Recently in Abstinence-Only Education Category

The media (and abstinence-only organizations) are atwitter over a study that shows abstinence-only education can delay the onset of sexual activity.

Valerie Huber, Executive Director of the National Abstinence Education Association, for example, was more than a little pleased: "The core teachings of abstinence education include character building, goal-setting and exploring the emotional risks of casual sex. Abstinence education is the only curriculum that offers such a clear, risk-avoidance approach to sexual health."

But here's the thing: not all abstinence-only programs are created equal. And this program - which showed success in very young students (the average age was 12) delaying sex for up to two years - is nothing like the abstinence-only programs that were widespread under the Bush administration. This program didn't lie, shame, or even tell students to wait until marriage to have sex.

In fact, this program that abstinence proponents are falling all over themselves to tout, wouldn't have been eligible for funding under the Bush administration.

James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, has more:

The abstinence-only program in this study would not have been eligible for federal funding during the Bush years because it did not fit the "8 point definition." The program goal was to help early teens avoid sex until they are ready--a totally different objective than the federally funded abstinence programs already proven ineffective by the long-term Mathematica study "which showed no impact on teen behavior."

In the [researchers'] own words: "It [the abstinence-only intervention] was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected." (Emphasis mine)

In fact, the researchers behind the study, Loretta and John Jemmott, are well-respected advocates of science-based sex education - so it's no surprise that their version of abstinence-only education would be so different from what most ab-only proponents are pushing for.

Even though this program was successful to a degree, however, we still have a moral responsibility to teach young people about contraception. Teenagers deserve the truth about sexual health - and as much information as we can possibly provide.

Related: The Guttmacher Institute has more (pdf) info about this study, and how the program differs from most abstinence-only education, and from Heather Corrina of Scarleteen: What's the Typical Use Effectiveness Rate of Abstinence?

Thanks abstinence only education!

A new report from the Guttmacher Institute shows that the teen pregnancy rate has risen for the first time in more than a decade. And guess who's to blame...

These new data from the Guttmacher Institute are especially noteworthy because they provide the first documentation of what experts have suspected for several years, based on trends in teens' contraceptive use--that the overall teen pregnancy rate would increase in the mid-2000s following steep declines in the 1990s and a subsequent plateau in the early 2000s. The significant drop in teen pregnancy rates in the 1990s was overwhelmingly the result of more and better use of contraceptives among sexually active teens. However, this decline started to stall out in the early 2000s, at the same time that sex education programs aimed exclusively at promoting abstinence--and prohibited by law from discussing the benefits of contraception--became increasingly widespread and teens' use of contraceptives declined.

Heather Boonstra, Guttmacher Institute senior public policy associate, calls the reversal "deeply troubling."

"It coincides with an increase in rigid abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, which received major funding boosts under the Bush administration....Fortunately, the heyday of this failed experiment has come to an end with the enactment of a new teen pregnancy prevention initiative that ensures that programs will be age-appropriate, medically accurate and, most importantly, based on research demonstrating their effectiveness."

I'm a bit less optimistic than Boonstra - because while we have made inroads in terms of limiting funding for abstinence-only education, we still have a cultural battle ahead of us.

Christian Side Hug from The Fathers House on Vimeo.

A very rough estimate of the first few lines of the rap (not easy to transcribe/understand with all those sirens and shotguns in the background):

Gimme that christian side hug, that Christian Side hug. Gimme that Christian Side hug, that Christian side hug. I'm a rough rider teamed up with Christ. Gimme that Christian Side hug, that Christian side hug.

These are the E-G rules, so pay attention cause this is essential. This ain't no front hug zone. Stop and listen. No front hugs and no kissin.

There is so much to say on this one. First of all, appropriation much?

Secondly, as Jill at Feministe asked, do you think they know what rough rider means?

In case you aren't already familiar with the Christian Side Hug, via The Sexist:

According to Stuff Christians Like, there's no "exact scripture reference" banning normal hugging. But the Side-Hug does significantly lower the "risk of two crotches touching," which has got to be in the Bible somewhere. Here's how you do it:

"Instead of face to face, you go side to side, putting your arm around the person and your hip against their's. Still having a hard time mastering it? Pretend you're taking a photo and you're both looking at the camera together. The side hug, or A frame as it is also called, is safe for the whole family, friendly and above all holy."

If front hugging isn't Christian, I'm not sure how gunshots or cocking your gun are either (both can be heard in the background of the video).

The rap was performed at the Encounter Generation Conference (hence the EG reference in the lyrics) which is "a conference for youth, young adults, and youth pastors. Now is the time for them to bring the power, authenticity, and relevance of Jesus Christ to their culture."

At least we know these folks aren't ever making the crossover from Christian to mainstream rap anytime soon.

A reminder to take five minutes today between 10 and 4 to call Congress and tell them we need to cut funds for failed abstinence-only programs and fund comprehensive sex education. It's time to take the clowns out of the classrooms and give young people accurate information about sex and sexuality.

Check out this previous post for more information. Call-In Day is organized by Choice USA, SYRF, SIECUS, Advocates for Youth, and Catholics for Choice. Below, a video from my friends Kierra Johnson and Edith Sargon from Choice USA asking you to call your Senators.

(Transcript after the jump).

Script and talking points for calls also after the jump.

Champions of Sexual Literacy Honorees: Richard Garcia, Cecile Richards and Rose Afriyie

Last week, I got the chance to be honored at the National Sexuality Resource Center's (NSRC) Champions of Sexual Literacy Dinner following in the footsteps of my amazing mentor Samhita. This year, the main honoree was powerhouse sexuality-rights advocate Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PP). From afar, she had this elegance to her that was really alluring. When I first arrived, she was knee deep in a conversation with an ambassador. It seemed that the entire room occasionally glanced at her, the woman at the helm of perhaps the only woman's rights organization left that is a household name no matter one's race, class, or gender.

In her acceptance speech, she recognized the efforts of young women and young educators. She described the award as "a reflection of the thousands of teen sex educators across the country." She identified them as crucial to political gains and referenced the 3,000 young people that advocated through PP in their community for sex education this September. Her closing was the most interesting to me. She spoke about an African American male who was a prominent sexual health educator in Anacostia in Washington, DC. She recognized his courage as he educated in a community with high incidence rates of HIV and chlamydia amidst financial hardships during the Bush years. She ended by mourning the possibility of what this man could have done with just a drop of abstinence-only money. While drawing attention to young people's political action is something that I am gladly starting to see more of in woman's rights circles, it is all too rare. Somehow, this woman's rights organization that centers it's mission on delivering medical services, administering education, and advocating for public policy still finds a way to prioritize women while highlighting the efforts of men of color in reproductive equality.This is progress in a world where many feminist organizations struggle to include young people, men, and people of color in a way that is meaningful.

Later, I had the chance to sit down with Cecile to talk about the health care debate and women's reproductive health care generally. For ten minutes we gabbed about the role of Planned Parenthood in the health care debate, the current status of abortion in negotiations, staying encouraged despite gender discrimination and what's next on the agenda after health care reform. It was as revealing as it was encouraging. So here's the recap:

This one makes me nauseous.

A Senate committee voted Tuesday night to restore $50 million a year in federal funding for abstinence-only education that President Barack Obama has pushed to eliminate.

The 12-11 vote by the Senate Finance Committee came over objections from its chairman, Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana.

Two Democrats - Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas - joined all 10 committee Republicans in voting "yes" on the measure by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah.

The measure would still have to pass the full House and Senate. Hatch said abstinence education had been shown to work, though Baucus disagreed. Obama had proposed in his 2010 budget to direct money spent on abstinence-only education to broader teen pregnancy-reduction programs.

I'm so upset about the health care reform process that at this point I can't even keep track. Republicans are so up in arms about government spending, but they'll throw millions of dollars at a backwards misinformed program about abstinence that doesn't work. I give up.

