BBC NEWS | Health | Why puberty now begins at seven
Since the ST Online is a paid subscription service (then why the heck am I paying for my newspaper subscription for?), I can no longer link to the articles that I wished to make 'fair comment' on...=P
Anyway, another sex article on my blog, inspired by the letters to the forum today in response to the Insight article last week about how humping like bunnies was now the new drug for teens.
*Mr Fluffy makes an appearence at this point and tasers the author into submission for taking bunny's name in vain. After a half hour session of grovelling, Mr Fluffy has relented and allowed the author to continue. Mr Fluffy has however not switched off the taser and is reminding the author of its effects by zapping innocent bugs flying about*
Right, *ahem*, anyway. Two letters, one by an 'abstinence activist' calling for earlier sex education, the other by AWARE calling for 'comprehensive sex education'.
Let's take the first letter and examine what abstinence activist are calling for. There are basically two types of abstinence sex education.
1. Abstinence only. This is the one that I rail against because it is willing to commit intellectual and scientific perjury and dishonesty in the name of its ideology. In the process, it ends up commiting more harm than good. By harm in this instance, I mean it completely fails in its objective of preventing teens from having sexual intercourse. More damagingly, it actually creates more problems in terms of unwanted pregnancy and STDs.
The reason for this is quite simply that it utterly and completely fails to provide teens with any information for preventing pregnancy and STDs with the exception of abstinence. Guess what, teens being teens, they sometimes don't listen to you *Mr Fluffy gasps*, even if you invoke the name of deities of high *Mr Fluffy does a double gasp and swoons*.
2. Abstinence plus. This I have some sympathy for. It basically teaches abstinence (Guys having lots of sex = Stud, Girls having lots of sex = Slut). But it recognises the failings of humans....or the power of hormones and an orgasm. As such, it also teaches protection and STD prevention. Summed up it becomes A(bstinence)B(e faithful)C(ondoms).
But the biggest failing is the manner in which it treats teenagers and pre-martital sex. Even if we accept the premise that most teenagers should never have sex (okay, no penetrative sex, but what about the rest?) on the basis that it's the hormones talking and they are not rational enough to make such a massive decision, does the same apply to pre-marital sex.
Consider the following. Puberty strikes earlier. People marry later. That's the alot of time in between when you can't get nookie. Is that a rational thing? Strip out the possiblity of unwanted pregnancies and STDs and mental immaturity, are they ANY other good reasons to deny two loving people who want to fall into bed with each other? Heck, even if they weren't loving but just wanted some fun, is it really that much different from any other physical activity? The only reason one might say so is because of the taboo surrounding it. But is it a rational taboo in this day and age?
Which brings me to another pet gripe. The New Paper ran a similar article which attempted to demonstrate that Singaporean teens were actually conservative after all. There was only one problem. All the people interviewed were FEMALE! This was a clear cut example of the double standards that we apply to virginity in Singapore. Somehow, it was only a female's virginity that was important. WTF?!! How much more sexist and patriachical could you conceivably get? *Mr Fluffy suggests mandating chastity belts that cannot be removed till marriage*
So with that Mr Fluffy has a public service announcement, "Go visit Scarlet Teen"