By J. Donald McLeroy

Special to the Eagle

11 May 1992

Many of us on the Bryan school district's Teen Sexuality Committee firmly believe that a strong abstinence message is the only safe and realistic goal of a sex-education curriculum for our local schools.

Teen promiscuity results in three major risks: ill-timed or unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases-including AIDS, and emotional or psychological damage. In dealing with this problem, the committee is divided into two basic positions: those who favor a strong abstinence message, with contraception discussed in the context of marriage, and those who favor what is termed "comprehensive sex education" and believe we should give out all the appropriate information so that the sexually active teen will at least have the opportunity and knowledge to engage in what they call "protected' sex."

The comprehensive view agrees that abstinence is the best way to go but claim that "realistically" it is an unattainable goal. I will argue that the abstinence view is the realistic one and the only view that offers "protected sex." To begin, let us define what a healthy sexual teen is, according to the two positions, and then see if the behavior described is likely or not.

The goal of teaching abstinence is that our youth accept who they are and respect themselves and others. With a commitment to the fundamental values of self-discipline, restraint and, for some, religious morality, and with a mind that understands the three major risks of promiscuity, these youth value chastity until marriage.

The goal of the comprehensive view is that our youth accept who they are and respect themselves and others, yet indulge in the temporal pleasure of sex. With the comprehensive education they have been taught, they will be faithful to one partner for a period of time, and during sex always use contraceptives; if not prepared, they will abstain until "protected sex" is possible.

Are "the chaste" or "the protected" behaviors realistic? Are they an appropriate goal for a sexually active teen?

Today in our schools "the chaste" exist. Many of us reading this article are proof of the possibility of teen chastity. It has always been possible. It is just as natural to be chaste until marriage as it is to be promiscuous. The desired result of the abstinent view is totally realistic; it happens all the time.

Do "the protected" exist? To better understand this more complex behavior, let us look at a real example of it - the mature marriage. In the privacy of their bedroom, with careful planning, and where even with "spur of the moment" decisions all the necessary contraception is available, "protected sex^" is practiced. Do teens have such a private place? Do they plan so carefully? Do they have the medicine cabinet located so conveniently? Are they so committed? What incredible teens these must be, what mature planners to always find a place with contraception always avail-able and easily usable every time.

In addition, they must be mature enough to overcome their egocentric thinking ("It can't happen to me"), their concrete short-term reasoning ("'Let's eat, drink and be merry."), and the stigma of being known as sexually active ("Psst - they're doing it."). Is such behavior realistic? I believe "the protected," the desired result of the comprehensive view, to be totally unrealistic. It rarely, if ever, happens.

We will now look at which view offers protected sex. "The chaste" are 100 percent protected against the three major risks of promiscuity, and with the specter of AIDS descending on our teens "the chaste" are becoming an extremely advantageous group. I urge all who are abstinent to remain so and those who are not to become so. "The protected" are not so fortunate. Even when they have always used contraception, always utilizing it correctly, they are still at risk for AIDS.

Joseph Sobran, a syndicated columnist, has observed about condoms that "if any other product was to fail so frequently, putting the user at so much risk, Ralph Nader would be calling press conferences to demand the federal government to clamp down on the whole industry."

The truth is "the protected" are only partially protected against pregnancy and STD's. Against the

third risk of promiscuity, the psychological and emotional risks, they are totally unprotected.

I consider the Teen Sexuality Committee to be doing an excellent job. It is accomplishing something no panel of experts could-it is giving our community a forum to discuss and debate its views on a volatile issue, thereby, keeping it under control. Through the involvement of parents, teachers and administrators, its recommendations and findings can help the school board as it seeks to address this subject.

After months of discussions and listening to visiting experts, some of us on the committee are convinced that "realistic" and "protected" are adjectives that should be reserved for the abstinent view.

The comprehensive view is neither realistic nor protective. To encourage sexually active teens to be chaste or to use contraception correctly is difficult, if not impossible. Considering the messages they are receiving from television_, movies and music, and considering the unlikelihood of '⁴protected sex" happening, the abstinent message must be given chance, especially in our schools which should strive for the best.

J. Donald McLeroy is a dentist and a member of the Bryan Teen Sexuality Committee.

(This was originally published in the Bryan-College Station Eagle eleven years ago on 11 May 1992. Today, 12 February 2003, Don McLeroy serves in his second term on Texas' State Board of Education.)