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
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The hypocrisy of abstinence-only education..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11248
I don't know...while I don't agree with abstinence-only education, I do think this author has a good point. We do need to focus on many of the other things going on with teenagers, and help them build their self-respect. That will have a positive impact on teenage pregnancy and STD rates, either because they will abstain, or have the self-respect to demand safe sex practices from their partners.
I, for one, think that a lot of teenagers (not all, but a large proportion) have sex, and unsafe sex, for reasons such as lack of self-esteem. (heck, many adults do too.) I think it's an important issue to address. So, while I disagree with the author's advocacy of abstinence as the only choice, I have to applaud her for recognizing that teenage sexuality is more complex than telling them what to do with their reproductive parts.
I agree that many people have sex for the wrong reasons, but I feel like the sex-negative attitude often perpetuates this rather than preventing it. I grew up in a conservative home and throughout high school felt very negatively about my body and sex, which obviously had a poor effect on my self-esteem. I've been struggling with this for a long time and am now finally starting to feel comfortable enough with myself to finally have sex. I feel like if sex was discussed in a more realistic manner and teenagers learned how to accept their bodies and their desires, they would be much more able to make decisions about when they were ready for responsible, healthy sex. That said, I do agree that an emphasis on other things is important too. In high school and beyond, it can become a "who's having it/who's not" thing all the time, and I think maybe it could become a much less taboo personal decision if there was more focus on other aspects of teenage life.
And of course the biggest lie...
Of course not. "Abstinence" refers to something other than sex, right? They know that they can't just come out and say "Sex is evil!" so they need to try to disguise the issue; but then it just makes their reasoning look even more absurd. The way she implies that teaching sex-ed is just "giving up" just shows again that she can't imagine anyone would view sex as something healthy and normal that young people could be encouraged to make their own decisions about. We must just be too lazy to care more or we'd certainly be trying to force one view on everyone just like she is. The double-think is mind-boggling and depressing.
"Acting responsibly and waiting for a committed, loving relationship pay dividends down the line."
And it's amazing to me how much total denial maintaining this view depends on. I grew up in a really conservative religious setting and went to a private religious school, so many of my old high school friends (not to mention cousins, and siblings) bought into this view. A number of them (the women, anyway) were actually virgins when they got married (!) and have only slept with their husbands. Based on their conversations with me, none of them have healthy sexual relationships. In the worst case scenario, Ts husband has cheated on her twice, and T is afraid to leave him for religious reasons and because she's never had a job, gone to college, etc. She kind of feels like it's her fault (!) that he cheats on her since she's not very sexually adventurous and doesn't really like sex that much. I tend to think that a lot of these problems would have been avoided if she had even a little sexual experience before getting married. In several of the other cases, the attitude of my friends is "Eew, sex." I realize that they're kind of supposed to feel this way in this religious context, but I can't help but think that this would be different if they had more experience and felt more confident and adventurous.
In my experience, one of the main ways you find out what works for you sexually is by identifying what doesn't work, and this generally occurs via experience with a number of partners, since not everyone follows the same script. You also have to view yourself as an active partner, which involves having a voice and being valuable enough that your orgasm matters too. But if all you've ever been is an object of desire and a gatekeeper, it seems pretty unlikely that you'll view yourself this way. That doesn't sound like dividends to me.
I couldn't read the original article, due to a fear of contamination of the stupid, but did the author actually see "Marley & Me"? Sure it was PG, but it was semi-cute dog! funny dog! bad dog! and semi-the story of adulthood without a lot of swearing. Jennifer Aniston takes her clothes off to go skinny dipping with her husband to show him they're not going to kick the bucket yet, not with her high school aged pool boy. I didn't really think of it as a "kid" movie.
That said, while our culture does promote sex, every KY Jelly commercial features a several seconds long shot of the actors' wedding bands, and usually starts with a label of "Mr & Mrs Blah Blah". Any other really risque image I've noticed in the media does the same thing - establishes the fact that the people engaged in this behavior are married, although there is nothing to assume that they are married to each other. Isn't that like, the opposite of what this author is saying?
And who uses the word "fornication" anymore? That word made me giggle as a teen sitting in church, and thanks to this article I've discovered that it still kind of does.
