Recently in Abstinence-Only Education Category

Our gal Vanessa has a piece up at AlterNet today on a topic that won't be a surprise to regular Feministing readers: how the Christian right is trying to make abstinence cool.

Study after study has shown that those schooled in abstinence rhetoric are just as sexually active as those who aren't, leaving the right wing with virtually no credibility on the subject. Now, conservatives have to be a little savvier if they want to lie about condoms' effectiveness against sexually transmitted infections, make bogus claims about a link between abortion and breast cancer, or manipulate teens into thinking that premarital sex is damaging to one's self-worth. That's why conservative ideologues have taken abstinence-only discourse outside of the classroom and are trying to woo students through a different strategy: by making abstinence the teen trend of the year.

To boost the no-sex-'til-marriage cool factor, conservatives are co-opting everything from teen magazines to fashion to comedy routines. But behind the trendy talk are the same shame-inducing tactics and medical misinformation that could potentially put teens' self-esteem, health and lives in danger.

Read the rest here.

If I didn't know better I would think it was my birthday - because it's not often that an anti-feminist organization gives you a gift like this one.

The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute* has put out Sense & Sexuality, a handy little anti-feminist guide to sex by none other than Miriam Grossman, author of the slut-shaming book Unprotected (not to be confused with the similarly titled slut-shaming book Unhooked).

Seriously, every page is priceless - so it's hard to know what to highlight. But here are some of my favorite tidbits.

On the biology of why dudes will fuck you and dump you:

When it comes to sex, oxytocin, like alcohol, turns red lights green. It plays a major role in what's called "the biochemistry of attachment." Because of it, you could develop feelings for a guy whose last intention is to bond with you. You might think of him all day, but he can't remember your name.

On the dangers of "hooking up":

As the number of casual sex partners in the past year increased, so did signs of depression in college women.

On why women with HPV are unlovable drop-outs:

Even though these infections are common, and usually disappear with time, learning you have one can be devastating. Natural reactions are shock, anger, and confusion. Who did I get this from, and when? Was he unfaithful? Who should I tell? And hardest of all: Who will want me now? These concerns can affect your mood, concentration, and sleep. They can deal a serious blow to your self esteem. And to your GPA.

On why you should get to the baby-making ASAP:

Remember that motherhood doesn't always happen when the time is right for you; there's a window of opportunity, then the window closes.

On wishing herpes on fictional characters:

It's easy to forget, but the characters on Grey's Anatomy and Sex in the City are not real. In real life, Meredith and Carrie would have warts or herpes. They'd likely be on Prozac or Zoloft.

But really and truly it's page 16, in its entirety, that's my favorite. Check it after the jump. Then laugh yourself to sleep tonight. I know I will.

*The organization that also brought you one of the top 10 anti-feminist videos and the "bring back the hope chest" campaign.

As you've probably noticed, the editors at feministing tend to be pretty fascinated and outraged by the state of sex education in this country. Well, so is sociologist Jessica Fields, and she's done an amazing, comprehensive, visionary study of the ways in which our pedagogy on sex shortchanges all of us. Her book, Risky Lessons: Sex Education and Social Inequality, is the best I've read on the subject--excelling on both the nitty gritty level (she's really in classrooms, really observing teachers and students wrestling with poor curriculum) and the big picture level. Where the latter is concerned, she basically lays out a liberation philosophy for sex education. You think I'm kidding?:

...if education is an opportunity for students and teachers to face and reimagine those constraining definitions, then sex education insists upon the importance of young people's desire, pleasure, and power in that reimagining. Young people's desires and pleasures have the potential to remake the world.

Warning: Fields is an academic, so there are times when the prose doesn't exactly sing, but I was actually pretty transfixed the entire time. She doesn't do any insecure academic posturing (big words, over-referencing of Foucault etc.) and she seems to really emotionally engage with this material. There's even some personal narrative sprinkled in.

Thanks Jessica Fields. I hope this book is read far and wide.

California high school senior Margaret Dupes had an editorial about abstinence-only education pulled from her school paper - and now she's fighting back, along with a students' rights organization.

