Protection, conception and deception: the sex education debate

One-fourth of the babies born at Mater Dei have unmarried mothers. Unmarried stabile couples may soon have access to free in vitro fertilisation. The state has just budgeted monies for a sexual health campaign. This must make Mikiel Gonzi, the granduncle of the incumbent Prime Minister, stir in his grave. Dwardu Ellul, the anti-clerical poet of the black and white TV era, must be smiling serenely from the heavens.

The current debates over sexual morality, on women's control over their fertility, the demographic implications of lower reproduction rates, the new family structures and initiatives to update and improve sexual education were long overdue. Yet in spite of fast social transformations,some are still struggling to comprehend. Given the contemporary sexual attitudes and practices, the generational gap has never been wider.

Are single mums suckers?

I am not sure when the myth started. When did single mothers actually become symbols of welfare abuse? Perhaps this was a widely diffused idea that was reinforced in a statement by Minister Tonio Fenech. He was concerned about the burden of women who declare their babies have “unknown fathers” merely to obtain state support. Whatever its origin, it is time we stop demonising and turning unmarried parents into scapegoats.

This year, 131 babies were born to teenage mothers. Do we sincerely believe these were all conniving girls who premeditated conception as deception? The big questions is, why are so many young girls recalcitrant users of protection?

In the 1960s the pill opened the way for women to challenge social norms as it gave them full control over their fertility and their future. It then also help improved their possibilities to education and engendered aspirations for career advancement because it protected them from unwelcome pregnancies.

While these women were burning their bras, my nanna meekly took her ‘sins’ to the confessional. Each penetration that did not take place through a hole in her bloomer and each coitus that was intentionally interrupted to avoid yet another pregnancy were obediently revealed to the inquisitive priest.

It feels rather sad that after all these years so many teenage girls still have not realized they need to take control of their own destiny. If they choose to give in to what was described as a ‘hedonistic culture’; they should at least know how not to give up the rest of their lives. The femininisation of poverty is a Maltese reality.

Furthermore, sexual health education is necessary to meet the rise in sexually transmitted diseases. The last time I visited my gynaecologist she looked worried.  “Promiscuity and lack of protection” she said, as she sat behind a pile ‘abnormal’ medical results and braced herself to call and inform her patients. Schools need to contribute towards further awareness but we also need to remember that parents cannot abdicate their responsibilities towards the sexual education of their own children.

Bishop Mario Grech and the press

Journalists are like bloodhounds sniffing for juicy soundbites and Bishop Mario Grech gave them one. The Times reported him as saying: “Teaching students about contraception encourages them to give in to the ‘culture of pleasure’ and is tantamount to abuse”. He reportedly declared schools should be teaching kids how to control their sexual energy and not how to use contraception.  This stirred a backlash from various sectors.

The most vociferous of all was the current Head of the GU Clinic Philip Carabot. A day after the budget speech, Carabot was a happy man. He acknowledging he is soon retiring contented because in his last days he had secured funds to implement a sexual health project. He described the Bishop’s assertions as “unproductive and hysterical”. The Health Minister Joseph Cassar also reacted. He stated that a sexual health policy does not promote contraception but “sexual well-being as an essential component of everybody’s healthy life style”.

Then came the clarification. Mgr Grech said his comments did not mean he was against sexual education but only that this should be embedded in a holistic approach that includes an ethical dimension. If this is what he meant, then perhaps the press decontextualised his original statement. Yet, Church exponents need to become more media savvy as they face a media system that is increasingly secular, liberal and assertive.

Reading Mgr Grech’s second statement and the declarations of his critics, we find they share plenty of common ground. There is nothing wrong if all stakeholders  coordinated and cooperated towards a national plan within the ambit of commonly-shared values and responsibilities.

It is of course not surprising that the Clergy and the State may have divergent views on issues of sexual education. The State must do what it must do. Gone are the late 1980s when the Minister of Education intervened to stop a state-TV campaign that included a few shots that showed condoms in an anti-AIDS announcement. With the realities of today, which include emerging sexual identities, there is no turning back to the stances of yesterday.