. All that educators can do is give them the information they need to make smart choices.

In addition, being a teenager is confusing enough without having to be judged on your sexual preferences or lack thereof. It will be comforting for students, whether they consider themselves gay, straight, both or something else, that it’s not wrong to embrace who they really are.

[…]

There is one legitimate issue we have a problem with - the lessons state that homosexuality is innate. The idea behind teaching this is to ensure individuals do not get blamed for being homosexual.

While it sounds nice, science has not proven this true one way or the other. Factual uncertainties should be avoided, regardless of how just the goal of teaching them seems.

If teenagers knew all sides of the story, they would understand that sexuality isn’t black and white, and that it’s OK to have fears and questions about themselves. In life we are bound to run across people who will judge us and not accept us in ways we would hope.

Any program the helps avoid hate crimes like the death of Matthew Shepard should be applauded.

It is a nice editorial… although I think the staff skewed a few things. They are right that science hasn’t proven conclusively that sexual orientation is 100% innate, but in the editorial they are neglectful of the fact that medicine and psychology knows without a doubt that for the vast, overwhelming majority of all people, sexual orientation is unchangeable. For the vast majority of all people, sexual orientation is - for lack of better words - innate.

I’m also a little put back by their choice of wording in their use of “sexual preferences.” As I’ve said, sexual orientation for the vast majority of all people is unchangeable and something that seems very much a part of their being. It isn’t a “preference.”

I don’t “prefer” to be attracted - emotionally, spiritually and, yes, physically - to men… That’s just the way I am.

Technorati Tags: sexual orientation, sex education, Montgomery County, Maryland, North Carolina, UNC, Chapel Hill, Daily Tar Heel

Posted in Chapel Hill, High School, LGBT, LGBT Youth, North Carolina, Sexuality, United States |