Also passed last night:

An alternate measure offered by Baucus also passed. Baucus' measure, which passed 14-9, would make money available for education on contraception and sexually transmitted diseases, among other things, in addition to abstinence. Lawmakers will have to reconcile the two measures, both approved during debate on a sweeping health overhaul bill, as the legislation moves forward.

Via Huffington Post

I am loving Glee. As a kid I thought life was a musical (and I never grew up). This show feels like it was made for me. It's so gay. It's got Jane Lynch as a delicious villain who loves social hierarchies and is constantly claiming gender discrimination. There might be more musical talent on display than in the High School Musical movies. And unlike those films, which push a conservative Mormon "family values" agenda, Glee has already shown itself to share some of my politics. Bullying is depicted in a way rarely seen in pop culture: Quinn Fabray constantly aims transphobic insults at Rachel Berry. Bulimia and body image issues are covered. And in the second episode the show takes on abstinence only programs and comprehensive sex education.

Glee takes place at William McKinley High School in Lima, Ohio, the kind of public school where the principal's pastor gives him a list of acceptable songs for the Glee Club to sing. The school has a Celibacy Club, led by Quinn, that demonstrates abstinence is about a lot more than not having sex: programs in U.S. schools push a religious ideology, teach conformity to the compulsory gender binary, and censor information about contraception. Celibacy Club meetings start out divided by gender before the students "come together to share [their] faith." We're shown just how little these young people actually know about sex. While talking about cheerleader's skirts (all the female members of the Celibacy Club are cheerleaders) Puck, one of the guys, says, "Santana Lopez spun open her [skirt] the other day and I swear I could see her ovaries." Funny? Yes. Also, scary. There probably actually are high school guys who don't know what ovaries are or where they are located. I feel really bad for any woman who sleeps with a guy so clueless about her anatomy. The cheerleader motto about the skirts is: "It's all about the teasing and not about the pleasing." Talk about teaching conservative gender roles. Women are supposed to attract men using their sexuality, but not give men what they want: sex. Abstaining is women's responsibility because desire for sex is supposedly a male trait.

Rachel attends a Celibacy Club meeting and during a ridiculous activity with a balloon this exchange happens:

Rachel: Did you know that most studies have demonstrated that celibacy doesn't work in high schools? Our hormones are driving us too crazy to abstain. The second we start telling ourselves that there's no room for compromise we act out. The only way to deal with teen sexuality is to be prepared. That's what contraception is for.

Quinn: Don't you dare mention the "C" word.

Rachel: You want to know a dirty little secret that none of them want you to know? Girls want sex just as much as guys do.

Male student: Is that accurate?

Like I said, I love this show. Not only do they show some of the ideology taught in abstinence only programs, they offer a passionate and compelling argument for education about contraception.

Glee really might be the anti-High School Musical. While that series of movies models abstinence and heterosexual gender norms, Glee is actually engaging with issues in an intelligent way. And the show is hilarious, moving, and full of fabulous musical numbers at the same time.

You can watch both episodes of Glee online here.

Oh dear. Miriam Grossman - of Unprotected fame (the book that tells young women having sex will make them diseased drop outs) - has a yet another book out: You're Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Ed and How They Harm Your Child

I found out about Grossman's latest through this column at Townhall that - in the great tradition of unhinged moral panic - suggests that comprehensive sex education wants "to strip our little girls of their natural inclination toward modesty and replace it with an attitude of sexual dominance." Who, me? *bats eyelashes*

Columnist Rebecca Hagelin says that our daughters are "under siege" by those who would teach them about sex and suggest that there is more to life than marriage and babies. You know - feminists.

Make no mistake: this attack on our daughters is also an attack on the nuclear family unit itself. It is an insidiously evil brand of radical feminism that now pervades education and entertainment. If you can warp an entire generation of women into believing that sex is merely a tool to be used for advancement, then you destroy all notions of fidelity, and commitment for both genders. By default, our sons adopt the view that they do not need to be loyal or true in marriage either.

...We are at a crossroads in our nation and the pawn being used by those who seek to check-mate the family - the sacred and basic building block of all civil societies - is a little girl. She will be used and abused and then cast aside as the next little girls are born and brainwashed with ever increasing dangerous messages.

There are steps you must take now to protect and equip your daughter with her own moral authority over those who would abuse her femininity.

What crazy ass sex ed classes has Hagelin been sitting in on?! It's amazing to me how these folks take something as simple as telling the truth about sex and contraception and turn it into a femininity-abusing (what that means) evil indoctrination hell bent on destroying families.

But that's exactly what folks like Grossman would like American parents to think. Let's take a look at what Grossman's past work has asserted so that we can all freak about about....

What Miriam Grossman wants to teach your child!!!:

When girls have sex, it is often at bars or because they're drunk. Also, they're depressed.

The more you have sex, the sadder you become: "As the number of casual sex partners in the past year increased, so did signs of depression in college women." (Cough, bullshit, cough)

Even fictional characters can get herpes: "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."

After a one-night-stand, girls are swooning, and guys don't give a shit: "You might think of him all day, but he can't remember your name."

You can say really creepy things about sex, so long as its written in cursive.

Stay tuned for Part 2 when I take you inside Grossman's new anti-sex screed. (But through the front, cause the back is just an exit.)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is going up against the Mississippi Department of Health and Human Services for an Abstinence Summit that was held using government funding. Amplified has a video about the summit, from Huffington Post:

God and Abstinence from Stuart Productions on Vimeo.

The ACLU is arguing that the use of tax dollar funds is a misappropriation, and violates separation between church and state.

My favorite quote from the event?

"Stop, don't touch me there -- this is my no, no square," said one cheer by the Grenada High School cheerleaders. It wasn't about school spirit.

h/t to Amanda Marcotte

As Miriam mentioned in the health care reform roundup, Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced an amendment to the House health care reform bill that would create a Healthy Teen Initiative. Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check shares the story of this amendment, the result of work by a coalition of sexual health advocates to expand the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative proposed in the president's budget. Advocates were concerned by the limited scope of the president's initiative, which, as I discussed previously, would exclude information about and strategies for preventing the spread of sexuality transmitted diseases.

The Healthy Teen Initiative would authorize $50 million to fund program models that have been proven -

to delay initiation of sex; to decrease number of partners; to reduce teen pregnancy; to reduce sexually transmitted infection rates; or to improve rates of contraceptive use.

This initiative is a big improvement over that originally proposed by the president. While the Healthy Teen Initiative is not explicitly about funding only comprehensive sexuality education, it could be an important step in the transition from supporting failed abstinence only programs. Yes, I am still bothered by the inclusion of language that presumes certain forms of teen sexuality should be prevented without concern about whether young people are having sex at a certain age or with a certain number of partners in a way that is personally healthy and consensual. But the need for education about sexually transmitted diseases and contraception is great and this initiative would be an important first step. I am also happy to see this included in health care reform, a symbolic recognition that teen sexuality is a health issue, which has been masked by the focus on religion and morality.

Choice USA, an organization representing the voice of young people in the reproductive justice movement, recently launched a campaign to promote comprehensive sexuality education (full disclosure: I have done some consulting related to this campaign). Executive Director Kierra Johnson said of the Healthy Teen Initiative, "Sex education is preventative health care. The Healthy Teen Initiative is a smart move and the right move to ensure young people have access to information and medical services that can keep them healthy and save their lives. I applaud the Committee's work to ensure full and comprehensive health care to teens and the millions of young people who are uninsured in this country."

I was on the Alan Colmes radio show last week, debating Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association. You may be able to tell that I'm kind of jet lagged and cranky in the segment - at one point I get totally pissed off. (I know, shocking.)

Or 'enter', whatever.

