let's talk about sex baby

So, talking about sex is what I do. And if I’m not talking about it, I’m researching about it. I’m thinking about it, I’m planning for my next programme about it. I’ve had a couple of questions about how this topic goes over in the conservative Kerala culture, or how personal morals and the programmes I lead relate and influence each other, if they do at all. I recently came across an excellent journal from Johns Hopkins, which exactly describes these relations and challenges, so I’ve included some of the key point relevant to my work here.

Public health is not always easy. It is not always popular or met with unanimous agreement. In seeking to preserve human health, it touches on the more intimate parts of individual lives and the thorniest of societal issues. Sex is a difficult topic because of the strong religious and moral beliefs that people bring to it. One of the most common of human activities, sex is also one of the most uncomfortable topics of discussion. And this is dangerous for the public’s health. When human sexuality is involved, rational discourse seems tragically difficult. Warring segments of society struggle to suppress or dominate the discussion. The result? Science is too often set aside, and the most elemental public health strategies are branded as suspect.

Of course, sex is not the public health problem, however it is not without shadows, it has its risks- numerous risks. A convenient means of pathogenic transport, sex can exchange a host of viruses and bacteria between humans, with consequences that range from inconvenient to lethal. Societal attitudes and customs exacerbate these risks, and possess inclinations to make sex taboo. Human societies have long shrouded sexuality in myth, ritual, secrecy, and ill-considered legislation. With heart breaking frequency, the consequences are sterility, obstetric fistula, school failure or death. Consider female genital cutting, child marriage and prohibitions on comprehensive sex education. Consider HIV/AIDS, family planning, STIs, maternal mortality, human right violations, condoms, abstinence, abortion. The connections between sex and health are as numerous as they are obvious.

The theme: if you want to save lives, you have to be able to talk frankly about sex and how it affects human health, regardless. Without open communication, and the free flow of knowledge, we cannot discover the most effective methods of preventing HIV, or resolving other difficult issues. This is what public health does: provide uncensored information to improve health. Work at the interface of behavior and society to minimize risk and negative outcomes. Public health exists to help sex workers decrease the risk of STIs and their consequences. It works with men who have sex with men to increase condom use and diminish the risk of HIV/AIDS. It works with schools and policymakers to institute evidence-based sex education to give young people lifesaving knowledge. What shouldn’t we do? We should not stigmatize sex. We should not make sex the problem. That’s counterintuitive. That’s counter to reality. After all, we are sexual beings.

So that’s what I do. It is my duty, my responsibility, to illuminate society’s most difficult issues, to wade into issues tangled by controversy, strongly held beliefs and preconceptions, and hopefully, bring knowledge that will serve human health. I cannot afford not to talk about sex and its related controversial subjects. The situation is not going to improve without knowledge and education of the next generation of leaders to possess the knowledge to make informed healthy decisions. Whether the topic is unpleasant, or makes some people uncomfortable, it is knowledge that society needs. It is essential to the mission of protecting health and saving lives.

I also think that this articles is worth noting regarding abstinence only programs:

“When one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and teen birth rates have risen for the first time since 1991, it is time to reconsider Congress' bewildering commitment to abstinence-until-marriage programs. These programs teach that delaying sex until marriage is the only sure way to avoid STIs and unwanted pregnancy. Contraception is not discussed. More than $1 billion has been spent on these programs since 1996; $176 million was allocated last year. (To put this in context, consider that $215 million was allocated for the federal Title X family planning program.) Critics have argued that there is no evidence that these programs are effective. In response, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a rigorous experimental study to evaluate some of the strongest abstinence-only programs. The results came in last year. The programs evaluated had no effect on participants' delaying of sexual initiation, and they had no effect on their use of contraception. Do these results merit continued federal funding at this level? Apparently so. The program is scheduled to be refunded with more dollars than ever—even though 16 states refuse to put their own funds into these types of programs and therefore do not participate. Other science-based prevention options have been demonstrated to be effective. Several programs with a focus on abstinence plus contraception have undergone rigorous evaluation and demonstrated improvements, albeit modest ones, in teenagers' contraceptive use and delay of sexual initiation. Why aren't we investing in these better bets? Why do we continue to fund programs that deny teenagers the knowledge and skills they need to make healthy, fully informed decisions?”