"Why do the schools only preach 'abstinence only' education?" Dupes wrote in her editorial. "It is not the decision of your health teacher, your principal, the school nurse, or even your school board - but a decision forced upon state and local governments by the Bush Administration that is ideologically, rather than empirically, driven."

The piece never saw the light of day. Fallbrook High Principal Rod King ordered the student paper's adviser, Dave Evans, to pull it from the last issue in May.

"I didn't really understand why this was being pulled," Dupes said. "Mr. Evans said that Mr. King was uncomfortable with the content."

Now the Student Press Law Center is protesting the decision - here's hoping something comes of it.

It's kind of hilarious that schools have no problem teaching medically inaccurate, biased information about sex and relationships, but a little free speech makes them "uncomfortable."

(By the way, on the off chance that Dupes reads Feministing - you can publish your editorial here!)

Reader Carolyn points out that there's something kind of hilarious about an abstinence thong. Also, you have to love the tagline: "Earn your right to wear white."

Charming. I especially like the downward pointing arrows.

Also, not to nitpick, but shouldn't it be 'enter' when married? I mean, what kind of sex are these abstinence folks planning on having?

Pic from Time.

I nearly lost my mind when I read this gushing piece from Time Magazine about purity balls.

What was amazing to me about the reporting of this article was despite hearing all of these creepy anecdotes - and admitting that girls as young as four are participating in a ceremony about their virginity - writer Nancy Gibbs still managed to be smitten over the whole shebang. (One of the subheads actually reads 'A Delicate Dance')

But first...a creepy anecdote.

Kylie Miraldi has come from California to celebrate her 18th birthday tonight. She'll be going to San Jose State on a volleyball scholarship next year. Her father, who looks a little like Superman, is on the dance floor with one of her sisters; he turns out to be Dean Miraldi, a former offensive lineman with the Philadelphia Eagles. When Kylie was 13, her parents took her on a hike in Lake Tahoe, Calif. "We discussed what it means to be a teenager in today's world," she says. They gave her a charm for her bracelet--a lock in the shape of a heart. Her father has the key. "On my wedding day, he'll give it to my husband," she explains. "It's a symbol of my father giving up the covering of my heart, protecting me, since it means my husband is now the protector. He becomes like the shield to my heart, to love me as I'm supposed to be loved."

Paging Dr. Freud! But Gibbs is loving it.

Leave aside for a moment the critics who recoil at the symbols, the patriarchy, the very use of the term purity, with its shadow of stains and stigma. Whatever guests came looking for, they are likely to come away with something unexpected. The goal seems less about making judgments than about making memories.

And making sure young women think their worth is dependent on whether or not they're sexual. So, no Ms. Gibbs, I think I won't "leave aside" that very real and very dangerous message. Thanks anyway!

Gibbs continues to totally miss the point:

Purity is certainly a loaded word--but is there anyone who thinks it's a good idea for 12-year-olds to have sex? Or a bad idea for fathers to be engaged in the lives of their daughters and promise to practice what they preach? Parents won't necessarily say this out loud, but isn't it better to set the bar high and miss than not even try?

Are families who don't expect their daughters to promise their virginity to their dads promoting sex for 12 year-olds? Can't dads be engaged in the lives of their daughters without worrying about the state of their hymen? And is telling women that their moral compass lays in between their legs really setting the bar high?

Flowery language and valorizing these days doesn't change what purity balls are about: the ownership and fetishizing of young girls' sexuality. Perhaps someone should remind Time of that fact.

Hey folks, I'm looking for stories about experiences women have had in abstinence-only education classes. If you have a doozy that you're dying to get off your chest, and don't mind being quoted in the book I'm writing, pretty please email me (subject line: abstinence class) with the dirty details!

Many thanks...

From Janice Turner, who teaches Power of Purity classes in Alabama:

"Girls give in to sex not because they want sex - it's like a hug. If they can get that from their fathers, they won't need it from a boyfriend."

Oh, puke. There are lots of things I'd like to get from my dad - a phone call, advice about what to get my mom for her birthday, a run in the park with our dogs - but some stand-in for fucking definitely isn't one of them.