A new report from the CDC says that "trends in the sexual and reproductive health of U.S. teens and young adults have flattened, or in some instances may be worsening." Are we really surprised?

Thanks to a decade of misinformation masquerading as sex education, teens are having the same amount of sex, using contraception less, and getting pregnant more.

We're reaping what we've sowed. A 2002 study found that one-third of U.S. teenagers hadn't received any formal instruction about contraception. For those who did learn about contraception - it was all scare tactics. In Me, My World, My Future - a textbook used in public schools across the country - students are told that "relying on condoms is like playing Russian roulette." A Case Western Reserve University study found that Ohio students have been taught that the birth control pill increases young women's chances of infertility later in life. And in 2005, teens at Montana's Bozeman High School were even taught that condoms cause cancer. So why would teens want to depend on something that they're told is not only ineffective, but cancer-causing to boot?

I'm stoked that the new budget has cut funding for abstinence-only education, I really am. But de-funding these programs is not enough. We have to undo the damage that's been done to young people and support real solutions: If we want to lower the teen pregnancy rate, we need to demand that contraception be easily accessible and affordable to young people. Yes - this means condoms in schools and community centers, and emergency contraception being available to teens over the counter. If we want to ensure that teenagers are well-informed, we need to demand federal and state funding for comprehensive sex education.

The purity-pushers are not going anywhere, but this is about more than politics...it's about our health and futures. (And goodness knows I don't know either in the hands of someone who could think up the above shirt.)

Anything you say, oh divine one!

Abstinence-only education advocates are not too pleased that their federal funding is pretty much kaput (though I'm still keeping my eye on that "teen pregnancy prevention" money). In fact, they are freaking out.

Leslee Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse and all-around fun person to watch lose their shit, had this to say about losing federal funding:

"We've got news for the condom worshipers, abstinence education is not going away any time soon. Taxpayers will not tolerate their money being used for ideological latex-only programs and the molestation of their children's minds and future."

You know, this is why folks in the virginity movement need to rebrand their image - they can't help but reveal how radical and on the fringe they are. Most American parents want their children taught about contraception; most American women will use contraception at some point in their lives. Calling the majority of the country - who want their kids to learn medically accurate information about sex so they can make healthy decisions - condom worshipers and molesters is simply stupid.

That's why the more media-savvy abstinence-only leaders are now using more mainstream-friendly language and attempting to frame themselves as folks interested in "holisitic approaches" and "healthy lifestyle choices." In fact, last night I was on the Alan Colmes radio show (link forthcoming) debating Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) - and Huber continued to claim that abstinence-only education did teach kids about contraception and gave them all the information they needed to make healthy decisions. It was bullshit sound bite heaven, and it was desperate. (She also referred to comprehensive sex education as condom-only or condom-centered a couple of times; classy.)

While I'm glad to see that these organizations are scrambling, I'm also a bit wary of writing them off completely - sadly, I don't think we've seen the end of Huber or Unruh. And we have to continue to be vigilant on a state and community level. Even now, in California, there's an abstinence-only debate ranging in Sonoma County schools.

So, please, keep up-to-date on what's happening with ab-only nonsense - make sure to check out Advocates for Youth's Amplify and SIECUS (in addition to us, of course!).

Thanks to Rebecca for the link.

RH Reality Check released another compelling video with the Feminist Majority Foundation on their investigation into the deception of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) and the serious harm it poses to young women.

For the next week, the House Appropriations Labor Health and Human Services (HHS) Committee will be conducting hearings on the FY 2010 spending bill. Take action and tell House Appropriations Committee Chair Rep. David Obey that continuing to fund abstinence-only programs and crisis pregnancy centers would be a severe injustice against women's health and rights.

I don't care about Sarah Palin, but given what I do I am forced to read and think about her much more often than I would like to. Similar to Amanda, I don't think of Palin is a martyr or someone who was so heinously treated by the media that we should pity her in any way. I have yet to see any evidence of her being humbled about being wrong and an asshole, and while attacks against her have also been sexist, that is not the bulk of criticism around her. Palin hates women (at least that is what is apparent through the little legislation she has worked on) and has used her teenage daughter to score political points, only one of her many asshole moves. And frankly, using your teenage (mom) daughter for political gain, while stuffing words in her mouth about abstinence, well that doesn't score very high on the feminist scale.

I was especially struck by this rather optimistic (or misguided, I am not sure) piece by Michel Martin at NPR about how complicated Palin is.

Can I just tell you? I do not know a single working mother who does not dream at some point, even if just for a minute, about packing up that desk and heading for the homestead, even if that fantasy is about as realistic as the one about supplementing unemployment with Powerball winnings. And I bet that's why so many mothers, who work outside the home or not, were rooting for Sarah Palin, at least at first.

Whether you shared her politics or not, Palin was somebody you wanted to see in the game, trying as she was to balance a very demanding job with the equally demanding job of raising five children and maintaining a decent relationship with her husband. She seemed to have so many attractive qualities. She seemed practical, honest, unfazed and down-to-earth, exactly the qualities people hope newcomers in general and hopefully women will bring to public life. And she is making no judgment at all about the whole campaign shopping spree thing, stylish, which I for one appreciate.

I never felt any of this. I never wanted to see Palin succeed and I certainly didn't think of her as a good mother, especially after she unapologetically used Bristol's story for her own political gain and I have no doubt she will continue to do so. Maybe I can't relate since I don't sit at home wishing to be a stay-at-home cat mom, but I think this romantic idea that Palin is somehow quitting the Governorship for familial reasons is giving her way more credit than she has proven to deserve. I for one am not looking forward to her future political moves because I know they are only going to aggravate me further. Not to be too pessimistic or anything, haha.

Check out Jessica's new piece in The Nation on the rebranding efforts that the virginity movement has been making; it's a must-read!

From the always witty Rachel Maddow:

Via Amplify.

So this morning, around 10am EST, Jessica will be appearing on the Today show with Kathy Lee Gifford to talk about her new book, The Purity Myth. Unfortunately, as the mainstream shows tend to do, they've decided to turn it into a debate with this woman, Lakita Garth, who is regarded as an "abstinence champion."

If you're near a TV, check it out, and send Jessica some positive feminist vibes for what's likely to be a difficult conversation.

If we can find a video of it, we'll post that after.

UPDATE: You can live stream the show here.
Sorry, that link seems to have old segments from yesterday--I'll post the link to the actual segment once I find it.

Remember when Bristol Palin basically admitted that abstinence doesn't work? Well, sounds like she (or rather her mom on her behalf) is singing a different tune now and I am going to have to agree with Renee that there is something fishy, sad and manipulative about using your teenage daughter to further your political agenda.

In response to Levi Johnson being on the Tyra Show yesterday discussing openly that the Palin's knew they were knocking boots, Sarah Palin released the following statement:

"Bristol's focus will remain on raising Tripp, completing her education, and advocating abstinence," [spokeswoman Meghan] Stapleton continues. "It is unfortunate that Levi finds it more appealing to exploit his previous relationship with Bristol than to contribute to the well being of the child."

See Levi's clip from the Tyra Show here.

Seriously, they didn't have safe sex every time? And here I thought it was immaculate conception (/sarcasm) As one commenter remarked at Renee's place, Levi is effectively getting out of being a father. While his story holds more water and helps us understand what bullshit abstinence-only is, he ends up benefiting from this very same conservative doctrine and it is at the cost of Bristol Palin's ability to advocate for herself. Between what her mother wants and her baby-daddy walking away, she ends up without an effective narrative to support her story. Both frames of "abstinence-only" and the "the dad that walked away" are stories well fleshed out and justified by the right. Abstinence-only dogma hurts the very thing it claims to protect; the lives of young women.

Related:
Bristol Palin lost her Voice and her Autonomy.

