Sex Education With Just One Lesson: No Sex

(NY Times, page 1, 11/28/00)

By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHICAGO — Jenny, a cartoon teenage virgin, is about to give in to her boyfriend and climb into the back seat of his car. Suddenly, the emergency brake gives out and his car rolls until it teeters from a cliff off lover's lane. Their lives hang in the balance.

That is when Windy, the good witch in high-tops, leaps to the rescue. "Paul loves me," Jenny protests.

Windy asks, "Oh. Is that why he asked you to do something that could mess up your life forever?" Using her time machine, Windy shows Jenny how she would have awoken pregnant. Had the car's brakes not failed, her boyfriend's condom would have.

The cartoon, shown to sixth graders at Burbank Elementary School here, is one weapon in an arsenal of films, celebrity rallies, school classes, even lollipops and pencils, pushing a message of chastity in classrooms around the nation.

A recent survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found an elevenfold increase since 1988 among secondary school teachers who say they do not discuss any method other than abstinence as a way to avoid pregnancy. The percentage of these teachers rose to 23 percent from 2 percent.

Groups promoting abstinence until marriage have flourished since conservative Republicans in Congress, in a little-noticed amendment to the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, stepped up federal financing to promote chastity, which had totaled $60 million since 1981.

The new law set aside $250 million for five years — $437 million including mandatory state matching funds — and barred participating programs from encouraging use of condoms or contraception, or giving any information that might undermine the abstinence message.

Along with other increases in financing for abstinence programs, federal and state governments will pay $100 million over the next year to teach chastity as the only realistic strategy for avoiding disease and pregnancy, dwarfing the $30 million a year Washington spends on education to fight H.I.V., largely by urging youngsters to use condoms if they do have sex. Aside from spending on abstinence and H.I.V. programs, the federal government designates no other money for sex education.

New York State spends $6 million a year on a range of abstinence education programs, including advertising. The largest grants go to nonprofit organizations like the New York archdiocese and Harlem Hospital, which use the money to teach abstinence in public and private schools and other sites.

The abstinence-until-marriage programs teach young people to view commercials, television shows and movies portraying sex between singles with skepticism, and to refuse physical intimacy not anchored in wedding vows — values most parents tell pollsters they want schools to pass on.

But the programs part company with parents, who overwhelmingly favor teaching youngsters to take precautions if they do have sex, in shunning practical information for students who ignore the abstinence message.

Contrary to the wishes of more than 80 percent of the parents surveyed in a half-dozen national polls over the last decade, abstinence-until-marriage programs do not tell youngsters how to obtain or use birth control and condoms, instead emphasizing their potential for failure. Some describe in gruesome detail the advanced stages of venereal diseases, but do not mention where teenagers should go or what they should do if they catch one.

In recent classes at Lane Technical High School here, given by the Southwest Parents Committee and Project Reality, Griska Gray, an instructor, showed a videotape demonstration meant to parallel sexual intercourse. On the tape, a half-dozen teenagers chew cheese snacks, then spit into glasses of water. The dirty water represents bodily fluids, which the teenagers share by pouring their water into one another's glasses. Before long, the class echoed with exclamations of disgust.

(continued on next post...)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 28, 2000

Answers

(NY Times article continued from prior post)

Another point the film makes: the murky water, even if passed through a strainer, can never be clean again.

The growth of abstinence courses appears to reflect inroads by conservative, often religiously based groups on local school boards and at the federal and state level, rather than a ground swell of popular support for such classes or evidence documenting their success. Educators predict a vigorous debate next year, when most of the money available faces reauthorization.

"This is really an argument not about research," said Sarah S. Brown, director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, which believes that teenagers need information about birth control and disease prevention, which the abstinence courses avoid. "It's about what people believe is right."

"It's the culture wars writ large," Ms. Brown said.

So far, the three studies of abstinence programs generally recognized as the most valid have shown insufficient evidence that they delay sex, said Douglas Kirby, a senior research scientist at Education, Training and Research Associates in California. Mr. Kirby's group produces its own curriculum, which promotes abstinence but also emphasizes the importance of using condoms and contraception.

A second review of the studies by Rebecca Maynard of Mathematica Policy Research, a data analysis company in Princeton, N.J., reached a similar conclusion. Ms. Maynard is running the government's first evaluation of federally financed abstinence programs.

A National Academy of Sciences committee on H.I.V. Prevention recently called spending on abstinence- only programs "poor fiscal and public health policy." A panel of scientists the National Institutes of Health convened in 1997 deemed the programs an obstacle to reducing the risky behaviors among teens that spread H.I.V., and called for the elimination of their financing.

People under 25, many of whom may have been infected in their high school years, account for half of all new H.I.V. cases in the United States. African-Americans and Latinos appear to be the most severely hit by the disease, representing 84 percent of new cases among 13- to 19-year- olds, although they make up only 30 percent of teenagers in the country.