From Community Blogger Lauren:

Way back in January there was a post about an abstinence-only video that used duct tape as a metaphor for one's body. The duct tape was being stuck to doors, walls, garbage cans, and a fat girl. It ended by saying "What if two clean pieces stuck together? They could stay together forever!" And that, dear friends, is the set up for a rant.

Read the full post here.

What a dick. A Boston Herald op-ed covers this "Horribles parade" in MA:

At this year’s Horribles parade in Beverly Farms, the biggest laughs - and loudest complaints - were inspired by a float mocking the “Give It Up” girls of Gloucester High. Ladies from “The Fahm” adorned themselves in fake baby bumps and danced to “I Got It From My Momma.” Guys tossed condoms and waved signs rhyming words in a decidedly family-unfriendly manner.

Pretty horrendous, no? Apparently, this guy thinks it's appropriate to shame the pregnant students at Gloucester High:

..Other communities and families send a far clearer message condemning teen sex. There are 15-year-olds who know that if they make the wrong choice, they will be greeted with embarrassment and disappointment, not on-campus day care.

When the same girl shows up at the school clinic for five pregnancy tests in one month, shouldn’t somebody be mocking her for it? In fact, isn’t promoting shame through mockery our civic duty? (Emphasis mine)

He also condemns comprehensive sex ed supporters for rejecting the use of shame as a value and tactic to woo kids away from sex.

I'm actually glad the author published this, because at least he's exposing the truth by standing proud to what the abstinence-only movement feeds on.

Talk about shame.

h/t to Emmeline.

It really just keeps going and going. And we just continue to be disappointed.

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies voted yesterday to continue funding the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program despite research over the last year that has proved over and over again the inefficacy of abstinence-only education.

The Democrats in Congress have failed to ax ab-only funding in the past, and for some reason they just seem to continue to allow millions of federal dollars to be filtered into these dangerous and ineffective programs.

RH Reality Check makes a good point that despite the fact that seventeen states have now refused Title V money for abstinence-only programs, Congress just can't seem to get a clue. Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office made a statement:

"It’s hard to imagine a good reason why, in these tight economic times, Congress would intentionally flush taxpayer dollars down the drain by spending them on disproven, ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. We are floored that they continue to ignore study after study, and the consensus of the pubic health community, all concluding that these programs censor vital health care information, teach gender stereotypes, discriminate against lesbian and gay teens, and in some cases promote religion in the classroom in violation of the Constitution."

The Wonk Room (via Kay) has the rundown of why John McCain is just like those very serious anti-contraception folks.

• Voted to end "the Title X family planning program, credited with helping prevent over 9 million abortions."
• Voted against funding teen-pregnancy-prevention programs and ensuring that "abstinence-only" programs are medically accurate.
• Voted for the domestic gag rule, which would have prohibited federally funded family-planning clinics from providing women with access to full information about their reproductive-health options.
• Voted to take $75 million from the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant to establish a new "abstinence-only" program that censors information about birth control.
• Declined to help reduce the need for abortion and improve maternal health by opposing effort to require insurance coverage for prescription birth control, improve access to emergency contraception, and provide more women with prenatal health care.
• Voted against legislation that would have prevented unintended pregnancy by investing in insurance coverage for prescription birth control, promoting family-planning services, implementing teen-pregnancy-prevention programs, and developing programs to increase awareness about emergency contraception

Just something to keep in mind when a pro-choicer you know refers to McCain as a "moderate" or "maverick."

And on a slightly lighter McCain-related note...

(NSFW version here.)

Incredible.

Via Echidne via blinkytreefrog, Amanda takes this 1951 book, "On Becoming a Woman" and compares it to the Just for Girls/Just for Guys abstinence-only teen magazine that I posted on last week. You absolutely must check it out.

Thanks to reader Kelsey for bringing this to our attention, who was introduced to a new magazine for teens, J4G (Just for Girls/Just for Guys), on a recent senior trip.

The publication is described by the Human Life Alliance as "this extremely marketable, cutting edge magazine will cause your friends to want to get their own copy. The colorful graphics will catch their attention, and the thought provoking stories and facts on the inside will challenge them to change the way they think about sex outside of marriage."