My favorite line: "Do you want a vagina full of AIDS?!" (Also, is it wrong that it totally annoys me that this dude has the same drinking glasses - I'm sorry, vaginas - I do?)

But that video doesn't hold a candle to this: "Why it is okay for sex to hurt the vagina." Yes, that's right.

To add to the humor (that's not really that funny), it turns out that folks in Italy are not taking well to the Pope's allegation that condoms have led to an increase of AIDS in Africa. In response they have organized to send the Pope condoms (1 per person) via 60,000 people. Sounds like the Pink Chaddi campaign.

Pam has more. I wonder if anyone at the Vatican will respond.

Ampersand has a post up about some statistics indicating that despite the fear that same-sex marriage will alter the meaning of marriage, the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy are the same ones that are on the forefront of banning same-sex marriage. Ampersand writes,

So which 9 states are projected to see 1 in 4 teenage girls become mothers? Mississippi, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Arkansas, Nevada, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Tennessee. All of those states are well-known hotbeds of marriage equality.

So in contrast, how did Connecticut and Massachusetts -- where same-sex marraige is legal -- rank? In the entire country, only Vermont and New Hampshire have lower projected teen motherhood rates. Oh, and by the way, Vermont's senate just voted for legalizing gay marriage.

The apt conclusion Ampersand points out is that you can have same-sex marriage and low teen pregnancy rates.

*insert duh noise*

It is also helpful to look at race and class as a factor in the rate at which people support gay marriages and the rate of teen pregnancy. Evidence indicates that access to education decreases the rate at which women have kids early. As we know well, the interpolation of being against same-sex marriage and abstinence-only education is part of the same story. That story where men own your sexuality and we must do nothing to disrupt the sanctity of sexism, I mean marriage.

The bigger issue this has gotten me thinking about is the role of single moms in the fight against heteronormativity. In order to appeal to the elitist common denominator, the mainstream GLBT (sometimes Q, but I am talking mainstream here) has made gay marriage look like a very white and normal thing. Hey, we want the same big wedding you want, we are just gay. Politically it makes sense if you are of the reform minded set and even from a radical perspective it holds water, as most civil rights legislation started strategic and mainstream.

But I think the bigger question of whether the mainstream gay movement is going to look at the role of single mothers, often villianized by news, often women of color, often poor, as in some way disrupting straightness and heteronormativity, goes unasked.

Are single mothers proof that heteronormativity is total bullshit?

Via Advocates for Youth:

Today on Capitol Hill Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) will formally introduce a bill that will finally authorize federal funding for comprehensive sex education.

Whereas today states can only receive funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage initiatives (that have be shown in independent studies to be a $1.5 billion failure), the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act would allow these states to receive funding to provide age-appropriate, medically accurate, science-based sex education whose real purpose is to prevent unintended teen pregnancy and transmission of STI's, not enforce social conservative ideology and misinformation.

You can follow NARAL's live twitter feed here.

I'm really excited to announce that The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women is out. (Though super nervous too!)

And while I'm anticipating some backlash - shit, even the title/cover of the book generated some conservative hand-wringing - I'm hoping that it will further the conversation about how the conservative movement uses young women's bodies and moral panic myths to push traditional gender roles and punish women who don't fit into the "pure" ideal.

If you want to get more of an idea of what the book is all about, you can download the Introduction here. Hope you enjoy it!

You can buy The Purity Myth on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Powell's or Indiebound.

Today the National Abstinence Education Association is having their annual Capitol Hill lobby day. They're planning on meeting with legislators to ask them to continue funding ineffective, inaccurate, misleading and dangerous abstinence only education.

Amplify Your Voice has the full story and a call to action:

This is where you come in: the progressive blogosphere, the reproductive justice community, and youth advocates. We have to make sure that the NAEA's message is not the only side of the story that Congress hears tomorrow. For every lobbyist that a representative gets in their office tomorrow morning, we need 100 letters from our side to counter them.

I urge you to send this letter to your Congressperson, asking them to defund abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

After a decade of these ineffective programs spending $1.5 billion to misinform and endanger the sexual health of countless youth, it is time to finally bring change to Washington and America.

Word. Please start writing those emails now - and send this link to your friends and ask them to do the same!

Earlier this week, I was in Virgina speaking at Emory & Henry College at the school's winter forum - it was a day-long group of discussions on gender and sexuality. This talk was different than others I've done - generally I speak about Feministing and my writing. But the organizers at E&H wanted me to speak about the so-called hook up culture on college campuses, and they wanted me to have a "discussion" (a debate) with this woman, Elizabeth Marquardt. (I actually felt very odd about debating Marquardt because she was so damn nice and friendly - I don't know that I'm cut out for this kind of thing. More on this in an upcoming post...)

In any case, I had a lot of fun with the talk, because a lot of it related back to the work I did for The Purity Myth. So on the chance that anyone gives a shit, I thought I'd repost my speech here...dirty jokes not included.

I feel bad for her. Her story was used by her family and the GOP to make an example of what is considered "responsible" behavior for a teen mom. Holding all that, she is telling the truth that abstinence is not realistic for young people, even if it should be what everyone strives for. Comprehensive sex-ed wouldn't be this unrealistic.

via Gawker.

(h/t to Aaron)

I think it might be decidedly so. And Ellen Friedrichs at Nerve agrees and backs it up with a bunch of evidence.

It's not that I envision the President endorsing the "Head O State" dildo, or promoting the benefits of masturbation for prostate health, but I'd like to think that in addition to having the occasional cocktail or staying up past nine, Obama will also be looser on matters regarding the sexual behaviors of the public.

To be sure, people were still getting it on during the Bush era. But that era also saw a rise in unwanted pregnancies and infections, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was an associated rise in the numbers of folks walking around with psychological or emotional hang-ups regarding sex. Apparently, Bush initiatives like pushing welfare moms into marriage and promoting abstinence until the age of twenty-nine didn't quite succeed the way he probably hoped.

You can read the rest at Nerve. Now while I support what Friedrichs discusses in this article, the discussion of Michele and Barack Obama's sex life, while explored tastefully, reminds me of this NYT opinion piece about having sex with Obama, which is not as tasteful.

Let me know what you think. It is not that I want to suppress fantasy, or deny that it is probably normal for Americans to be having sexual fantasies about Obama. I am just more interested in what policies he supports to uphold the sexuality rights of our communities. Furthermore, It is hard for me to write about or discuss Michele and Barack Obama's sexuality, without a criticism of the racism embedded in deciding that Obama is "fuckable," given the historical embellishment and manipulation of what is considered black men's sexual potency. It just doesn't sit well with me.

You know...sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words. (Not to mention an infinite number of jokes.)

Apparently the Passion for Christ Movement has a bunch of these "ex" shirts, and this is just the latest. Here's the thing - you don't want to masturbate because you feel it goes against your beliefs? All good. But there's no need to shame others, and telling folks that doing something completely natural, safe and personal is sinful...well it's just wrong.

Not to mention, the shame that some people may feel after what one article calls "an illegal orgasm," (something the Passion for Christ members talk about a lot) isn't a sign that masturbation is wrong. It's an indicator that you haven't been told the truth about sexuality:

Two things I've come to know about masturbation is this:

1. It brings shame, and...
2. It is addictive

Most people who have engaged in masturbation know that the culmination of this sexual act ends in shame. I don't have to share with you the thousands of emails of the admittance of this shame because you know all too well since you have experienced it yourself. Curled up in a fetal position, crying, because your bed is even more empty and you're lonelier than you did before you violated yourself.

See, this shit just isn't right. We need to stop teaching young people that their bodies are shameful and that any pleasure they get from it is immoral. Seriously, I wish I could gift wrap Betty Dodson and send her to the person who wrote this.

Thanks to Natalie for the link.

Don't act like you don't love this track.

