This is a response to the column (Pacific Daily News) by Professor James Giles entitled “Only a thorough, honest sex education can prevent teen pregnancies on island.”
Professor Giles states “sex and pregnancy are far from necessarily connected”. His answer to the problem of teen pregnancy is to teach our children to satisfy themselves sexually by teaching them “alternatives to sexual intercourse”.
The list of alternatives would be a very short list. Actually there is only one entry (though there are various forms of it).Given this we must assume that for Giles the primary reason for sexual activity is self-gratification. But then sex and sexual gratification aren’t “necessarily connected” either (just ask most women).
Like it or not, sex is about babies. Always was, always will be. That’s what nature has designed sex for. For that to be otherwise there has to be some sort of chemical or mechanical intervention, a disruption of nature.
Now, if you haven’t noticed yet, I haven’t made any appeal to God or religion or morality. And I’m not going to. There is no need. Nature speaks loud enough for itself.
Since there can be no doubt that sex is for babies, the next question is what are babies for? (Sorry for the dumb questions.) Nature has a simple answer: propagation of the species. All living things are designed to make more of whatever it is they are. (I’ll leave it up to you to answer the question “designed by who?”)
Now, since the big answer is propagation, the next question is then how best to raise the baby so that he/she will in turn have the best chance to propagate in turn.
First, as per human beings, nature has designed that there needs to be a man and a woman involved. Second, since childbearing will necessarily incapacitate the woman for awhile it falls to the man to provide protection and nourishment. Simple survival dictates this arrangement.
From this point on societies begin to differ on the means of how best to integrate the child into the larger community. And this is the real question that Guam has to answer for itself: What is the best context in which to raise up a child?
Should there be some sort of brave new world methodology? Or should there be a kind of “it takes a village” approach that just sort of absorbs the responsibilities of raising up a child and liberates the propagating humans to procreate with abandon? (That’s sort of what is happening now.)
Or should there be the traditional model of one man and one woman committed to each other for life and to their family? If so, then we should continue to preach and teach the maxim: “not ready for marriage, not ready for sex”.
I don’t deny Professor Giles his right to state his mind or teach his children to masturbate if he wishes, but I won’t be sending any of my kids to his classes anytime soon.