These "facts" are actually (and not surprisingly) tons of misinformation cloaked in teen rhetoric. One example is a advice column type section with Dr. Mary Paquette, who she contends that abortion causes infertility, breast cancer and ruins girls lives. The feature also ends with a section called "My Choice," where there is what seems to be a biographical note of a teen who put her baby up for adoption, saying, "I thank God every day that I don't have to visit the memory of an aborted baby, the grave of an innocent life."

Funny thing is that right under the note signed "Molly" is the note: advertising supplement. In fact, every single "personal story" in the magazine is labeled with those two small words at the bottom; meaning, the magazine doesn't want to be held accountable for the stories, meaning they're not verifiable. Which is just shady.

The "Inside Scoop on Guys" section talks about the importance of dressing modestly and not tempting the "visual" nature of men, while the "Just for Guys" section of the magazine tells the boys to be a "knight in shining armor" and "fight the 'dragon' of sexual temptation while their ladies watch in wonder and admiration." Not to mention that both sections, of course, have the apparently popular duct tape experiment.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. You can read the whole magazine here.

Via Consumerist, we find out that Kmart is claiming their True Love Waits sweatpants have absolutely nothing to do with abstinence.

A spokeswoman for Sears Holdings Corp., which owns Kmart, told The Buzz the pants have absolutely nothing to do with taking any kind of position, either way, on abstinence. "It was not associated with any group or any cause," said Amy Dimond. "It was just a graphic put on the pants."

Piper & Blue, Kmart's private label brand, designed the sweatpants as part of its summer collection that hit stores in late April.

Although the pants were not designed to make a statement, Dimond admitted that "there may be some (customers) who made the (abstinence association), but it was not the intention."

Oh, wow. How stupid of me! When I saw the description of the pants on Kmart (right after "drawstring waist) as having a "bold abstinence screen print," I must have been hallucinating. Oh wait, no. There it is.

Note to Kmart flacks: If you're going to lie, make sure to cover your tracks.

Aw, shit. Kmart is selling abstinence-gear for juniors.

Featuring what Kmart calls a "bold abstinence screen print," the True Love Waits sweatpants come in blue, yellow and gray. I also think it's no coincidence that on the same page they carry "Life is sweet" pants. I have no idea if the pants are in any way connected to the True Love Waits organization, but I'm disturbed nonetheless.

Thanks to reader WM for the link.

How many times have you heard that - whether it was on some terrible Dr. Phil episode or urban myths about "rainbow parties" - American teens were having tons of oral sex because they don't consider it "real" sex? I've certainly heard a lot about it. Turns out, it's not really so accurate.

Contrary to widespread belief, teenagers do not appear to commonly engage in oral sex as a way to preserve their virginity, according to the first study to examine the question nationally.

The analysis of a federal survey of more than 2,200 males and females aged 15 to 19, released yesterday, found that more than half reported having had oral sex. But those who described themselves as virgins were far less likely to say they had tried it than those who had had intercourse.

The report, from The Guttmacher Institute, notes that if teens are having oral sex, they're probably having vaginal sex as well. Of course abstinence-proponents are using the study to argue that virginity-pledgers aren't big oral- and anal-sex enthusiasts after all. (The fact that they're less likely to use contraception doesn't bug them that much, I guess.) But virginities aside, the real point of the study is that debunks these panicked myths about promiscuous teens.

The study's lead author, Laura Lindberg, says the study "does not suggest that teens are hooking up around oral sex with lots of partners."

In fact, the report showed that most teens who were engaging in oral sex - 67 percent - had only one partner. Certainly throws a wrench in all those media-created scare tactics about slutty teens. (I think it's also worth mentioning that the sensationalized media stories always seem to focus on girls giving oral sex to boys, when studies have actually shown that reciprocity is the norm. And, naturally, same-sex relationships are dismissed altogether.)

Parents in Schenectady, NY are up in arms because the sex education in their school district dares to talk about sexuality as if it was a good thing. The nerve!

Several Fonda-Fultonville school district residents on Tuesday criticized the use of a Planned Parenthood educator to conduct sex education classes for seventh- and eighth-graders beginning today.