It is appalling that for a culture as saturated with sex as ours, it is in the arena of education that certain groups want the most censorship and control. Perhaps because it is one institution that parents can have some control over through PTAs, charters and community organizations. It is unfortunate that what is being taught in school isn't matching up to the level at which youth internalize the sex in the media and have sexual experiences whether it be with peers, through pornography, video games or watching movies. Whatever it is, youth are exposed to sex and have a variety of sexual experiences. It is unfortunate that it is not therefore discussed honestly in school.

So I was excited to see this article in the Boston Globe about a church community that teaches real sex ed, you know, the kind that talks about sex.

A joint effort by the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ, OWL aims to help teens understand sexuality. As Detwiler recalls the sessions of three years ago, the pictures demonstrating what sexual intercourse looks like were "shocking to kids, but also helpful. It helped them to grasp another dimension of sexuality." So did the frank discussions about dating norms, the chance to pass around condoms, and informal conversation about the way sex is portrayed in magazines, movies, and music. OWL is among a handful of sex-ed programs that take a position more radical than it may, at first, sound: namely, that sexuality education should actually talk about sex. While events like the spike in teen pregnancies in Gloucester last year or the bulging bellies of youthful pop stars (or Alaskan first daughters) can prompt outcries for better sex ed, most of what we call "sex education" is really about preventing the bad stuff. As one Newton teacher puts it, "It's all been reduced to two issues: teen pregnancy and STDs. That's all really important, but I feel we're losing other important things."

Check out the rest here. This stuff makes sense! Yesterday in the Yes means Yes live chat we got into a conversation about sex education teaching youth that their body can be for pleasure and the fear that that promotes among some parents that this is somehow "pro-sex" or "pornographic." Let's face it, youth are going to do exactly what you are "afraid" of. It is an unfortunate reality that many Americans are afraid of sex that is for the purpose of pleasure, yet our media is obsessed with sexuality (often to the point of sexualizing women.) Schizophrenia anyone?

RELATED:
One more time with feeling: Virginity pledges don't work.
Knocked up by Gossip Girl?
Abstinence shocker: Engaged couples don't want to forgo sex.
Pure lies: Inaugural Edition
Time Magazine hearts Purity Balls
The hypocrisy of abstinence-only education.

Well, this is just rich. According to this commentary by Kathryn Lopez for the Washington Times, the reason abstinence-only education doesn't work isn't just because of our slutty, sex-obsessed culture, but because we don't respect teens enough to make their own choices. Because apparently, giving them only one choice is respecting their ability to choose. Huh?

But the problem goes beyond lumping in a simple, cut-and-dried oath with the complicated issue of abstinence education. The conundrum boils down to this: It's not all about sex. It's no shock to anyone who understands human nature, never mind kids, that any virginity pledge that fixates on brute carnal relations is not going to work. Repeating the mantra "Don't do it," even when you've got a teen doing the repeating, isn't enough. How could it work? Popular culture is obsessed with sex. We can't even manage a family dog movie ("Marley & Me") without Jennifer Aniston taking off her clothes. And until that changes, of course, a hormone-mad teenager will be sorely tempted to join in the seemingly ubiquitous fornication, pledge or no pledge.

So naturally, abstinence-only education and purity pledges that focus on brute carnal relations will work? Seriously, am I missing something? She is setting up the perfect rationale for why her agenda is failing. Failing, as in-it-has-been-proven-over-and-over-again, that is doesn't work. But I digress.

Does that mean we pass out condoms at school because we're not going to change the culture anytime soon? No. It means kids need support and reasons engage in activities other than sex. Abstinence has to be about saying "yes" to something in order to work. We need to focus on the idea kids can actually think, and should want more from a relationship than sex. We need to be open to programs that aren't all about copulation, but about character education.

What is up with the fear that passing out condoms in schools means all other extra-curricular activity will stop? That condoms are somehow promoting sex? Young people are having sex, with or without condoms.

Read the rest, mainly for the humor value and all the blatant contradictions.

RELATED:
One more time with feeling: Virginity pledges don't work.
Knocked up by Gossip Girl?
Abstinence shocker: Engaged couples don't want to forgo sex.
Pure lies: Inaugural Edition
Time Magazine hearts Purity Balls

Yet another study shows that teenagers who take virginity pledges are just as likely to have pre-marital sex than non-pledgers. And, naturally, after years of being taught that birth control pills are evil and condoms cause cancer - teens who take virginity pledges are less likely to use contraception when they do have sex.

My take on the Gossip Girl OMG ad campaign, for purposes of this blog post.

Time for a little break in the onslaught of election news and voting tales... This recent article in the Washington Post is basically fundie-bait:

Teenagers who watch a lot of television featuring flirting, necking, discussion of sex and sex scenes are much more likely than their peers to get pregnant or get a partner pregnant, according to the first study to directly link steamy programming to teen pregnancy.

Ok, try to stop laughing over the fact that the Post uses the term "necking." Moving on...

The study, which tracked more than 700 12-to-17-year-olds for three years, found that those who viewed the most sexual content on TV were about twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy as those who saw the least.

When a study finds two things are "linked," that doesn't necessarily mean one causes the other. Maybe kids who watch more sexy TV have less parental supervision, as Matt at Pushback suggests, and therefore get it on more. But regardless of the study's merits, the abstinence-only-until-hetero-marriage crowd is up in arms, and ready to push their agenda.

From the Associated Press:

A contest that would pay $10,000 to an engaged couple, as long as they abstain from premarital sex, hasn't gotten any takers. The deadline for the Marriage for a Lifetime contest is Oct. 31. The prize includes free flowers, invitations and other wedding treats.

Considering 95% of Americans have pre-marital sex, I'm not exactly shocked.

The contest is sponsored by the Marriage Appreciation Training Uplifting Relationship Education (MATURE) project in Georgia, a federally-funded abstinence program. The group is set to receive $455,510 a year until 2011; the money for the contest was to come from those funds. In an economic crisis, it's pretty awesome to see our federal dollars being so entirely wasted.

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 abstinence "educators" telling them how lipstick is made from aborted fetuses. Or how (if you're a woman) "your body is a wrapped lollipop" and if you have sex you're just a "poorly wrapped, saliva-fouled sucker." And we definitely wouldn't want young people to miss out on the fact that gay people don't exist and that condoms cause cancer.

I mean, what kind of people would we be if we let young people "miss out" on all that?

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of antiquated notions of chastity and purity being touted as "revolutionary." I'm sorry, folks--there's nothing cutting edge about believing that girls' moral compass resides somewhere in between her legs.

In a recent Chicago Tribune piece on purity balls, reporter Dahleen Glanton refers to girls promising their virginities to their dads and dressing "modestly" as "controversial," a "movement" and "counterculture."

If girls and women really want to rebel against the sexified pop culture that breeds Britney Spears and The Pussycat Dolls, purity balls aren't the way. In fact, they're just more of the same. Pop culture tells women that their bodies are public property and that they have to be sexual in order to be desirable and loved. Purity balls and the like tell women that their bodies are private property (though not our own of course--our bodies belong to our fathers, husbands, and the men in our life) and that they have to be virginal in order to be desirable and loved. In either case women's sexuality belongs to everyone but women. There's nothing counter-cultural or cutting edge about that.

Glanton puts a couple of feminist quotes in her article, but seems to really buy into the notion that purity balls are revolutionary. Hell, she doesn't even seem to question that all of this moral tsk-tsking is directed only at women.

"Girls are going into marriage with 12 sexual relationships. That brings so much baggage and regret that it breaks down the marriage," said Janet Hellige, a volunteer who organizes the biannual Father-Daughter Purity Ball sponsored by The Christian Center in Peoria. "Girls have a wonderful gift to give, and we don't want them to give all of themselves away. What we want them to do is present themselves as a rose to their husband with no blemishes."

Now if that sentiment doesn't make you want to start a revolution, I don't know what will! (Ugh.)