I think the problem is not "our sex-obsessed culture," but the male-centric, male-gaze-oriented version of female sexuality that's so prevalent in our culture. This version of "female sexuality" is so ubiquitous that girls never get the idea that female sexuality could take any other form. At some point it's all GGW, just to differing degrees, and performing for the male gaze takes the place of authentic female desire. That is depressing.
Yeah. One big problem I have with my family (esp. my mom) is that they "blame" feminism for causing raunch culture and raunch culture for the breakdown of the family. They don't separate mainstream sexuality from real sexuality, and so they think any kind of sexual expression outside of marriage as being an exploitation of women by men (which we need to be protected from by guess who? daddy and hubby...). The article seems to be doing the same thing.
I think that so many women are obsessed with the male gaze, their looks, and this form of sexual expression, and all kids DO need to find something other than sex, as the article states, to "say yes" to. When I was a teenager, I had plenty of things to say yes to (writing, theatre, school, etc) and still found time to say yes to sex. The difference is I loved my life way too much to endanger it with STD's, pregnancy, or coerced sex. A lot of my active, smart, involved friends did abstain so they didn't have to worry about those things at all, but I promise that jesus had nothing to do with their decision.
I just wanted to say that this sounds like my family, I feel ya...
I can say from personal experience that as a Canadian, I was given condoms all the time throughout junior high and high school and it most certainly didn't propel me to have sex as I remained a virgin until well after high school. It was a comfort, however, to know that there was always a place to go where you wouldn't feel judged (say at the local drug store, which my father happened to own :P ) if you wanted protection.
'Cause having condoms makes you have sex, just like carrying an umbrella makes it rain...
Well, I also kinda think she has a point. The things she's thinking of won't stop sex in teens but might make them more likely to delay it till 16 or further. From what I've read, it sounds like the situations in which teens under 16 have sex are more likely to not be good or be regretted. But it's one thing to think fewer teens should be having sex and another to think no one should have sex before marriage and try to convince others of that.
Just a question...why is 16 the magic number? I've heard 18 before too. Who decides these numbers? What makes it okay for a 16 year old to have sex but not okay for a 15 year old? You can drive a car legally so therefore you're ready to have sex? Or you can vote so therefore you're ready? How about you can drink alcohol so you're ready? You can run for public office? These obligatory numbers people seem to associate with when people can be ready to have sex just don't make sense. I just don't get it. Your age does not matter. What matters is if you are mentally and physically mature enough for sex.
Okay, one thing I think we need to give the author credence for, is that there IS a lot of pressure in today's culture for teens to have sex. And I DO think, logically, that makes it harder to push abstinence. There ARE cultures in the world where teens lose their virginity on average later than they do in America (Japan, for instance).
BUT, that doesn't mean there aren't other positive benefits to comprehensive sex education, such as, well, lack of shame with one's body and the ability to have healthy sex when the occasion comes.
So I'm a big fan of comprehensive sex education, but I think it's important to recognize that the abstinence-only pushers have some valid points, which is probably why they have such a large following.
And I think people who favor comprehensive sex education have to stop saying that that has a better chance of delaying teen sex, because that's just feeding into the religious rights' meme that sex out of wedlock is bad and abusive to women. Sex always carries risks, but I don't believe that most people favoring comprehensive sex education truly believe that teen sex is inherently bad -time to start admitting it. Because continuing to argue over which approach is more likely to discourage sex is just an unwinnable argument...
Yeah - I think what's so irritating to me about the abstinenece-only approach is the kind of manipulative feeling it has. I really think that any sex education program needs to be honest with kids, because they know when you're feeding them a line, and this is the kind of thing that causes teens to lose respect for and ignore adults altogether.
I think a comprehensive sex ed program should include a discussion of abstinence, but phrase it in terms of the emotional subtleties of sexual relations, the level of judgement needed when engaging in sexual relations, as well as an honest and not over-exaggerated version of the possible consequences of sexual activity. Most importantly, I think it should emphasize that engaging in sexual activity just because you've been pressured into it doesn't make you cool, but making your own choices for your own reasons puts you in charge of your life and your future. In my experience, teens respect you and listen to you much more if you're just honest and real with them, and don't make sex ed into some kind of freak show.
Incidentally, I also think people should talk to kids about drugs this way, but that is never going to happen.
Interesting you bring up drugs. I was just thinking that teaching kids (and I am talking about kids, those under 16 who by virtually any measure should NOT be having sex) how to use condoms is a lot like teaching them how to use drugs responsibly.
