Condom giveaway will add to problems

The Editor: WHEN Svenn Miki Grant distributed contraceptives to students outside of a secondary school, it should have provided a very clear picture in the minds of policy makers, teachers and parents of the depths to which the social sectors have deteriorated.

It should in fact have been a rude wake up call for the decision makers in Trinidad and Tobago — this is where our country has come and these are the people who are gaining influence over children. Grant’s action was highly irresponsible and showed an over zealousness on his part to act, regardless of whether proper thought was given on possible outcomes. The action shows too that Grant, in his haste to take a stand and do something outrageous, neglected to consider the many stages that children must be taken through before they are handed contraceptives. Students in the existing school system and other teenagers and young adults outside of the school system need to have many needs met before they can be brought to the stage of having such easy access to contraceptives. They need to be re-educated and to some extent, re-socialised into understanding that sex is not based on a point system so that friends can call you “big man” or “big oman”.

They need to understand that sex is not about achieving social acceptance. They need to understand that sex is not a must, but rather a choice that involves two people, a choice that is made once you have arrived at the right level of thinking and after much consideration. They also need to understand that sex is not a man’s decision. More than that, they need to understand the range of possibilities that arise from sex and the fact that they could face new, very heavy responsibilities.Had Grant given real thought and consulted with persons in fields of specialisation such as education, family planning, youth development, Government, religion, communications and business, the current scenario would not have arisen. An activist seeking the interest of the teenager and young adult must necessarily consider where the child’s heart and mind are at. He must consider if the child or teenager or young adult:
— fully understands his own emotions?
— understands the nature of sexual contact?
— understands how his actions can impact on the lives of others?
— has a grounding in a particular religion?
— has a stable home life?
— has personal mental or emotional problems?
— knows how to use contraceptives?
— have sufficient sexual education?

I have in the past been a strong advocate for the upgrading of the school curriculum to include sex education. In the face of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases spreading at uncontrollable rates, children need to be educated on the different aspects of sex if they are to become partners in curbing the spread of diseases. What children do not need is to get mixed messages from persons they see as exemplars. Someone walking onto a school compound and sharing contraceptives can easily send the wrong message. The teenager can easily walk away convinced that: “Okay, well what I am doing is right, I just need to use this thing.” The argument of whether pre-marital sex is right or wrong is not my concern here as this should be a strictly personal decision made by a person who has all the facts. My argument is that such an action should not have been taken before the activist came up with a plan to properly guide children through the stages of sex education. And in all fairness to the many parents trying to do the right thing by their children, Grant’s rebellious actions could well have undermined their own plans for their children’s development.

We ought not try to hide from the fact that the number of persons engaged sexual promiscuity can possibly amount to enough to remove or install an entire Government. That is a fact that we cannot escape. We also cannot hide from the fact that, in spite of talk of tough measures of fight HIV/AIDS by the current and past Governments, there are people in this country who are not aware of what HIV/AIDS is. That is the reality of the lack of sexual education our children have. And in passing out contraceptives to children of varying degrees of sexual awareness, Grant has added to the problem rather than done something to help. His action was tantamount to giving a boat and oars to someone, unable to swim and with no idea of the sea, telling him he didn’t have to worry about swimming anymore. That person might make it out to sea and back safely, but what happens if he falls into the water? That Grant has shown clearly his willingness to take action is very encouraging, but as with everything else, there must be a very thorough assessment of the problem, proposals for possible solutions, consideration of the possible drawbacks and then action. I feel sure that Grant’s heart is in the right place and he tried to do something positive, but his action showed quite clearly that there was little thought behind his move. What his organisation should be advocating and seeking support for is the implementation of sexual education progammes in schools. In fact, he should even call together expertise to draft it into syllabus form and present it to the Minister of Education, while at the same time, trying to cooperate with other organisations to build effective awareness programmes.

Roger D Ramcharitar
Chaguanas