An interesting essay published recently in The American Prospect by Courtney Martin argues that abstinence-only education at the high school level is responsible in large part for what she calls the “toxic sexual culture” on college campuses across the U.S. She writes:

The abstinence-only sex education that most young men and women receive does not teach them how to articulate their own sexual needs and respect those articulated by their partners. Teens who are merely told "Just don’t do it" are lacking more than an anatomy lesson or information on contraceptive choices. They are also missing out on essential communication skills and life-saving knowledge about sex and power. Which is bad news for teenagers in our paradoxically hyper-sexual and hyper-conservative contemporary America who are in desperate need of wise mentorship.

Similar arguments have been made elsewhere and at much greater length (Judith Levine’s Harmful to Minors comes to mind, along with several essays in the Ragged Edge) but a wonderful dialogue has bloomed in response to Martin’s essay. Mostly people are responding to the desperate need for more comprehensive sex education, but others are questioning whether or not sex education alone, even when it’s comprehensive, can affect the kind of change needed to reduce sexual assaults on campus (and elsewhere). One person responding to the article and an editorial on RH RealityCheck wrote:

Sex education curricula is important, but the differences in quality and access that more or less privileged and more or less academically advanced young people find to clinical services -- health care and social services -- is arguably more significant than the difference that good and bad sex education makes to them. It's the clinics and the counseling setting where young people are going to go for help and care. They're not likely going to pull out their notes from their high school sex education module when they get sick, scared, or hurt, or when they fall in love and want to start a family.

I’m not sure how I feel about this point, but I’m sure glad it was made. On the one hand, imagining what sort of society we would be if we all had equal access to comprehensive sex education (which would include education about homophobia, sexual violence, and more) is nearly impossible. It’s like imaging a world without rigid gender roles. On the other hand, there’s something that rings true about the point that sex education in schools isn’t enough, that truly comprehensive sex education needs to happen everywhere; in medical clinics, at the dinner table, in front of the TV, you name it. And I’m certainly aware of the fact that some of the people doing this sort of education (Ducky Doolittle comes immediately to mind) aren’t working inside of any education system at all.

In the end, asking whether or not sex education is enough seems moot since so few of us get it in the first place. But it is an important question to ask, if for no other reason because it demands that we imagine a better world, and ask ourselves what role we’re playing in getting us there.

Related - Does abstinence-only sex education work?

Previously - What's Behind the Drop in Teen Pregnancy in the U.S.? ; Over $1 Billion Spent on Abstinence-Only Sex Education Since 1998 ; Guess What You Won't Be Hearing About? ; Medical Students to Hear about Abstinence, Whether They Like it or Not. ; New Abstinence Only Guidelines Reach New Low