Playing "doctor" leads to needing OB/GYN
WARNING: This entry contains discussion of under-age intercourse and sex toys.
STORY
King Middle School in Maine will be the first middle school in main to make a full range of contraception available to the students (also known as 11 to 13-year olds). That headline was enough to get my attention to the article. I was thinking to myself, "gosh, is this too early for serious preventative sexual equipment?" Surely these kids don't really need to be instructed on the finer points of sexual activity and have to worry about taking hormone pills or playing around with funnily-shaped balloons.
I was wrong. Oh so wrong.
In the last four years, the three middle schools in Portland, Maine reported 17 pregnancies. This figure does not include the unknown number of miscarriages or terminated pregnancies. I have nothing snarky to say here, because I don't know WHAT to say. I'll have to settle with being shocked that the experience of some kids aged 11 is so completely outside my own experience. Further in the article, these Portland schools have been offering condoms since 2000, and one quarter of all health centers nationwide that service children older than 11 offer some form of contraception.
I don't remember at what age I first learned that there was this thing called "sex" that people could "have", and that it related to babies somehow. I remember taking a high school health class from a teacher who vaguely reminded me of Don Knotts, who assured us that V.D. and sex were serious business. He also assured us that even though everyone should wear their seatbelts while driving, he never did because he had once escaped a fiery wreck only by virtue of not having to undo his belt.
In sixth grade, I remember that my homeroom teacher was pregnant and eventually was replaced by a long-term substitute. I don't recall if I knew what generated pregnancy, but it wasn't a point of discussion amongst us kids. I'm sure some people associated a case of "the pregnants" as one would get "the measles", only with the side-effect of occasional baby discharge.
One of the parents says, "This isn't encouraging kids to have sex. This is about the kids who are engaging in sexually activity". It's definitely an unfortunate line to walk. Can you afford to expose all the children to sexual knowledge in the effort to get the few who really need it? Or can you afford to continue fiddling as Rome burns, ignoring the fact that kids are having sex and having babies?
I suppose the trick is that the parents can't control their children all the time. I'm sure there are VERY few parents who believe that pre-teens having sex is a "good" thing. I bet no one wants their babies to be having babies, at least hopefully not after they've read the medical problems with having pregnancies at that age. But the parents can't hover over the children 24/7. At some point, you have to trust that your child, armed with whatever knowledge you have given them about sex, will decide not to do it. I'm sure most students just don't care. However, I suppose that by giving instruction and availability, you'll provoke some kids to say, "Hmm! What's all this 'sex' I've been hearing about? Perhaps I should try it!"
I suppose parents can only trust that they've given their children enough knowledge and direction to have the kid say, "No, I'd rather play with my robots than worry about that stuff." Or parents can simply plug their ears and shout MY CHILD WILL NOT BE HAVING SEX, BECAUSE THEY JUST WON'T.
I can't help but feel that shouted sentence upon learning that a Topeka, Kansas high school was forced to stop distributing free condoms to students this week, after the district learned that the program was entering its second month. The district apparently has a policy against providing contraceptives. No doubt this is in-line with abstinence-only education which is recommended by the government. Perhaps the feeling here is that if students are mature enough to have sex, they are also mature enough to go to a drug store (on their skateboards) and buy condoms themselves. Or maybe they get an older student to go in for them, in case they get "carded", as with buying beer.
Maybe we just need a change of spin. We all agree "condom" is a sexually-charged word. You can't even talk about it to kids without having them running off to the nearest cloakroom. So, perhaps we need to do what America does whenever we wish to defuse a situation like this: change the name. Remember the fiasco of the french fries turned "freedom fries" in the wake of... France saying we shouldn't attacking other countries? Well, it's time to re-badge all these smutty devices.
For example: in Alabama, it is illegal to sell sex toys. It was signed into law in 1998, and reaffirmed in 2004 by the Appeals Court. Under the "Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act", it is prohibited to distribute "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for any thing of pecuniary value", which underscores my belief that any law preventing obscenity must itself contain obscene imagery. In light of this prohibition, most sex toys are sold under the banner of "adult novelties" across the United States. In Texas, for example, it is illegal to sell sex toys unless they are marketed as "adult novelties", which basically means you can't describe what you're supposed to do with it. People who do describe it risk being arrested as "smut peddlers", which makes me laugh (though I'm probably supposed to shake my head and cluck my tongue).
I also laughed that a similar law in Georgia allows that a physician may prescribe the use of a sex toy for therapeutic purposes, but (and I quote) "the allowance does not apply to a therapist who only has a Ph.D."
