Glenden BrownBecause There’s Never Too Much Moralizing
I was getting ready to post part two of my review of Bill Scher’s Wait! Don’t Move to Canada when I saw this gem in USAToday. The headline Abstinence message goes beyond teens describes what is yet another salvo in the right’s culture war on all things. The money quote:
Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the revision is aimed at 19- to 29-year-olds because more unmarried women in that age group are having children.
I suppose it’s no surprise this administration would be slipshod in identifying the problem. The problem is not unmarried women having children - the problem is unmarried women experiencing unintended pregnancies. If a woman chooses to have a child without also having a husband, that’s not a problem to anyone except the finger wagging scolds currently mismanaging our nation. The goal of sexuality education should be empowering all people to make sexual choices consistent with their personal morality, not enforcing a particular view of sexual morality.
My favorite quote from the article comes from James Waggoner of Advocates For Youth:
They’ve stepped over the line of common sense . . . To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It’s an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health.
Abstinence only sex education is an abject failure, an absolute waste of the people’s tax dollars. It is bad public policy.
Rep. Henry Waxman commissioned a study of abstinence only programs. His report found that 11 of the 13 most widely used abstinence only programs contained factual errors and distortions. Most abstinence only programs represent gender stereotypes as fact, contain harmful stereotypes of glbt persons, misrepresent facts about the effectiveness of contraception, and contains and misleading information about the risks of sexual activity.
In the real world, abstinence only sex education is about indoctrinating participants with a particular form of sexual morality. In the real world, graduates of abstinence only programs are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors, less likely to use protection, and more likely than their peers to engage in unprotected oral and anal intercourse, all of which result in higher incidence of STI’s and untintended pregnancy. For a quick round up of the real world effects of abstinence only miseducation, visit here.
Here’s how I would apply Bill Scher’s three R’s of liberal government to the issue. Abstinence only is unrepresenative - overwhelming majorities (+80%) support comprehensive sexuality education. Abstinence only is unresponsive - the real world effects actually worsen the problems proponents claim to be addressing. It is irresponsible - it is a waste of valuable resources on useless programs that harm people and communities. This is just one more salvo in the right’s culture war, one more attempt to force the rest of us to conform to conservative morality.
October 31st, 2006 at 11:06 am
Gah! this contradicts the latest right-wing push to get women to have kids in their 20s. There has been “study” after “study” and scare tactic stories about how women who choose a career over children or before children are regretting it, how women who have kids in their 20s and stay home with them are happier than women with careers, how women who delay having children until their 30s might not be able to have kids at all, etc . . .What are women supposed to do with such mixed messages? Start studying up on how to trap a man into marriage at the youngest possible age?
October 31st, 2006 at 12:15 pm
While I agree that sex ed needs to include safe sex, birth control. I don’t see why it is such a waste, or so “bigoted” to preach abstinance from sex outside of commited relationships. It is one strong means of preventing the spread of STD’s, it is a strong means of lowering the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, and is generally (if the couple is in a faithful, honest, and loving relationship) a happy way to raise children.
I maybe off in my Happy Valley here, but I don’t see that it is a bad idea to include a focus on abstinence as an alternative to the casual sex culture that America has largely become.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Phillip - comprehensive sexuality education teaches the value of abstinence - for preventing both unintended pregnancy and STI’s - and it teaches contraception, decision making, relationship, refusal and c0mmunication skills. As a sexuality educator, I teach that sexuality is healthier when expressed within a relationship and that abstinence is healthier for adolescents. However, I have no illusions that people will remain abstinent forever and comprehensive sexuality education prepares people to make sexually healthy choices.
Abstinence-only education - the type being proposed for 20 somethings, over 90% of whom have had ex - teaches gender stereotypes (ie men only want sex and women only want love) as scientific fact. They teach that any sexual activity outside of marriage inevitably leads to a host of emotional, physical, and psychological problems. These programs teach that marriage is the only viable form of committed relationship. Abstinence only programs perpetuate negative and harmful stereotypes about gay and lesbian persons. These programs are filled with misinformation about the effectiveness of contraception and medically inaccurate information about STI transmission and treatment (ie most assert that most STI result in infertility which is untrue if they are treated).
I’m in favor of teaching abstinence; I’m also in favor of teaching everything else. The premise is simple: accurate, complete, age appropriate information about sexuality is helpful not harmful to persons.
