Nothing is quite as effective at inciting and exciting as sex. This became quite apparent during the recent AWARE saga.
The prominent women’s group was briefly taken-over by a group of conservative Christian women. The premise for their hostile takeover? AWARE’s attitudes towards homosexuality and sex. These women found that the group’s sympathetic attitudes towards homosexuals morally repugnant.
That executive committee has since been ousted in a widely publicized extraordinary general meeting, but the lingering issue of society’s progressively changing attitudes towards homosexuality remains. Channelnewsasia (CNA) reported that “the Reach portal has received about 50 postings about AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme, most of them critical. “
These postings were critical of the ‘moral-neutralization’ of homosexuality and premarital sex. The CNA article went on to state that “They (the parents) were interested to know “how MOE and parents can engage to develop a comprehensive sex education programme for schools which reflects the mainstream views and values of Singapore society”.”
Here’s the problem. I don’t agree with these parents. I support AWARE’s pragmatic approach towards teaching sex. My point of contention is that we do not have a firm understanding of the “mainstream views and values of Singapore society.”
I take great offense that these parents speak on my behalf. If these conservative parents are privy to any surveys or findings which clearly outline the sexual morals of Singaporeans, then I would willingly accept such a mandate.
But if they have not conducted such a litmus test, then how can they speak on behalf of “Singapore society”?
As a secular humanist, my attitude towards sexual education is very scientific and pragmatic. Sexual intercourse is an inborn physiological trait that is part of our biology. Intercourse between a man and a woman propagates the human species. Procreation is simply a genetic imperative. Human beings have sexual urges and these are normal.
I believe that children should be taught the pragmatic truths about sex and contraception. I do not believe in promoting “abstinence-only” sexual education. This is because by treating premarital sex as a taboo, we create an aura of guilt and helplessness among teenagers who do partake in such acts.
When we inculcate such a strong negative association to premarital sex, we make it more difficult for teenagers to seek help. This is because in order to seek help, these teenagers will have to admit to an adult that they have done something ‘very bad’.
For teenagers, the admission of a grievous act can be more difficult than committing or correcting the act itself.
Casting premarital sex as ‘bad’ and ‘evil’ also posses other risks. Teenagers who succumb to the allure of sexual intercourse may be less likely to use contraceptives or take the necessary precautions. After all, if they’re going to do something ‘bad’ anyway, why bother being ‘safe’?
And these aren’t baseless opinions. They were formed on research.
In the United States, abstinence-based sexual education is widely encouraged by the government. In fact, it is the only form of sexual education that is eligible for federal funding. In her article “Is Teaching Abstinence Effective?”, Kat Long quoted a research report by the Advocates for Youth. It was clear in its condemnation of the lackluster “abstinence-only” form of sexual education. It wrote:
“Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth’s willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state [Pennsylvania] did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation.”
Long further expounded the ineffectiveness of “abstinence-only” programs:
“Abstinence-only education has been shown by British researchers to have no impact on the prevention of HIV transmission. A study in 2004 revealed that 88% of students who made “virginity pledges” promising to remain abstinent until marriage broke their pledges. Virginity pledgers also suffered STD infections at the same rate as non-pledgers. The New York Times reported in December 2007 that the teen birth rate, a crucial factor in evaluating youth’s sexual choices, rose for the first time since 1991. And as recently as March 2008, 1 in 4 American female teenagers were shown in a federal study to have one or more sexually-transmitted diseases.”
If you think that these research findings are not applicable to sexually-conservative Singapore, then you’re wrong.
A survey done by Singapore Polytechnic showed that 46% of respondents found premarital sex acceptable. In March 2008, Shin Min Daily News reported that “64 per cent of (NUS) undergraduates have sex more than once a week” (in their dorms no less).
Youngsters are having premarital sex. If society truly felt that premarital sex was so reprehensible, then the legal age for sexual intercourse in Singapore would not be 16 years of age; it would be after marriage. Do keep in mind that in Singapore prostitution has been legalized.
We have a tendency to ‘fix’ people in the roles we are most comfortable with. I understand that it must be difficult for any parent to accept the fact that their children are growing up. And part of growing up is developing sexual urges. We should empower our youngsters with the correct mentality towards sexual intercourse – it is not something to be ashamed of, but they need to realize the risks and responsibilities that come with engaging in such an adult activity.