Interestingly, it seems that the purity ball folks are starting to recognize how, well...creepy people are finding these events.

Gee, I wonder why. Via the New York Times:

The birth rate among teenagers 15 to 19 in the United States rose 3 percent in 2006, according to a report issued Wednesday, the first such increase since 1991. The finding surprised scholars and fueled a debate about whether the Bush administration’s abstinence-only sexual education efforts are working.

The federal government spends $176 million annually on such programs. But a landmark study recently failed to demonstrate that they have any effect on delaying sexual activity among teenagers, and some studies suggest that they may actually increase pregnancy rates.

And as reader Sara points out, it's sort of hilarious to see the Heritage Foundation's comeback:

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, said that blaming abstinence-only programs was “stupid.� Mr. Rector said that most young women who became pregnant were highly educated about contraceptives but wanted to have babies.

You know, because being a teen mom is such the craze these days. Let's take that statement, replace "educated" with "terrified" and "but wanted to" with "and therefore," and we'll be a bit more on the right path.

Womens eNews has the rundown on where the presidential hopefuls stand on the issue of sex education.

All of the Democratic candidates say they support comprehensive sex ed, but I'm pretty certain all have voted to fund abstinence-only -- understandably so, because the funding is always bundled with other programs that Democrats support. (Hell, even Kucinich recently voted to extend abstinence-only funding through the end of the fiscal year.) Still, I'd like to see some pledges that, as president, they would do everything in their power to ensure federal funds only go to comprehensive, medically accurate sex education.

Things aren't quite as clear-cut on the Republican side. Giuliani was OK with making condoms available to public school students in New York, and hasn't explicitly come out in favor of abstinence-only. McCain and Romney have mixed records, but both say they would back abstinence-only. And Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter are all unequivocally for teaching misinformation and gender stereotypes about sex to our nation's youth.

Our gal Courtney went mano a mano with serious wingnut Laura Ingraham on the O'Reilly Factor. Click here to watch Courtney drop knowledge. (Isn't she brave?)

I'm especially glad she got to make this point on Fox News:

Courtney: I believe we live in a culture where the pop messages are sex, sex, sex everywhere. They tell girls, your body is your power. Then, we have the federally funded abstinence in sex education that tells girls, your bodies are dangerous. Do not ask questions. After interviewing over 100 women, I believe we are struggling to decipher those messages. In the real world, how do we create state boundaries for ourselves? How do we have good relationships with our bodies when we are caught between extreme arguments?

Laura: You said, having relationships with our bodies. You said, there are people up there who tell young girls that their bodies are dangerous. I talked a lot of families, too. I never hear a mother tell her daughter that her body is dangerous. I do hear mothers tell their daughters, you'll be better off, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to take part in drug use, if you abstain from sex during your high school years. Do you disagree that that is a good thing for girls?

Courtney: I believe our education system is sending a message that girls should cut themselves off from their authentic identities.

Laura: What does that mean? If you are 12 years old, you do not know what color of shirt to put on.

Courtney: That's not true.

Doesn't she rock? (Courtney, that is...)

Rest of the transcript (which contains some typos -- be warned) is below the fold.

Andrew Lavallee at WSJ online takes on the snarky and funny podcast, turned online video show that is shaking up the world of abstinence-only education and has become widely popular. If you have not already seen the Midwest Teen Sex Show, please put some time aside and check it out. It is smart and FUNNY. I am still laughing at this episode on birth control.

Now, you know what we at Feministing think of most sex ed that is out there and it ain't cute. Most of it doesn't not apply, does not work or ignores the real ways that young people are living. Mainly it doesn't respect the choices they make or treat young adults as people that can think. But Midwest Teen Sex Show makes fun of all of it, while smartly including some tips on safe sex and other such things.

That sort of wry, pointed presentation has helped the show lure thousands of viewers since its debut this past summer. Some may have been attracted by the provocative title, but this isn't pornography. Instead, it aims to teach teenagers about sex using risqué sketches, explicit language and anecdotes that draw on the teenage experiences of its two 28-year-old creators -- host Nikol Hasler, the aforementioned woman, and Guy Clark, an aspiring filmmaker.

The two felt that existing sexual-education efforts were far too prim -- and boring -- to be useful to teens. Their podcast focuses less on birds-and-bees basics and more on real-life scenarios teens are likely to face.

Yeah, but interestingly, sex educators are not into it as much. The fear is that it is too satirical and humorous, while holding back hard truth. I don't think that is necessarily true though. Most of popular culture is snarky, sarcastic and full of inside jokes. Young people know how to decipher these messages and will still make their own conclusions. I think that if this has the ability to reach wide audiences it will still be more effective than, "save it for marriage." Let's be real. When I was young, I didn't always listen to the facts, especially when someone was forcing them down my throat. I listened to people I trusted and definitely paid attention when they made me laugh. But more importantly, I learned from watching other people and making some mistakes myself.

Midwest Teen Sex Show is using real world experiences with snark to get a point across and I think that is a lot more effective than many of the other types of snoring sex ed that is out there.

Thoughts?

Thanks to Shilpa for the heads up.

A new study put out by the nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reports that abstinence-only education does not affect teenager's sexual behavior.

"At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners" among teenagers, the study concluded.

The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having "positive outcomes" including teenagers "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use."

In other words? Abstinence education is a big fat waste of money.

The report also debunked myths about comprehensive sex-ed that the abstinence crowd like to spout--that it promotes promiscuity and so forth. Douglas Kirby, one of the researchers, said that instead comprehensive sex ed improves teens' knowledge about pregnancy and STDs and gives them "confidence in their ability to say 'no' to unwanted sex."

I can't wait to see what the pro-abstinence folks will say about this.

Via Amanda, perhaps the best abstinence logo yet. By the way, if my hymen was made of diamonds, I would have turned it into a hot pair of earrings. And if it was just one huge diamond like the one above, I doubt I'd be able to walk, let alone fuck.

Bush has appointed a birth control opponent Susan Orr to head our nation's family planning office. And she requires no Senate confirmation, so get used to this woman as the leading government voice on "a wide range of reproductive health topics, including adolescent pregnancy, family planning, and sterilization, as well as other population issues."

This is a woman who "cheered" the Global Gag Rule and considers birth control "not a medical necessity." As RH Reality Check notes:

In 2001, when President Bush proposed eliminating the requirement that federal employees' health insurance offer a range of options for birth control coverage, Dr. Orr, then the senior director for marriage and families at the Family Research Council, told the Washington Post, "We're quite pleased because fertility is not a disease. It's not a medical necessity that you have [contraception]."

I'm sorry, I (and most women I know) certainly consider contraception a medical necessity. And it's frightening to me that this is the person who will "oversee $283 million in annual grants that are intended to provide contraceptive services to low-income families, the office's abstinence program aimed at teens, and the all of the funding for birth control, pregnancy tests, counseling, and screenings for sexually transmitted disease and HIV administered by the Office of Population Affairs."

Orr also has typically outdated views on what women's roles and goals should be:

Orr authored a paper in 2000 titled, “Real Women Stay Married.� In it she wrote that women should “think about focusing our eyes, not upon ourselves, but upon the families we form through marriage.�

With anti-contraception officials rising through federal ranks, I suppose it should come as no surprise that Bush appointed a Family Research Council hack to this position. When HHS spokesman Kevin Schweers says that Orr has a "breadth of programmatic and managerial experience," he clearly means a breadth of experience in pushing extremely far-right views on reproductive health.

Please go check out the amazing Jill from Feministe's piece at HuffPo, on denial and ignorance on behalf of religiously motivated anti-choice stance, looking at the case of Nicaragua and some biting analysis of the position that has deadly global repercussions.

Some tidbits. . .

