Education in general is often in the forefront of media and professional attention, and sex education is no different. In order to unpack the messages we are hearing about sex education and how the conversation related to LGBT youth, I will examine three sources that span the “rainbow” of perspectives, if you will.
On one end of the spectrum, there is the infamous abstinence-only education, which dictates that everyone should wait until marriage to have sex. To learn more about this approach to sex education, I visited the National Abstinence Education Association’s website to learn more about this approach. I examined a report published by the organization called The Abstinence Works Report. The document cited many studies that they believe support the use of abstinence education. The rate of success for many of these studies was comparing self-reported pre and post intervention sexual behavior. On the surface this might make sense, since abstinence-only education aims to eliminate all sexual behavior outside of marriage.
However, such an outcome measurement is built upon the notion that teen sexual behavior is something that should be reduced or eliminated in the first place. We would certainly not endorse an intervention aimed at eliminating all peanut butter consumption simply because it was proven to work. We have to think about whether the outcome of the intervention and the desired outcome is the same thing. Measuring the outcome of a sexual education program should include many indicators, such as knowledge about a wide range of related topics and accurate understandings of the benefits and risks to sexual activity. Focusing on one agenda-driven indicator does not evaluate how effective a program is.
On the opposite end of our rainbow spectrum is an article by a counseling psychology graduate student, published by the Huffington Post, that gives several reasons why it is important for schools to adopt LBGT-inclusive sex ed. Goodman argues that exclusively heterosexual-oriented sex education programs alienate LBGT youth and fail to meet their educational needs in this area. This is especially true when an abstinence-only program is taught in a state where same sex marriage is not yet legal. LGBT students are caught in a catch-22, where they would have to remain abstinent their entire lives because they cannot enter into a marriage with their chosen partner.
Goodman also pointed to the school-wide improvements that come with inclusive sex education. Students exposed to sexual diversity are more likely to accept LGBT people. This can result in less bullying and harassment.
To conclude my quest, I came across a very confusing midpoint of the rainbow. Published by the American Psychological Association, this toolbox component gave advice on how to include LGBTQ youth in abstinence-only curriculum. It recommended some ways to reframe the abstinence message for LGBTQ youth. Recommendations include making sexual decisions free of mind-altering substances or circumstances, basing decisions on personal values, and deciding whether or not to be abstinent. Although these recommendations seem like healthy advice to me, it still doesn’t reconcile abstinence’s key tenant—no sex until marriage.
References
Abstinence Works. (2013). National Abstinence Education Association, 19-20. (2013, July 1). Retrieved August 8, 2014.
Framing inclusive abstinence messages with LGBT youth. (2002). American Psychological Association, 19-20. Retrieved August 8, 2014, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/programs/hlgbsp/abstinence-messages.pdf
Goodman, J. (2013, August 30). 5 Reasons Schools Should Adopt LGBTQ-inclusive Sex Ed.Huffpost Gay Voices. Retrieved August 8, 2914, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-a-goodman/lgbtq-inclusive-sex-ed_b_3834914.html
LGBTQ Sex Education 