Imagine a teacher saying "be sure that if you choose to smoke weed you use a clean bong to prevent germs and be aware of the risk of setting fires when lighting joints while high." Or "heroine probably isn't the best choice for you, but let me demonstrate the proper way to use and clean a needle, just in case."
I know the drug comparison sounds ridiculous, but when parents and teachers talk to kids (again, we're talking about kids) about how to do things, they get the message that it's expected of them that they should be doing those things. That's why so many parents have trouble giving their kids birth control.
This SAME message bothered me yesterday in an Anti-Drug commercial. The commercial shows a kid being dressed by various people, until he tells them to stop and walks away. The tagline is something like "When you give up your right to choose, you give up being yourself. DON'T DO DRUGS!" Its....a presentation of only one choice, wrapped up in the facade of caring about choice. Very insidious.
Off topic, but you reminded me of another post (about bulimia) that I just read where some of the commenters made comparisons between a bulimia-awareness ad and anti-marijuana ads. It says a lot about the "war on drugs" that smoking some ganja is in any way comparable to depriving your body of essential nutrients and slowly starving yourself to death because of mental illness and/or societal pressure to fit the beauty standards.
So what should it say? "When you give up your right to choose, you give up being yourself. RECLAIM YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE DRUGS." ??
Okay, I just have to say it: I'll say yes, Ms. Lopez. In fact, I'll say "yes, yes, oh yes, oh-oh YESSSS!!"
Sorry, I had to indulge my immature side for just a sec. Seriously though, I hate the "pin the tail on the magic age" game. Maturity varies like crazy. I lost my virginity at 14. The sex itself wasn't shaming, but boy was I put through the wringer by the other kids; there aren't words to describe the slut-shaming that was occurring.
Fortunately, I have a wonderful mother who never let me be ashamed of myself. "You made a decision," she said. "You were smart and protected yourself, and you were ready. Why would you be ashamed of having sex?"
I only wish others had the sexual support I did. I have a healthy sex life 10 years later and a wonderful husband. A dear friend of mine though, an evangelical Christian, called me in tears on her wedding night because she was in horrible pain -- she hadn't been able to get aroused and well, you get the idea.
Sorry in advance for double-posting, but another thought just occurred to me: Lopez writes that "until that (portrayals of sex everywhere) changes, of course, a hormone-mad teenager will be sorely tempted to join in the seemingly ubiquitous fornication, pledge or no pledge."
Excuse me, why do we assume that all teenagers are absolutely hormone-crazed and unable to control their desires? It's offering a cop-out in the same way that assuming men are horndogs who fuck anything that moves is one. "You're just a hormone-crazed teen who needs to be placed in a small chamber devoid of sex or sexuality lest you go mad and start humping the walls."
Puh-leeze.
For real.
Contradicts itself. If teenagers want to have sex because they're "hormone-crazed"(probably true enough denotatively if not connotatively), taking all sex out of the culture, even if you could, will do approximately nothing.
Lopez contradicts herself, that is.
I actually agree with Katherine Lopez. In particular, I agree with this: "Abstinence [sic] 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."
The first sentence there is why I think oral sex and what sex educators call "outercourse" should be part of any sex ed curriculum, as a good compromise between the sexual urge and the desire to avoid pregnancy and STD transmission (which is not to say condoms aren't also a reasonable compromise). The idea that a relationship is about more than sex doesn't contradict the notion that sex has a place in a relationship, and I see nothing wrong with casual sex for those who are cut out for it, but there should be a counter to the idea that relationship=sex and sex=relationship. Surely we can all agree on the value of making it clear to women that just because he's your boyfriend doesn't mean you have to fuck him (regardless of whom you've fucked previously, and why), no?
I love this quote from the advocates for youth:
"Abstinence-only-until-marriage as a method of birth control is spectacularly ineffective. Like other methods, abstinence-only-until-marriage works if ‘used’ consistently and correctly. Common sense as well as available research, suggests that in the real world, it can and does fail routinely – as evidenced by the staggering proportion (95 percent) of Americans who have had premarital sex."
I link to it in my recent blog post criticizing the analysis of the increase in teen birth rates, which not only downplayed the role of abstinence only education and contraception, but seemed rather racist to me.