What's the health of your child in the face of archaic religious beliefs?

[greenie_breizh]

So, despite every single professional body in the field having concluded that abstinence-only education does not prevent unwanted, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, the United States of America is still proud to have morons like this gentleman:

Rep. John Duncan (R-Tennessee): "It seems rather elitist to me that people who maybe have degrees in this field would feel that, because they've studied it somehow know better than the parents."

(Jon Stewart's commentary, to lighten up the mood: "And I don't like these elitist airline pilots with their locked door and their ability to fly planes... I think I know how to fly my own children!")

I so don't have the brains to rant about this tonight, but it just makes me so mad that people would willingly ignore all scientific and social evidence and make decisions that we know are dangerous for their children's health and future. Especially dangerous to girls because they're the ones who suffer most from unwanted pregnancies and the ones who get the most shit for getting STDs because no one's ever told her or her boyfriend how to use a condom.

All of this because they can't fucking deal with the fact that sex can and should be about pleasure one's self and one's partner and that there is nothing wrong or dirty about that or the human body.

Comments

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

I've never seen that clip, no. And parents are necessarily inexperienced if it's their second kid and they do have valid first-hand experience which researchers don't. I think it's important just because the counterpoint of dissing "elitist" researchers is dismissing personal experience and neither is a good solution. But parents do have is a very biased version of reality and that's why social sciences are necessary.

Like I said to Terra - I don't expect sex ed to bring up the notion of pleasure, even though I believe they should because then we'd have a way into promoting a much more healthy version of sex where men's and women's pleasure could be considered equally. Not to mention we'd also have a natural space to talk about different desires, too. But I do believe the fear of admitting sex is fun and sex is enjoyable (and that's partly why kids do it) is at the roots of religious/moral conservatives and their refusal to have more comprehensive sex ed. (Well, that and a belief is the moral superiority of a unique monogamous relationship.)

And ah! No clue where I got the idea sex was fun, either. I suspect Joss Whedon. :p

[lounalune.livejournal.com]

Strange, both of you thinking you discovering that sex was supposed to be fun through fiction. I don't remember ever not believing that sex was supposed to be fun (and I didn't watch much tv as a kid). Just like I don't remember ever believing that babies were flown in by any kind of long legged animals. I guess it was never a taboo subject in my family.

As for sex-ed, I do remember pleasure being mentioned. It must have been in quatrième or troisième (senior in junior high or freshman in high school), and was by an outside intervenant who was talking about HIV and other STD prevention with large gender homogene groups. But then again, what sense does it make to tell kids that sex is only about reproduction and that they should use condoms, that usually avoid just that (in addition to a few nasty viruses and bacterias)?

However, in both these cases (the education I recieved through my parents and at school), the focus was only on heterosexual sex (though not necessarily only about penetration - I remember being really embarassed when I was fifteen and my father drew a penis to explain my sister and I how to do a blow job). As for the clitoris, I only learned more about its anatomy and how it works through diverse associations, not really long ago.