FWIW, students who complete comprehensive sexuality education not only delay sexual activity significantly, when they do become sexually active, they experience far fewer unintended pregnancies and STI’s than do individuals who did not complete such programs.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Jenni - Snark Alert.
Man Trapping 101. It’s the answer to all of a woman’s problems.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Thanks for your reply Glenden.
I agree that there needs to be a comprehensive approach to sex education as you discussed, but it seems to me (I may be “doobie-smokin” wrong) that abstinence is treated lightly, with a wink/nod “yeah right only with the patience of Job” ideal. If I’m correct in my perception, than I would have to argue that this is a cynical approach to an ideal that has alot of social and moral merit.
October 31st, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Phillip – Talking about abstinence is one of the toughest balancing acts in sexuality education!
46% of teens between 15 and 19 have engaged in sexual intercourse. However, that doesn’t capture the trend – at age 15 approximately 20% of teens have engaged in intercourse. By 18, it rises to 60%. As the facilitator I want to affirm the experiences and choices of students who have chosen to remain abstinent and those who have chosen to engage in sexual intercourse as well as those who may not have had that choice – victims of sexual abuse or assault. So, I would lead a discussion about what they understand abstinence to be and the fact that a person can choose to be abstinent at any point in their life – that abstinence isn’t just for virgins and teenagers. My goal would be to talk about abstinence without shaming those who have already engaged in sexual intercourse or who have been sexually victimized.
With middle school students, the number of students who have engaged in sexual intercourse is most likely quite low. So, again, I would lead a discussion to define abstinence, lead activities to allow the participants to think about why a person might choose to remain abstinent (all the reasons of emotional, physical, spiritual and psychological health) and why a person might choose to not remain abstinent. Since approximately 1/3 of girls and 1/7 of boys are victims of sexual abuse, I would want to be very careful about my use of language; victims of sexual abuse are already dealing with enough without having to feel they have failed or are dirty. So I would talk about abstinence as a choice of behavior, not a state of being.
It’s a huge challenge and something approached respectfully, carefully and honestly.
October 31st, 2006 at 11:00 pm
You wrote “. . .more likely than their peers to engage in unprotected oral and anal intercourse, all of which result in higher incidence of STI’s and untintended pregnancy.”
I didn’t know that oral and anal intercourse resulted in (unintended) pregnancies. This sounds like something the Christians teach their kids. This must be one of those inaccuracies that Waxman found.
October 31st, 2006 at 11:11 pm
From my work with kids I get one thing fur sure, they have well-functioning hypocracy antenna. If you don’t give it too them straight, you’ll get nothing.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:15 am
Glendon, abstinence teaching works in Europe, as young people there are presented with all options, and the average age of first sexual encounter in most most European nations is 17.4, comapared to our own 14 yrs in the US, and 12 in many cases in Utah.
The discrepancy in the US-European data can only suggest that kids are listening to the 100% way to not get diseases or become pregnant.
Abstinence. Millions of undiseased teens and unborn children(in Europe) can’t be wrong
November 1st, 2006 at 9:11 am
I agree with Glen that abstinence should be taught as well — and that it’s the best way to prevent disease and pregnancy. That’s why I like comprehensive sexuality education, and I like the program that Glen teaches in particular because it addresses it in an honest way, unlike the programs taught by religious righties, while also addressing the real world situation where people have hormones and drives.
I’m sure that the European kids that cassander metions get not only good info on abstinence, but also on healthy sexuality and safe sex as well. Their cultures tend to have a lot less shame surrounding sexuality than we do here. My experience with with several of the European cultures is that they have a more realistic view of sex and don’t have the puritanical schizophrenia that we have here. I can see how abstinence taught in a more open and honest environment would be more effective than in our own.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:58 am
Sure they get all the info, and wait to sexualize themselves, as they are taught all the implications of doin’ it.
As for puritanical schizophrenia we have to consider the origins of those that settled here and the legacy. In addition the perverted reaction to puritanism should also be looked at. All in all, we are a pretty unbalanced group of people, if anyone had not noticed, easily the most dangerous on the planet.
It explains why most people don’t like us, personally, mainly because most of the views we tend to hold are unbalanced.
