Articles are:
- Trends 2002-03: A Tug-of-War Between Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sexuality Education
- Facing Controversy After 25 Years
- How Will We Teach Our Children
- What Teachers Want, Need, and Deserve
- An Influx of Funding for Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Leads to a Decade of Policy Changes
- What You Don't Know Can't Hurt You?
- Advocating For A Condom Availability Program
- Abstinence-Only Education in the Courts
- The Everyday Challenges of Teaching Sexuality Education
- Forming a Gay Straight Alliance Without Controversy
- A Controversial Decade: 10 Years of Tracking Debates Around Sexuality Education
Also in This Issue...
From the President:
"The Framing of a Debate: 10 Years of the Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Message"
Tamara Kreinin, M.H.S.A.
When SIECUS began the Community Advocacy Project in 1992, I don't believe anyone could have predicted the changes the next decade would bring. At the time the federal government spent a small amount of money on "chastity" programs under the Adolescent and Family Life Education Act (AFLA) and communities were just starting to face challenges from those who demanded schools implement fear-based, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.
Controversy over school-based sexuality education was by no means new when we began to track it during the 1993-94 school year. In 1968, just four years after SIECUS began, a booklet entitled Is The Little Red School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?, was published by the John Birch Society. In the years that followed, it became clear that conservative forces and far right organizations were strategically targeting sexuality education as an arena in which they could bring about social change.
CHANGING STRATEGY AND SHAPING THE DEBATE
However, after the passage of AFLA, and into the early 1990s, the far right changed their strategy. Instead of arguing to remove sexuality education from the "little red school house," they simply asked to change the messages young people heard. In fact, they began to argue that sexuality education in school was very important, so long as it told young people, in no uncertain terms, to abstain from all sexual activity until marriage.
The real success of the abstinence-only-until-marriage movement has been the ability of its leaders to shape the debate and define the terms. They declared that supporters of abstinence-only-until-marriage and supporters of comprehensive sexuality education were polar opposites. They framed this as a debate between the god-fearing and the godless; between those who wanted to give children values and those who wanted to give them condoms; between those who valued families and those who valued freedom of sexual expression; between the moral and the immoral.
Despite the fact that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs have never been proven effective, such programs became palatable to many communities because they provided messages that adults were eager to hear: If we tell our young people not to have sex, they won't.
With this new strategy and message echoed by national, state, and local organizations across the country, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs flourished. The federal government began to invest significant amounts of money in such programs; states added their own money and created state-wide media campaigns; and community-based organizations and schools implemented classroom lectures, assemblies, after school clubs, and chastity rallies. At the same time, existing national far right organizations made abstinence-until-marriage a primary part of their agenda, new organizations devoted to distributing abstinence-only materials and curricula emerged, and a national circuit of speakers gained popularity. Today, abstinence-only-until-marriage is a multi-million dollar business replete with trinkets of every kind from boxer-shorts that say "Keep It" to mints that say "Sex is Mint for Marriage" to novelty ATM (Abstinence Till Marriage) Cards that expire on the holder's wedding day.
A SOCIAL AGENDA
Hidden behind these cute toys, however, are much more serious issues. Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are, in fact, an attempt at social change masquerading as a teen pregnancy prevention effort. Nowhere is this more evident than in the portrayal of gender roles and male/female relationships in many abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula.
These curricula present the stereotypical view that men desire casual sexual activity from any and all women, while women only agree to sexual activity to get love. For example, Sex Respect says that "a young man's natural desire for sex is already strong due to testosterone" and that, in contrast, "females are becoming culturally conditioned to fantasize about sex as well."1 Wait Training makes a similar point by saying "A man is usually less discriminating about those to whom he is physically attracted."2 Such comments not only disregard women's natural interest in sexual pleasure, they also place responsibility for setting limits almost exclusively on young women. In a poster, Sex Respect tells girls: "Watch what you wear, if you don't aim to please, don't aim to tease."3
Instead of stereotypes and catchphrases, students need to learn that both men and women are sexual beings and are equally responsible for making decisions regarding sexual activity.
These curricula also present "traditional" gender roles as the norm within a marriage. Reasonable Reasons to Wait suggests that newly married couples ask, "Will the wife work after marriage or will the husband be the sole breadwinner?"4 The Art of Loving Well, a literary anthology used to promote abstinence-until-marriage, asks students to: "Think of the enormous wisdom contained in the fact that in the wedding ceremony the father 'gives away' his daughter."5 And Wait Training explains "It is not that men are more selfish than women. It is simply that at the outset of a marriage, a man is not as equipped to express unselfish love or as desirous of nurturing marriage into a loving and lasting relationship as a woman is."6
These examples represent a giant step backwards in the values of gender equality—both within relationships as well as within society—that so many generations have struggled for. By promoting these gender stereotypes, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs limit young people's options, influence their behaviors, and color their expectations for future relationships.
Such stereotypes are once again taking center stage. A recent edition of Newsweek was devoted to "The New Virginity." It discussed young women who have decided to remain virgins until they marry. Choosing to remain abstinent is a valid and often wise decision. What was disturbing about this article, however, was that the issue was once again framed as the godfearing versus the godless, the moral versus the immoral, and the pure versus the tainted. And this time, young women were the target.
I am very concerned that this concept of the "new virgin" is quickly becoming yet another mechanism to make young women feel ashamed of their sexuality.
THE LAST TEN YEARS
I feel that this special anniversary issue of the SIECUS Report provides valuable information, insight, and, in spite of all the bad news, some hope. In addition to our annual review of controversy, this issue provides analysis of the changes we have seen over the last ten years in communities and schools, federal and state laws and polcies, and relevant court decisions. As you will see from these articles, the federal government's increasing commitment to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, including the 1996 passage of the Welfare Reform Act and the creation of the SPRAN-CBEA Program (Special Projects of Regional and National Signifcance - Community Based Abstinence Education), has had a profound impact on sexuality education in this country.
What I am most excited about, however, are the contributions to this issue by a number of educators and parents who have faced controversy first-hand. These dedicated indivuals show us that although it is not easy, we can, in fact, make progress.
I hope that when the Community Advocacy Project marks another ten years of tracking controversy around sexuality education, SIECUS can simply report that comprehensive sexuality education has become so widely accepted that communities no longer debate the issue. After all, the ultimate goal of all good advocacy projects is to create a world where the project is no longer needed.
References
Home |
Support SIECUS |
Links |
About SIECUS |
Site Navigation |
Search |
Donate
Policy & Advocacy |
Media |
International |
Library |
Youth Development |
School Health Education Clearinghouse
copyright ©
1996-2004, SIECUS
Web Master: siecus@siecus.org