Abstinence Education Theory - Review II

Yesterday, I began a review of abstinence education theory as an intro into the new policy analysis side of this blog.  Admittedly, my review, up to this point, has centered on weak arguments and focused in on the ambiguity of grammatical usage, i.e. disproving a conclusion through targeting its premises.  Okay, today, I'm focusing on misinformation of one particular type.  In particular, I want to address the issue of myths about contraception being widespread, as recently demonstrated in the UK (or easily available on a laughable enterprise like Yahoo! Answers (Possible NSFW Link)).

Much of abstinence education theory is aimed at teenagers.  The education geared towards abstinence is, at least in some places, not supplemented with basic information on pregnancy and conception.  If history tells us anything it tells us that people have this driving urge to reproduce and we just won't be able to stop that from happening (nor should we).   But really, we do need to be more conscientious of making sure people are informed of basic information about the human body and the reproductive system.

The question we should concern ourselves with is how to effectively deliver this information.  One of the main points I want to get across is that 'what you don't know can't hurt you' is not an effective approach to sexual relations.  When one in five British women are listing bizarre uses of kitchen utensils as birth control methods we, Americans, should look at our own society, which probably isn't so different from Britain on this count, and reassess what and how we are informing our citizens.  It's not that the focus should be on birth control methods.  But, when we assess what demographics, what populations are most susceptible to contracting and spreading sexually transmitted diseases it follows that we should look harder at the groups who are ignorant than the ones who are knowledgeable.

Admittedly, knowledge doesn't solve everything.  By all counts Ted Kaczynski was a pretty knowledgeable guy but he did commit some horrific crimes.  So, we cannot necessarily say that people by having knowledge will necessarily make good choices.  People are, unfortunately, likely to "use their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity." But, it is hard to say that ignorance does not play some sort of role in acting malignantly.  Certainly, people must make choices and those choices are necessarily contributed to not only by social convention and pressure but also knowledge or absence thereof.  

Further, it is necessary that in discussing the subject of abstinence education theory we also discuss the only marginally related factors of social networks and other peer-to-peer interactions.  These areas contribute substantially to the decisions of teens.  When discussing these issues in-depth we come to the realization that such seemingly unrelated factors such as truth versus perception must also be discussed and somehow a coherent view of these factors must be conveyed to teenagers.  It is a common error to believe that the perception of something is the same as the reality of that same thing.  There are some things in our control, some things which we can act upon with certainty, those things are our perceptions.  Those things we cannot control, those things which we err when acting upon are that which we call the perceptions others craft for themselves or others, namely reputation.  Reputations are not reality, they are but amalgamations of opinions, others' opinions.

The problem when we discuss abstinence education theory is not necessarily the theory itself, or that which opposes the theory, but, rather, the very implementation of the theory.  It is well and good to recognize the wisdom of Freud's insight into man's motivation being sexuality but that is a far step removed from controlling that motivation.  Many smokers recognize that smoking is bad for their health but that in itself is not enough to stop them from smoking.  It is an effort of personal will that allows smokers to stop smoking alongside other innumerable factors.  Abstinence theory seeks to impart that 'effort of personal will' in teenagers in order to motivate them to stop having sexual relations.  Abstinence theory seeks to create and control some of those other innumerable factors which will allow teenagers to abstain from sexual relations.  This is well and good, in theory, but it must be hard for smokers to quit when their families smoke or cigarettes are handed out free on street corners.  So too will it be hard to impart that 'effort' on teenagers who themselves are responding to the most basic and pure of biological urges.  It is hard for reason to conquer desire.  It is harder still to explain why what one perceives as reasonable is reasonable and should be conquering the alternatives.  That, in a word, is the problem with abstinence education theory.  It is unable to control the message and because of this it is unable to control the action and so there will always be teenagers having sexual relations.

Natch Greyes provides commentary and analysis on elections and policy agendas in American politics. Sphere: Related Content