Debbie Olson, a Chicago nurse who heads the Southwest Parents Committee, which teaches abstinence, acknowledged that few recognized studies proved conclusively that courses like hers keep teenagers from having sex. But, Ms. Olson said, she just knew it was right, on moral grounds if not scientific ones.

"It's a philosophical difference over what is sex for," she said. "Is it for recreational sport or is it something special and meaningful?"

Though advocates appear polarized into two camps, pitting "abstinence only" against "comprehensive sex education," studies over the last 15 years have documented success among programs that combine both approaches: discussion of the risks of early sexual involvement and the skills needed to refuse advances, backed up with instruction about precautions for those who have sex. The studies found no proof that talking about protection led teenagers to have sex earlier.

Abstinence programs are rising against the backdrop of a steady decline in teenage pregnancy, for which advocates of both comprehensive sex education and abstinence claim credit. From 1990 to 1996, the pregnancy rate among 15- to 17-year- olds fell 17 percent, after rising 23 percent over the previous 18 years, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy says.

(continued on next post...)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 28, 2000.

(NY Times article continued from prior post)

By age 17, roughly half of all high school students remain virgins, but recent studies suggest a more complicated picture of teenage sex: students are more frequently resorting to oral and anal sex — both condemned by the abstinence movement — even as they avoid vaginal sex. And venereal diseases among teenagers are increasing.

Leslee J. Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, based in Sioux Falls, S.D., says the new federal money, which goes to states in the form of block grants, has invigorated the abstinence movement. Because the federal government left policing of abstinence education to the states, the clearinghouse moved into what has become an apparent vacuum, issuing a national report card rating the faithfulness of abstinence programs to Congressional guidelines.

Taking a page from antidrug campaigns, the National Abstinence Clearinghouse gives teenagers stickers that say, "What part of NO don't you understand?" or, simply, "NO." Another group, the Pure Love Alliance, affiliated with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, draws an idealized portrait of marriage between virgins and describes premarital sex as a downward spiral, beginning with "regret" and "heartbreak" and ending with "depression or suicide." The group, which taught in 61 Chicago schools until this summer when newspapers reported the link to the Unification Church, urged students to take a "pure love pledge."

Scott Phelps of Project Reality asked a class of freshman boys to list the emotional and physical risks of teenage sex. He came up with anger, jealousy, violence, pregnancy, cancer, sterility and death. His message: While all of these problems may not strike teenagers who have sex, some of them will. "And you don't know which," he said.

One student in the front row suggested a solution: "What if you only have sex with virgins?"

"That's looking at sex from a getting perspective," Mr. Phelps said. "We want to help you think through the giving part of sex."

Later, the teacher tried again. "Sex isn't about getting," he began. "It's about —— "

"Taking," a student, Scorpio Perry, blurted out. The class erupted in laughter, before someone provided the expected answer: "Giving." But the 15-year-old student later said his answer was no joke.

"I mean that's what it's about around the school — taking," Mr. Perry said.

At no point do the teachers invite questions, which could pull the classes into unplanned areas. Mr. Phelps said that youngsters had already learned about sex from friends, television and perhaps family. He was here, he said, to teach abstinence.

Keith Foley, the principal of Lane Tech, said the abstinence classes represented the sum of what the 4,300 students in his magnet school will learn about sex from their teachers. He acknowledged that some parents wanted schools to teach more, but said, "I firmly believe it's the only thing we should be teaching. To do anything else only gives kids a mixed message and confuses them."

Afterward, several students said they liked the classes, but wanted to know more. Upperclassmen do brag about sex, Mr. Perry said, but they never mention getting tested for diseases, or how to keep girls from getting pregnant.

"They shouldn't hide anything that we need to know to keep safe," Mr. Perry said.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 28, 2000.

"But, Ms. Olson said, she just knew it was right, on moral grounds if not scientific ones"

This is a truly frightening qoute. It is okay to spend MY TAX MONEY on unscientific methodologies. Make no mistake about a new republican regime-make no mistake about the laughable euphemism "reaching across the aisle"-our new attorney general nominee as a pentocostal-pure religious right-Those of us with half a brain have to be hypervigilant to prevent these fuckers from shoving their moral agenda down our throats.

If the 1998 legislation is an indication of things to come we are in serious trouble. Nancy Reagan's "Just say No" to drugs campaign worked so splendidly, so now it is being applied to sex. This sounds like a saturday night live parody, but unfortunately it is real and people are going to die because of it.

You want to talk about morality? If I must use the word "moral" I would say without equivocation that it is totally immoral not to teach high school students about safe sex. It is totally immoral to not provide the names of social agencies who can help a teenager with an unwanted pregnancy. It is totally immoral to make believe that teenagers are not going to have sex before marriage just because you say it is "wrong".

The War on Sex will fail as miserably as the War on Drugs-But these folks will continue to think they can legislate morality, despite its ineffectiveness. And the qoute I have selected says it all-They do not care if it really works, just that, in their minds, it is the "right" thing to do.