STORY
King Middle School in Maine will be the first middle school in main to make a full range of contraception available to the students (also known as 11 to 13-year olds). That headline was enough to get my attention to the article. I was thinking to myself, "gosh, is this too early for serious preventative sexual equipment?" Surely these kids don't really need to be instructed on the finer points of sexual activity and have to worry about taking hormone pills or playing around with funnily-shaped balloons.
I was wrong. Oh so wrong.
In the last four years, the three middle schools in Portland, Maine reported 17 pregnancies. This figure does not include the unknown number of miscarriages or terminated pregnancies. I have nothing snarky to say here, because I don't know WHAT to say. I'll have to settle with being shocked that the experience of some kids aged 11 is so completely outside my own experience. Further in the article, these Portland schools have been offering condoms since 2000, and one quarter of all health centers nationwide that service children older than 11 offer some form of contraception.
I don't remember at what age I first learned that there was this thing called "sex" that people could "have", and that it related to babies somehow. I remember taking a high school health class from a teacher who vaguely reminded me of Don Knotts, who assured us that V.D. and sex were serious business. He also assured us that even though everyone should wear their seatbelts while driving, he never did because he had once escaped a fiery wreck only by virtue of not having to undo his belt.
In sixth grade, I remember that my homeroom teacher was pregnant and eventually was replaced by a long-term substitute. I don't recall if I knew what generated pregnancy, but it wasn't a point of discussion amongst us kids. I'm sure some people associated a case of "the pregnants" as one would get "the measles", only with the side-effect of occasional baby discharge.
One of the parents says, "This isn't encouraging kids to have sex. This is about the kids who are engaging in sexually activity". It's definitely an unfortunate line to walk. Can you afford to expose all the children to sexual knowledge in the effort to get the few who really need it? Or can you afford to continue fiddling as Rome burns, ignoring the fact that kids are having sex and having babies?
I suppose the trick is that the parents can't control their children all the time. I'm sure there are VERY few parents who believe that pre-teens having sex is a "good" thing. I bet no one wants their babies to be having babies, at least hopefully not after they've read the medical problems with having pregnancies at that age. But the parents can't hover over the children 24/7. At some point, you have to trust that your child, armed with whatever knowledge you have given them about sex, will decide not to do it. I'm sure most students just don't care. However, I suppose that by giving instruction and availability, you'll provoke some kids to say, "Hmm! What's all this 'sex' I've been hearing about? Perhaps I should try it!"
I suppose parents can only trust that they've given their children enough knowledge and direction to have the kid say, "No, I'd rather play with my robots than worry about that stuff." Or parents can simply plug their ears and shout MY CHILD WILL NOT BE HAVING SEX, BECAUSE THEY JUST WON'T.
I can't help but feel that shouted sentence upon learning that a Topeka, Kansas high school was forced to stop distributing free condoms to students this week, after the district learned that the program was entering its second month. The district apparently has a policy against providing contraceptives. No doubt this is in-line with abstinence-only education which is recommended by the government. Perhaps the feeling here is that if students are mature enough to have sex, they are also mature enough to go to a drug store (on their skateboards) and buy condoms themselves. Or maybe they get an older student to go in for them, in case they get "carded", as with buying beer.
Maybe we just need a change of spin. We all agree "condom" is a sexually-charged word. You can't even talk about it to kids without having them running off to the nearest cloakroom. So, perhaps we need to do what America does whenever we wish to defuse a situation like this: change the name. Remember the fiasco of the french fries turned "freedom fries" in the wake of... France saying we shouldn't attacking other countries? Well, it's time to re-badge all these smutty devices.
For example: in Alabama, it is illegal to sell sex toys. It was signed into law in 1998, and reaffirmed in 2004 by the Appeals Court. Under the "Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act", it is prohibited to distribute "any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for any thing of pecuniary value", which underscores my belief that any law preventing obscenity must itself contain obscene imagery. In light of this prohibition, most sex toys are sold under the banner of "adult novelties" across the United States. In Texas, for example, it is illegal to sell sex toys unless they are marketed as "adult novelties", which basically means you can't describe what you're supposed to do with it. People who do describe it risk being arrested as "smut peddlers", which makes me laugh (though I'm probably supposed to shake my head and cluck my tongue).
I also laughed that a similar law in Georgia allows that a physician may prescribe the use of a sex toy for therapeutic purposes, but (and I quote) "the allowance does not apply to a therapist who only has a Ph.D."
That is hard for me to understand. My brain says, "Be a kid. Roller blade and play in the mud. There is plenty of time to be an 'adult' later."
ReplyDelete