Yes, you read that right: Mainstream "pro-life" organizations are opposed to contraception as well as abortion. They're just keeping quiet about it because they know it's an unpopular position, and they know it outs them as hypocrites who put ideology over human life. But the fact remains that none of the well-known and influential national anti-choice groups have come out in support of contraception access. None of them promote the very thing that has been proven, time and again, to lower the abortion rate.

READ IT.

Yuck.

Note to freeper madness that has taken capitol hill by storm: abstinence-only education doesn't work! Are we really going to tell kids to save it for marriage?

Now, please turn off this ad and go cry in the bathroom for the fact that your tax money goes towards this, but expansion of SCHIP was vetoed. The Bush administration HATES youth.

*grunts and slams laptop shut*

via Truthdig and Think Progress.

There are many reasons to go listen to Amanda's new podcast at RH Reality Check. Amanda is smart and funny, she talks to interesting folks like Aimee Thorne-Thomsen, and she's constantly smacking down anti-choicers. But if you just need one hilarious reason, go listen because it contains a clip of an abstinence-only "educator" dropping knowledge like this:

"Many of the products left over from abortions, you girls wear them on your faces. Do you know they sell them to makeup companies? Did you know that, friends? The base of most of the lipstick sold in our stores comes from aborted babies."

Your federal dollars at work, folks!

Yesterday the House approved a bill to renew funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Rather than axe abstinence-only funding altogether, Democrats decided to expand funding so it can also be awarded to programs that teach comprehensive sex ed (sometimes called "abstinence plus") -- which is actually what a vast majority of parents say they want their children to be getting in school. Kaiser reports,

Under the bill, states would have the option to accept funds for abstinence-only sex education programs or for programs that promote abstinence and also teach "those who are currently sexually active or at risk of sexual activity about additional methods to prevent unintended pregnancy or reduce health risks." The bill also would require all programs that receive funding to provide medically accurate information and demonstrate effectiveness in reducing rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections such as HIV.

Of course, Bush is going to veto the bill. And even under this legislation, we'd still be spending federal dollars on programs that contain medical inaccuracies, gender stereotypes, and assorted misinformation. But this also marks the closest we've come to having a federal funding stream for any type of sex ed that isn't abstinence-only. And that alone is encouraging.

Finally, the chairmen of two House committees are initiating a probe into Bush's abstinence-only policies for attempting to spread HIV and AIDS. You know because abstinence-only really works with women who are married with men that are cheating on them and getting infected that way. Or I don't know for anyone else, who has sex, which is everyone. Bush's global abstinence-only policy is so uninformed and void of sense, I can only think that it is intentionally racist and sexist.

Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Tom Lantos (D-CA, chairs of the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform and Foreign Affairs, respectively, wrote with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) to Mark Dybul, the US Global AIDS Coordinator, in a Monday letter. It warned that the administration's current approach to HIV/AIDS prevention was coming up short.

"[A] recently completed impact evaluation that the Administration commissioned suggests that U.S.-funded 'abstinence and be faithful' programs are failing to meet the needs of sexually active youth," the three Congressmembers wrote. "According to the study, many of the evaluated programs lack age-appropriate, skill-based lessons on partner reduction, mutual fidelity, and cross-generational and transactional sex....most of the programs do not seem to have procedures in place to refer sexually active or 'at-risk' youth to more comprehensive programs, despite your office's direction that they do so."

Yeah, no shit.

via RawStory.

Today the New York Times ponders whether the end is near for abstinence-only.

Even in the face of imminent defeat, the weird metaphors just keep coming:

“You have to look at why sex was created,� Eric Love, the director of the East Texas Abstinence Program, which runs Virginity Rules, said one day, the sounds of Christian contemporary music humming faintly in his Longview office. “Sex was designed to bond two people together.�

To make the point, Mr. Love grabbed a tape dispenser and snapped off two fresh pieces. He slapped them to his filing cabinet and the floor; they trapped dirt, lint, a small metal bolt. “Now when it comes time for them to get married, the marriage pulls apart so easily,� he said, trying to unite the grimy strips. “Why? Because they gave the stickiness away.�

Keep your sticky to yourself, kids.

And over at RHRealityCheck, they've got a three-part series reporting from the recently health National Abstinence Clearinghouse conference. There's some great stuff, including a Heritage Foundation concedes that 75% of parents favor comprehensive sex ed, and Leslee Unruh admits defeat on the federal-funding front: "This message is not going away. The message is good -- with or without federal dollars." And Lakita Garth Wright, a speaker on the abstinence-only circuit, offered this pearl of wisdom:

"I run a business. If you come in for a job washing my bathroom floors, I ask you your name -- and your real name, not 'Pookie' or 'Ray-Ray' or whatever you're calling yourself today. I ask you your address, so I can see if you're still living with momma. I ask you where you've worked...and that's to clean my floor. That's more than some girls ask guys they sleep with."

You hear that? Confirm your janitor is not named Pookie or Ray-Ray before you go and sleep with him.

I'm not sure why, but this story gave me a giggle. It's actually something good to remember, the skewing of contraceptive failure rates by abstinence-only purity pushers. The stats they tend to use include the highest ever found failure rates for condoms, but the lowest for abstinence. But, the part that made me laugh was the serious tone of this:

When it comes to "typical," measurable behavior among professed users, abstinence actually suffers a higher "failure rate" than the pill and some other contraceptives, says a study based on the National Survey of Family Growth. That's because teens who profess to remain abstinent practice that method, on average, as imperfectly and irregularly as kids who use condoms or the pill, the study found.

So, kids, if you forget to use your abstinence, put a condom on.

Remember how overjoyed we were that one of the federal abstinence-only funding streams was about to dry up?

Well, surprise surprise, yesterday Congress passed legislation extending Title V funding for abstinence-only sex ed. While mainstream media outlets were still reporting that Democrats had let the funding expire (or not mentioning it at all), the conservative groups were already busy crowing about the extension -- and rallying the Purity Ballers to ask their legislators to continue the funding past the end of this fiscal year.

Ummm... so if Rep. John Dingell, the Democrat who heads the committee with jurisdiction over Title V funding, realizes that abstinence-only has been "a colossal failure," where were the Democrats on this?

Also, where are the comprehensive sex ed and repro health groups? I haven't heard a peep from them. Whether they decide to issue an action alert or not, in the coming three months we need to be asking our Democratic Senators and Representatives to live up to their word and let this abstinence-only money expire for good.

As the Senate gears up for confirmation hearings on Bush's surgeon general nominee, the homo-hatin' Dr. James W. Holsinger, former Surgeon General Richard Carmona told Congress that (surprise!) the Bush administration values ideology and theology over science and health.

Carmona, a Bush nominee who served from 2002 to 2006, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that political appointees in the administration routinely scrubbed his speeches for politically sensitive content and blocked him from speaking out on public health matters such as stem cell research, abstinence-only sex education and the emergency contraceptive Plan B.

"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried," he said.

That pretty much sums up the Bush administration's approach to, well, everything.

via Dana at TAPPED.

Today Michelle Goldberg has a great piece about the Bush administration's lethal decision to push abstinence as a solution to the AIDS crisis in Africa. She quotes Beatrice Were, the founder of Uganda's National Community of Women Living with HIV and AIDS:

Like many in attendance, Were contracted HIV from her husband, a common occurrence in a region where women make up the majority of new infections and marriage is a primary risk factor. For those like her, the White House's AIDS prevention mantra -- which prescribes abstinence and marital fidelity, with condoms only for "high risk" groups like prostitutes and truck drivers -- is a sick joke.

"We are now seeing a shift in recent years to abstinence only," she said. "We are expected to abstain when we are young girls and to be faithful when we are married to men who rape us, who are not necessarily faithful to us, who batter us." The women in the audience, several waiting to share their own stories of marital rape, applauded.