I thought republicans did not believe that throwing government money at problems solves them. Oh, except when it backs up THEIR version of morality-then it is fine to increase funding to stop those little buggers from having sex.

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 28, 2000.

I partially agree with Syd here. This policy is guaranteed to have exactly the opposite of the intended effect and help nobody. Yet, what is the proper role of government in such an intimate aspect of personal life? Should Big Brother be taxing us to pay for condoms to hand out in the classrooms? Should we be teaching the Kama Sutra? Why not?

I believe sex education should be received at home. But this means it must be *offered* at home, and our predominant religious indoctrination militates against this. If we must substitute classrooms by (very poor) default, what is the optimum curriculum? When I was in high school, as I recall the opportunity for sex was worth death itself as a possible punishment. I'd have risked it. So I don't think it's possible that a suitable solution can be embedded in our Christian value system, which is itself based on fantasies, on asking the impossible and imposing guilt for falling short. Bah!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 28, 2000.

On principle, I think all education should be private.

But if we must have it, I don't think it (K-12, that is) should go far beyond the basics --e.g., literature (including reading, writing, and grammar), math, history, and science. Once we get much beyond this, it becomes a slippery slope curriculum, vulnerable to all kinds of pressure group politics and agendas.

Assuming for the moment the premise that we must have public education, I don't think sex education should be a part of it. Why? Because it uses money expropriated from taxpayers to violate, or potentially violate, their religious (or other) principles.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 28, 2000.

Reefer madness!

-- (nemesis@awol.com), December 28, 2000.

Those of us with half a brain have to be hypervigilant to prevent these fuckers from shoving their moral agenda down our throats.

… and on another thread you wrote, "no one has yet spoken to my position that our parents have failed our children" Please explain the apparent conflict here. In one sense, you seem to be against government getting involved in teaching morals to our children and on the other hand you're for some kind legislation (or other way to solve) acceptable parenting practices. I'm confused on your point of view. Actually I agree with your first statement (I think). It brought to mind the legislation that Bush signed to force under-aged girls seeking abortions to obtain parental approval. You can't legislate parental involvement.

Eve, I agree with you, a very slippery slope indeed. But I can't say that I actually find this wrong. After all it harms no one except a few extra dollars in taxes. True, money can be spent more wisely but is abstinence such a bad thing? Is teaching that having sex is more about giving and than taking such a bad thing?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 28, 2000.

Maria, I guess I should have taken my argument a step further. Assuming that we have to have some type of sex education, I agree that focusing on abstinence is the best way to go. That's because it's the only truly safe way.

The condom route sends an implicit message that that method is acceptable. No matter how much cautionary verbiage accompanies the condoms, the fact that they're discussed as an alternative -- no matter how inferior that alternative is said to be -- tends to "legitimize" them, IMO.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 28, 2000.

Maria, to answer some other points you raised...

"...I can't say that I actually find this wrong. After all it harms no one except a few extra dollars in taxes."

Given the fact of public education to begin with, if the money -- my own money -- was used to teach something in direct contradiction to my principles and the principles I try to impart to my kids, then one penny would be too much. On principle.

"Is teaching that having sex is more about giving and than taking such a bad thing?"

Why not teach about the giving and taking that can and does take place when abstinence is the goal? Giving and taking occur there too, although they may be a little more subtle -- perhaps tougher to isolate.

Given an abstinence-focused context (or many other contexts, for that matter)...I think we need to work harder on removing any unearned guilt from any "taking" (I'd prefer the term "accepting") side of the equation. I mean as long as everything is done on a free-will basis, I don't see why any "accepting" shouldn't be every bit as fulfilling and rewarding as the "giving." In any case, in an abstinence-focused context, we need to be careful and very clear about how we speak in terms of "giving" and "accepting," so that we don't end up sending mixed messages.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 28, 2000.

That sounds good, eve. I guess I don't have strong convictions on this one, one way or the other. I'm so involved in my kids lives, I know everything going on, and I've taught them all my values. Now it's up to them. So far, so good.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 28, 2000.

We must have posted at the same time. My comment on the "giving than taking" was more to focus on the positive aspects of sex. Sex is not just getting some but a giving of one's self in body and mind. You're right in that it is present in abstinence as well, more about relationships not just the horizontal mamba. And of course when one is giving the other is taking or as you put it accepting. Taking, I think as I read the article, was viewed negatively and I agreed with that. I think it almost connotes rape.

Again we can't dwell on abstinence because sex is just bad. I don't think we should tell our kids that. I know that this approach screwed up quite a few women in the older generation. Touching yourself is bad, sex is bad, letting boys touch you is bad, and on and on. These women after marriage had a very hard road to undo this teaching and enjoy any sexual activity. I just ignored this teaching that my mother tried to instill in me. The sexual revolution undid all her "good efforts". :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 28, 2000.

Maria -- on your last paragraph in your last post -- I agree with you 100%. Well put.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), December 28, 2000.