The parents said they had collected 163 signatures of residents opposing the introduction of Planned Parenthood materials or organization-developed instruction in the school.

...Deborah Young said she started researching Planned Parenthood education guidelines and found passages that suggested masturbation is a source of pleasure.

“I went in, I could not believe what I saw,� Young said. (Emphasis mine)

Seriously, how dare an educator tell the truth about sexuality! Where's the shaming and misinformation about how sex is dirty, wrong and bad?!

Despite the fact that the PP educator has already been instructed not to mention abortion (at all), people are still concerned.

Dr. Michael Rochet, a physician, said the school district should search for alternatives for Planned Parenthood programming because he believes the instruction will facilitate curiosity among students.

“It will lead to more sexual activity,� he said.

Sure it will. Never mind that this particular county has the second-highest teen pregnancy rate in the state, much better that they stick to abstinence only education and pretend they've done their job.

Thanks to Liz for the link.

I was having a bad day, then I found out that the Abstinence Clearinghouse has a blog. Here is some recent abstinence wisdom; it's the entirety of a post titled, "Saving Sex Until Marriage."

Virginity is an asset that holds its value well.

Aw, shit. I didn't know I'd be getting an economics lesson when I wandered over! Sweet. I wonder how much I can trade my vagina in for. A Subaru maybe?

There's no doubt that abstinence-only educators do harm. But some do more harm than others. Unlike the Leslee Unruhs of the world - who wear their crazy on their sleeve - abstinence "educator" Pam Stenzel is an engaging, convincing, fun speaker. A speaker who tells kids that birth control could kill them and that abortion makes girls anorexic, depressed and suicidal. And she does it with aplomb.

You can find more videos of Stenzel on YouTube, but I have to say that this one was enough to freak me out. She's funny and charming, and sneaks in anti-choice lies rather than hitting kids over the head with them. And that's dangerous.

Thanks to Lynn for the heads up.

While I was perusing around the blog for The American Virgin - a film in the works by the woman who brought you I Was a Teenage Feminist - I found quite a gem. Trixie featured this amazing "Virgins are hot" shirt being sold at a Heritage website. They're like the guru of abstinence-only ed, marriage-initiative (for straights only!) programs that tell women to get back in the kitchen and various other fun anti-feminist dribble.

But really and truly, my day wasn't made until I saw this shirt on the right, featured on the same site. Wowza! We're virgins or wives. I know what I'm wearing to this year's purity ball!

A survey in Florida showed that some teens believe drinking a cap of bleach will prevent HIV and that a shot of Mountain Dew will stop pregnancy. Lawmakers in the state say the myths are a direct result of Florida's abstinence-only sex education.

Thankfully, legislators are using these disturbing survey results as a kick in the ass to propose a bill requiring comprehensive sex ed.

If you didn't catch the New York Times Magazine piece, "Students of Virginity", make sure to check it out. It serves as a good reminder as to why the abstinence-only, modesty, chastity, or whatever they're calling it at the moment, movement is bad for women.

The piece - which examines the abstinence movement in ivy league colleges - focuses mostly Harvard student Janie Fredell, an outspoken member and speaker with True Love Revolution. What I found interesting is that Fredell tries to explain her penchant for virginity-worship using a feminist analysis:

“People just don’t get it,� Fredell said. “Everyone thinks we’re trying to promote this idea of the meek little virgin female.� She said she was doing no such thing. “I care deeply for women’s rights,� she said...She had awakened to the wage gap, to forced sterilization and female genital mutilation — to the different ways that men have, she said, of controlling women. One of these was sexual. Fredell had seen it often in her own life — men pushing for sex, she said, just to “have something to say in the locker room,� women feeling pressured to have sex in order to maintain a relationship. The more she studied and learned, the more Fredell came to realize that women suffer from having premarital sex, “due to a cultural double standard,� she said, “which devalues women for their sexual pasts and glorifies men for theirs.�

Okay...but isn't the problem the double standard - not the sex? (Shameless plug alert.) If we don't like that women "suffer" from sexual double standards, how is not having sex fighting back? Seems more like giving up to me. Of course, Fredell also frames her views with the idea that it's just men who want or "push" for sex and uses bad science to boot - but that's a whole other post.