Goldberg goes on to debunk the notion, heralded by the likes of Bono, that the Bush administration has drastically increased AIDS funding. Nope-- they've just managed to not cut HIV/AIDS programs. In other words, they've ponied up the bare minimum. She also points out that, while defenders of the abstinence programs say that only 1/3 of prevention funding goes to "just say no" efforts, the reality is quite different:

But this figure is also deceptive, because the prevention budget includes things like fighting mother-to-child transmission. In fact, a full two-thirds of the money for the prevention of the sexual spread of HIV goes to abstinence. What's left is targeted to groups considered high-risk. HIV-activists have spent the last two decades trying to show that condoms aren't just for prostitutes and the promiscuous; Bush has undone much of their work.

This argument just might be starting to get through to Laura Bush. Her husband, not so much.

Sometimes I give anti-choicers too much credit. This week, when articles started cropping up on pro-fetus websites about how a government study showed comprehensive sex ed programs disseminate false information, I was actually kind of concerned. After all, the whole "false information about condoms" thing is the abstinence-only folks' area of expertise -- not ours.

So I wasn't exactly surprised when the Washington Post reported yesterday that the research was conducted by two right-wing organizations -- the Sagamore Institute (which has close ties to Bush's faith-based initiatives office and the Hudson Institute) and the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (remember them? they "train" med students to promote abstinence-only). It's shocking, I know, that Republicans would ask abstinence-only groups to evaluate the comprehensive sex-ed programs they oppose.

The analysis -- requested two years ago by Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) and former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.), both conservative Republicans -- concluded that nine widely used curricula contained misleading statements about condom failure, focused too little on abstinence and were only marginally successful in persuading young people to use condoms or, better yet, to delay having sex.

Our pals Coburn and Santorum! No shocker there.

Let's say up front that, for all the anti-sex crowd's crowing over the findings, eight of the nine programs evaluated contained NO misinformation about condoms. So already we've got a better track record than the abstinence-only crowd. Doesn't mean the evaluated curricula were perfect, though. WaPo summarizes:

Two major broadcasting companies have rejected a new Trojan ad along with a new campaign because it focuses on pregnancy prevention rather than "health-related issues" such as STIs.

I will admit the ad is your typical mainstream condom commercial; heterosexual and model-like women wandering through a bar surrounded by a bunch of a pigs...literally. Well, I'll just let you watch it.

So do I like the commercial? Not particularly, but I looked through the website of this new campagin Trojan is launching titled "Evolve," and it definitely sounds like one I'd be willing to support: they discuss the misinformation that abstinence-only programs put forth about the inefficacy of condoms, the fact that often ideology is often promoted over real information, and their intent to put forth the message that "sex isn't an unhealthy thing needs to be policed or demonized."

The ad is being aired tonight on a number of networks, except FOX and CBS who refused to air it. Fox's reasoning was that “contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy,� and CBS wrote, “while we understand and appreciate the humor of this creative, we do not find it appropriate for our network even with late-night-only restrictions.�

Funny thing is that while even the New York Times piece on this contends that TV networks restrict ads with a somewhat sexual nature like Viagra for late night and early mornings, every year the Superbowl manages to stick in a Cialis, Levitra or Viagra commercial or two in there; in fact, both Levitra and Cialis ads were featured in Superbowl XXXVIII which was - what do you know - aired on CBS.

Or what about this year's Superbowl (also aired on CBS) and their GoDaddy.com ad of a large-breasted woman having beer poured all over her tight white tank top by a room full of men while they rate her with score cards? Or Fox airing another gross GoDaddy ad for Superbowl XXIX?

I like Ansell Healthcare's (who make Lifestyles condoms) VP of Marketing Carol Carrozza's comment on this ridiculousness, which really says it all: "We always find it funny that you can use sex to sell jewelry and cars, but you can’t use sex to sell condoms.�

But it's actually not funny. At all.

A hat tip to MAC and Amy for the link.

This vid is just chock full of scary purity ball goodness. Whether it's the creepy pseudo-incestuous dad, the mom remarking that women were "created to feel accepted by men," the girls offering themselves "as a priceless gift" in the purity pledge, or the headless bride and suit of armor behind Leslee Unruh--the message is clear. Girls' worth and value as people is determined by their sexuality. Great morals, folks.

The House Labor-Human Services subcommittee approved a $27.8 million funding increase for Title X family planning programs.

...they also approved an identical funding increase for abstinence-only education.

In other words, "Yes! Contraception is important and it works! But shhhh... don't tell the children."

Via the incredible Mikhaela Reid. Click on the image for a bigger version...

U.S. international AIDS programs: Now with 33% less bullshit? Well, hopefully: Via Naina at RH Reality Check comes the welcome news that Democrats are hard at work to remove funding for abstinence-only programs in PEPFAR (the President's Emergency Plan For for AIDS Relief).

Today, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced groundbreaking legislation, the HIV Prevention Act of 2007, a bill that would remove the ideological 33 percent abstinence-until-marriage earmark from HIV prevention programs in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The earmark is the primary culprit in denying young people in PEPFAR countries from receiving honest, comprehensive HIV prevention programs.

When Congress passed legislation establishing PEPFAR in 2003, they included a provision that an independent evaluation of the program be conducted after 3 years. Well, the resulting evaluation called on Congress to remove the abstinence-only earmark. And it looks like the Democrats are paying attention.

Meanwhile on the home front... Congress is also reconsidering its funding for domestic abstinence-only programs. But in this case, the House Labor-Human Services subcommittee is set to increase one of the funding streams for "no-sex" education by between $20-27 million. I was all excited when it appeared Title V abstinence-only funding was going to dry up, and now this? One step forward, two steps back...

SIECUS has issued the following action alert:

TELL SPEAKER PELOSI AND REPRESENTATIVE OBEY: IT IS UNCONSCIONABLE TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR ABSTINENCE-ONLY-UNTIL-MARRIAGE PROGRAMS

Tomorrow, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives are poised to give the Community-Based Abstinence Education program the second largest increase in the history of this program.

TAKE ACTION NOW
- Call Speaker Nancy Pelosi at 202.225.4965 and email her at sf.nancy@mail.house.gov.
- Call the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative David Obey, at 202.225.2771 and email him here.

Call NOW and demand NO MORE MONEY for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

All of this made me wonder where Pelosi and Obey stand on abstinence-only. Not sure about Obey, but Pelosi seems a bit confused:

Democrats including Pelosi contend that abstinence should be taught as part of a broader sex-education curriculum.

“The Speaker supports funding for both abstinence and comprehensive sexuality education,� Hammill said. “We must get at the root of the problem by reducing unintended pregnancies through sex education and access to contraception.�

The thing is, comprehensive sex ed programs DO teach abstinence -- and then they teach about what to do if abstinence fails... that would be, use contraception. Pelosi seems to have fallen into the conservative trap that the only programs that mention abstinence are the ones that discuss abstinence-only-until-marriage exclusively. Let's hope she gets the picture in time to torpedo the abstinence-only funding.

Dare I hope?

Democrats plan to let a federal abstinence-education program die quietly next month, demonstrating that pursuit of their legislative agenda can sometimes be passive.

The authorization for Title V abstinence-education grants expires at the end of June, and those on both sides of the sex-education debate agree that the $50 million-a-year mandatory-spending program — which draws an additional $37.5 million match from the states — stands little chance of winning an extension from a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Nothing is a done deal, so don't go breaking into song and dance just yet. But jeez, this put in me in one hell of a good mood this morning! (On the downside, there will probably be less "glass hymen" jokes in my future. Damn.)

Bill Scher has more.

Moral of the abstinence-only bookmark: Cinderella didn't leave her virginity behind on the palace steps for the prince to find, now did she? So don't have sex. Or something.

Does anyone else find it telling that abstinence-only folks rely on fairy tales and the like?