November 1st, 2006 at 11:09 am
Cornholio - didn’t I see you on south park? I should have broken that too long, confusing sentence into several short ones: In the real world, graduates of abstinence only programs are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors. They are less likely to use contraception, resulting in more unintended pregnancies. They are more likely than their peers to engage in unprotected oral and anal intercourse, which results in higher incidence of STI’s.
Jenni is right. Youth in Europe receive comprehensive sexuality education. True story: An American sexuality educator was in Europe. He asked his counterparts there how they worked with politicians to implement effective programs. They were astonished and asked him “Why would politicians have anything to do with sexuality education? They don’t know anything about it! Their job is find the money, our job is to do the education right.â€
The European model of sexuality education results in significantly lower rates of STI’s, dramatically lower rates of unintended pregnancy, and a significantly lower abortion rate than the US. It works for teens and adults.
As far as the age at first intercourse: According to Guttmacher, average age at first intercourse for American males is 16.9 years, for American females it is 17.4 years. I’m searching for the exact stats for Europe but I’ve read that the ages for Europeans are slightly older.
I remain bothered by the complete daftness of the Bush administration and its conservative allies in pushing abstinence-only mis-education on 20 somethings. This is a prime example of conservatives attempting to force their restrictive morality on the rest of us. Abstinence only is indoctrination dressed as education, sold using fear and lies, filled with distortions of fact, and resulting in negative outcomes for individuals, communities and America. Twenty-somethings don’t need finger wagging lectures about keeping their knees glued together; they need complete, accurate information, access to medical services and contraception, and opportunities to build relationship and communication skills. In other words, they need what the rest of us need.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pm
I spent my freshman year of high school in California, 1977. We were mandated to be taught sex education, it ran the gamut for us, and though they didn’t teach what to do to protect yourself with regards to anal sex, they covered everything else, I knew of the practice, and figured the path to safety was implied.
Condom usage, diseases, symptoms, pregnancy, infants, anatomy, function, pretty much the whole thing. Everyone had to take it, we were 14. I guess since the data quoted here would represent some of that time period, I guess it didn’t work too well, what with aids rates, and clymydia, warts, herpes, teen pregnancy rates, etc etc.
Maybe the problem is cultural. I don’t know Guttmacher, who is he asking?
November 1st, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Cassandra - I think is our societal schizophrenia about sexuality contributes to the problem.
Rather than openly and honestly talk about it, we pathologize honest talk about sexuality then give tacit approval to highly imagery that is sexualized, violent, and exploitive. We’re simultaneously obsessed and scandalized by our own obsession with sexuality. We hold men and women to different standards then wonder why we have such problems around sexuality and sexual behavior. A woman who actually prepares to be sexually active – by actually learning about contraception and having it on hand – is stigmatized as a slut; a woman who does nothing to prepare herself is at the mercy of her partner and if she has sex, she’s stigmatized as a slut and a welfare queen if she gets pregnant. Men are taught that it’s okay to be promiscuous and sexually irresponsible and largely given a free pass for almost any chaos left in the wake of their irresponsible actions. We don’t teach the facts then we’re amazed that people make unhealthy choices.
Guttmacher’s (it’s actually the Guttmacher Institute) numbers come from several sources including the National Survey of Adolescent Men, National Survey of Families and Households and the National Survey of Men as well as the CDC and Census Bureau.
November 1st, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Well Guttmacher in German means “good maker” maybe of numbers in this case.
Perhaps these numbers are pretty meaningless given the context of teen moms, which last time I checked, meant someone has had sex. The “Gutte-nachrichten”, good news, is that there appears to be less teen moms lately.
Just read an article from english data that says promiscuity and disease and high teen birth rates are largely unrelated. So it appears that as long as you are in the right crowd, f*** all you want.
Most all women get laid eventually, alcohol being a law, and most are using birth control, except fundamentalists,…. so are you maintaining that the culture believes that women that f*** are sluts? That men that get around are valued studs? Once again, who are you asking? I believe you have resided in or spent entirely too much time in Utah.
I know many men that advise their boys on the perils of F******, despite the act and it’s consequences being a primary family value, not to mention fun. You have to F*** to have a genetic family, and that includes test tube f******. It’s a family value.
It is obvious America has issues with its sexuality, but there isn’t anything new about that.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
This is exactly what I expected to find out after reading the title s Never Too Much Moralizing. Thanks for informative article