Jill hits on the nail on the head:

I can recognize that it is hard to remain abstinent, especially in the face of a very sexualized culture. I appreciate and applaud the personal strength of individuals who decide abstinence in the best choice for them. But what I can’t support is the constant attacks on sexually active people. People who have sex do not feel a constant need to tell abstinent people that their human dignity has been compromised, or that they’re dirty, or that they are secretly unhappy, or that they’re headed for total life ruin.

Indeed. It also doesn't help Fredell's "feminist" argument that abstinence-proponents rely on the virgin-whore dichotomy to shame women into being chaste.

Yeah, yeah, we've heard it a million times: sex sells. It's often used as an excuse for why advertisers use pictures of half-naked women to sell just about every product imaginable. It shouldn't be surprising, then that anti-sex also sells. (via Jezebel) Conservative Christian don't-have-sex publishing has taken off! Publishers Weekly puts the bestsellers into a few broad categories: Chasing Chastity, AIDS Awareness, and Sexual Integrity for Men. Let's take these one by one, shall we?

Chasing Chastity

The article mentions Lies Women Believe, a book by two women who have both written "purity" guides. It's a perfect example of the near-porniness of some "abstinence" writing. The book begins with a description of what was going on in Eve's head when she ate the forbidden fruit (I'm not kidding):

First, I just listened and looked. In my heart, I pondered, I questioned, I debated. Adam had reminded me many times that God had said we must not eat the fruit from that tree. The creature kept looking into my eyes and talking in a soothing voice. I found myself believing him. It felt so right. Finally, I surrendered. I reached out -- cautiously at first, then more boldly. I took, I ate. I handed it to Adam. He ate. We ate together -- first me, then him.

Those next moment are a blur. Sensations deep down inside that I've never had before. New awareness -- like I know a secret I'm not supposed to know. Elation and depression -- at the same time. Liberation. Prison. Rising. Falling. Confident. Afraid. Ashamed. Dirty. Hiding -- I can't let Him see me like this.

Alone. So very alone. Lost. Deceived.

Ah yes, I go through those same feelings every time I eat an apple. We could have a Freudian field day with that passage. I can see this prose causing guilt-ridden titillation -- a surefire recipe for bestseller success.

AIDS Awareness

The abstinence-only crowd promoting "AIDS awareness"? How hypocritical. Just look at what they want to do to PEPFAR (the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief). They basically want to strip everything effective from our international AIDS strategy. It's not so much an anti-sex movement as an anti-health movement.

Sexual Integrity for Men

The no-sex-until-hetero-marriage movement has set up "men's integrity" as the flip side to "women's purity." Hence, you have the hilariously titled "Integrity Balls" for boys, which emphasize not "ruining" your girlfriend for her future husband. See, maintaining women's "purity" should be the goal of both men and women. So again, this isn't so much an argument against sex as an argument against women violating their Eve-like innocence and purity by having sex. Also: This "integrity" line of reasoning has always caused me to wonder: Does this mean dudes can maintain their integrity by just sleeping with other dudes? Makes sense to me.

I am, regrettably, out of petals.

Yay, Iowa!

Iowa is now the 17th state to reject Title V funding for abstinence-only sex education, which provides $4 in federal funds for every $3 the state spends, allowing for $50 million nationally. According to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, the Iowa Department of Public Health, which is responsible for these funds, doled out slightly more than $212,000 in 2006, $45,000 of which went to the UI to cover the mandated evaluation of the program.

In 2007, Rep. Mary Mascher, D-Iowa City, sponsored a bill that, when passed last spring, set guidelines requiring all of Iowa's sex-education curricula to be scientifically based.

Which, shockingly, abstinence-only education is not.

Hilarious parody:

ABSTINENCE-ONLY DRIVER'S ED.
BY SUZANNE KLEID

- - - -

Thanks for making it out on a rainy Saturday, kids. Slippery out there, huh? Let's get started. We're gonna have some fun today!

