Mary Anne Mosack
We are sometimes questioned why we frame the Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) message in the context of marriage. The real question is: If you are committed to giving young people the information that affords the best advantage for achieving optimal health and well-being, why wouldn’t you frame any discussion about sexual intimacy in the context of marriage? Especially since social science research shows undeniably positive outcomes for the individual and society when sexual activity takes place in the context of marriage. These outcomes are overwhelmingly beneficial for parents and children, and include: enhanced emotional support, vastly lower poverty rates, better academic success, lower rates of crime and incarceration, child abuse, and domestic violence. Marriage is clearly a protective factor.
THEREFORE: Any sex education program that does not discuss sexual activity in the context of marriage, or at a minimum, the clear benefits of sexual delay, engages in a form of Advantage Discrimination that is unacceptable for America’s youth. All students, regardless of their past or present sexual activity or their current cultural, economic, or geographical circumstance, deserve to receive information that will give them the best advantage for a life of health and well-being. To this end, there should be no participation in “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” We must proactively seek to empower students to avoid all sexual risk as a best practice approach for achieving optimal health and life success. We firmly reject engaging in Advantage Discrimination!