Car accidents are a leading cause of death for teenagers. The school board and your elected representatives want to make sure that you and your families are spared from such a tragedy, which is why the money for driver's ed was eliminated from the budget. Whereas last year I was teaching your older siblings how to shift and brake and three-point-turn during a six-week course, it has since been decreed that I actually need just one afternoon to tell you the only piece of safety information I'm permitted by law to share:

The ONLY 100 percent effective method for avoiding car accidents is to ABSTAIN from driving until marriage.

And it gets better from there. Read the whole thing.

Thanks to reader Samantha for passing this along.

Legal Momentum has a huge new report (PDF), Sex, Lies and Stereotypes, on how abstinence-only education is especially harmful to young women and girls. (It's also a great primer on abstinence-only in general.) It makes a strong case for why, even though these programs are bad for both male and female students, there's a disproportionate impact on girls:

Females disproportionately suffer the consequences of unprotected sexual activity, including STIs and unplanned pregnancies. These programs also often contain harmful and outdated gender stereotypes that cast women as the gatekeepers of aggressive male sexuality. [...] For women of color, the absence of accurate sexual health information is particularly damaging given the high rates of HIV infection in their communities, while the gender stereotypes promoted by the programs exacerbate racial as well as sexual inequalities.

Last year, Courtney made a very compelling argument that if we had better sex education, young women and men would be better at articulating their needs and boundaries. One young woman, quoted in the report, echoed that theme:

“Because we didn’t have accurate information about what was healthy and what wasn’t, I endured some awful situations because I didn’t know the difference. We didn’t talk about respect, boundaries, and sexual communication. So the myth of ‘boys push and girls resist’ informed everything. We never talked about consent because with abstinence curriculum you shouldn’t consent.
--Erin - Abstinence-only program participant from Oregon

The report expands on those ideas, and also notes that how reinforcing gender stereotypes in these programs is also reinforcing some really dangerous messages about rape:

Likewise, Heritage Keepers’ curriculum warns:

Females need to be careful with what they wear, because males are looking! The girl might be thinking fashion, while the boy is thinking sex. For this reason girls have an added responsibility to wear modest clothing that doesn’t invite lustful thoughts.

These texts ask girls constantly to monitor their own behavior and to be responsible for dressing in a way
that ensures that male sexuality is kept in check. Their tone is condescending to both girls and boys, and fails to provide real guidance to teens about how they can develop healthy relationships of all kinds, whether sexual or not.

Most abstinence-only texts fail to meaningfully discuss rape, sexual assault, or coercion, and even fewer give guidance to victims of sexual violence. Further, when responsibility for male sexual feeling is placed on young women and girls, it removes male responsibility and, in instances of sexual harassment and assault, harmfully blames the victim and excuses the perpetrator. Moreover, there is no acknowledgment that some teens may not
experience any sexual feelings, or may be attracted to members of the same sex.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Check out the whole thing.

Tori Shoemaker and Cheyenne Byrd, two eighth graders in St. Louis protested their school's abstinence-only education program by wearing shirts to school adorned with condoms, reading "Safe Sex or No Sex." For daring to speak out, they were suspended for two days from school. The superindent said the shirts were inappropriate and a "distraction" at school. Yes, because a "distraction" in the form of free speech is clearly much worse than spreading dangerous misinformation about sex to teens. Uh, wait...

So kudos to Tori and Cheyenne - you two are heroes in our book.

No misinformation in sex-ed classes in my state!

Adding to her excellent record on reproductive health issues, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano recently turned down $1 million in federal funds for abstinence-only education.

"While we all support abstinence-only and don't believe, in particular, that teenagers should be engaged in sexual relationships of that sort, the fact of the matter is that some do," Napolitano said. "They need to have complete information for their own health."

Arizona is the 16th state to reject federal abstinence-only dollars.

In not-so-great Arizona news, an appeals court just ruled in favor of "Choose Life" license plates. Grrr. As we've mentioned before, most states don't also provide a "Choose Choice" (har har) license plate option. And in many cases, the state is, uh, less than diligent in monitoring how anti-choice groups are spending the proceeds from these license plates.

Okay, I'm well aware that this "PSA" was probably made for some class project, but I really think it shows how frigging bizarre (and dangerous) abstinence-only classes are. I mean, fucking duct tape? I also don't think it's a coincidence that of the many places the slutty piece of tape gets stuck, a garbage can is shown multiple times. (Just in case you didn't get the sex-is-dirty message clearly enough.) After all, there's nothing worse than trashy, whorey, adhesives.

You know, sometimes they just make it too easy. The charming picture above is a billboard from CoolVirginity.com, a project of yet another crisis pregnancy center.

Also from the site: "Abstinence helps to ensure a more successful future, avoid STDs and to avoid possible life-long dependency on the welfare system." And here I thought it was the lack of well-paid jobs that make women poor--turns out it's just the absence of a hymen. (Does that mean if I get hymen restoration surgery that my income will magically increase? Nice!)

But seriously, I just lurve the idea that these folks think that promoting sexuality and women's bodies as a gift is a fantastically moral idea. Are hymens the new graduation watch?

Nancy Northup is the President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a global human rights organization that uses constitutional and international law to secure women's reproductive freedom. The Center has won groundbreaking cases before federal and state courts, U.N. committees, and regional human rights bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights. Working at the state, national, and international levels, the Center has built the legal capacity of women's rights advocates around the world, working in over 45 countries.

Nancy is an attorney with extensive experience in constitutional impact litigation, criminal law, and reproductive rights advocacy. Here's Nancy....

While federal funding for abstinence-only education is being extended for another 6 months despite extensive reports showing its ineffectiveness, a new report shows that comprehensive sex education is doing its job.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has released a report, which was also published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, revealing that teenagers who have received sex education in school are far more likely to put off sex than those who haven't. Who would have thought.

They found teenage boys who had sex education in school were 71 percent less likely to have intercourse before age 15, and teen girls who had sex education were 59 percent less likely to have sex before age 15.

Sex education also increased the likelihood that teen boys would use contraceptives the first time they had sex. . . But sex education appeared to have no effect on whether teen girls used birth control, the researchers found.

Additionally, black teenage girls who received sex ed in school were 91 percent less likely to have sex before age 15. Trisha Mueller, an epidemiologist with the CDC who led the study, said it plain and simple which actually made me laugh out loud: "Sex education seems to be working."

Indeed, Trisha. Indeed.

First came the news that the Democrats axed a provision to repeal the Global Gag Rule (because Bush said he would veto the entire appropriations bill if it was included). Then today I get the news -- in an Abstinence Clearinghouse email, no less -- that Title V abstinence-only education funding is likely to be renewed for another six months. The additional six months of funding is buried in the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP extension bill. That means federal dollars will have been flowing to abstinence-only programs for a full year since Democrats announced they were cutting off funding. Aaarrgghhh.

Of course, I'm happy to see funding for Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP extended. But it is SO frustrating to watch these terrible provisions buried within bigger bills continue to pass the Democratic-controlled Congress. It is really, really frustrating.

Earlier this year, we reported that states were starting to refuse abstinence-only funds. You know, because they don't work. Well, it seems that the trend is catching on: 14 states are now straight up refusing federal funds for abstinence only education. (Two more states are applying for funding but saying that they'll use it for comprehensive sex ed--making them ineligible.)

The reasons given for refusing the funds are what you would expect--the programs don't work, they contain misinformation, and they limit schools' ability to talk about contraception. So I had to laugh when I saw this quote from Stan Koutstaal of the Department of Health and Human Services: "My greatest concern about states dropping out is that these are valuable services and programs. It's the youths in these states who are missing out."

Yes, truly. We certainly wouldn't want American youth to miss out on these gems:

“AIDS can be transmitted by skin-to-skin contact.�

“Abortion is not the best choice…because it unfairly penalizes the baby for the bad decision the baby's parents made.�

“A guy who wants to respect girls is distracted by sexy clothes and remembers her for one thing. Is it fair that guys are turned on by their senses and women by their hearts?�

“Each time a sexually active person gives that most personal part of himself or herself away, that person can lose a sense of personal value and worth. It all comes down to self-respect.�

And goodness knows we wouldn't youths to miss out on abstinen