Recently in Abstinence-Only Education Category

Sex in Georgia, is troubling me.

    I've lived in Georgia for the last eleven years, I went to high school in a military town in southern Georgia and am now in my senior year of college at UGA in Athens, Georgia. Incidentally, Athens-Clarke country became the first country in Georgia to offer comprehensive sex education to teens a matter of months ago.

    My own sex education consisted roughly, of a gym coach well past middle age fumbling over terms like 'down there' and 'privates' while showing us slide shows of penises, vaginas, and newborn infants covered in festering sores caused by sexually transmitted infections. The message was pretty clear, unless you waited until marriage to have sex, this would happen to you, not a word about condoms or other contraceptives. That was until I raised my hand and addressed that pink elephant, inquiring why we weren't talking about condoms and other contraceptives. My mother became pregnant with my oldest brother when she was fifteen, so the word condom was part of my vocabulary before I really understood what it was. My gym coach looked at me as if I had just yelled out 'fuck me hard' in the middle of the classroom, before stumbling over the answer that abstinence only education was school policy.

     By my senior year of high school, about a dozen girls in my class had been or were pregnant, many of them dropping out of high school. Unsurprising, considering the sex education they had received. I was reading Gloria Steinem's 'Life Between the Lines' this morning and realized when reading about the transition from the words population control to reproductive freedom that this freedom still does not exist for most of the girls in my state.

Crossposted from Amplify

With Obama's recent move to de-fund abstinence-only education, the conservatives have been left in a state of frenzy, trying to re-brand a program that at its worst caused many STIs and unwanted pregnancies by holding back information about birth control and, at best, instilled confused and shameful patriarchal attitudes about sex in young men and women (especially women.)

Take Cheryl Wetzstein for instance, who wants us to "tell teenagers sex is for adults." More specifically, Cheryl proposes that we:

Make "abstinence until 20" the public-health message for unmarried youth. With one stroke, we would send the message that sex is for adults.

Was this proposal drafted by the Trix Bunny? (The fact that this is all I was thinking about while reading this article says a lot about my maturity level... but that's another post.)

First of all, when did 20 become the age standard for adult? At eighteen we can legally vote and go to war - but, we can't have sex? Really? Secondly, when and why did age become the deciding factor in sex?

According to Cheryl:

Saving sex until 20 takes direct aim at unwed teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. It gives cover to high-school kids and college-age teens who don't want to be pressured into sex. It helps both heterosexual and homosexual youth reject the advances of older sexual predators.

It also meshes with what we know about brain development and judgment. Compared to teens, a 20-year-old virgin is more likely to choose his or her first sexual partner with care. They can insist on contraception and use it more effectively. They can even decide to keep their pants on until their wedding day.

Noble goals, however I have to ask... wouldn't education about contraception more effectively take direct aim at unwed teen pregnancy and STIs? At best this 'age limit' on sex takes an indirect aim at these issues, by simply putting off (hopefully) their onset. If a program like this were actually effective, we'd simply have a bunch of twenty year olds - who had not been taught about protection, only taught that they need to wait - getting pregnant and getting STIs because they never received education on how to avoid these issues.

In addition, programs like this proposal (and abstinence only programs) on a whole do not do much, if anything, to detract from the pressures that teenagers all people feel to have sex. That pressure, which comes from a hyper-sexualized society that places undue value in men's sexual prowess and women's 'purity' and ability to be sexy all at the same time,  is something that can only be reduced by changing the dialogue about sex.

The abstinence only movement's intense focus on purity is only adding to the problem by stigmatizing sex and making it something that teenagers do not feel comfortable talking about and getting advice on, in order to make smart decisions. If sex were framed, not as a moral issue, but as something that is beautiful and fun in the right context - a context that needs to be developed and chosen by an individual - then we could help teenagers make decisions for themselves about sex, thus reducing the pressure they feel from society, their families, their peers, and themselves.

Meghan McCain has a great column up at the Daily Beast where she airs her frustrations with the Republican party's support of abstinence-only education.  Here's a little bit of her critique:

"Here’s what I’ve never understood about the party: its resistance to discussing better access to birth control. As a Republican, I am pro-life. But using birth control and having an abortion are not the same at all. Actually, the best way to prevent abortions is to educate people about birth control and make it widely and easily accessible. True: abstinence is the only way to fully prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Still, the problem with abstinence-only education is that it does not make teenagers and young adults more knowledgeable about all the issues they face if or when they have sex—physically and emotionally."

She also discusses the media's treatment of the sex lives of Republican daughters.  She uses herself and Bristol Palin as examples of women who have had their sexual choices monitored and scrutinized by the media and the nation as a whole.  McCain is especially concerned that Republican daughters who make their own choices about their bodies are treated as liabilities to their parents' political careers, and rarely allowed to have their own voices heard.  McCain again:

"Let me get something straight: Bristol Palin, as an eighteen-year-old adult, is free to make her own choices and decide how she wants her life to unfold. But for whatever reasons, the American public and media remain overly engrossed in our politicians’ sex lives and, as in this case, those of their families. There’s an especially unhealthy attitude among conservatives. Daughters of Republican politicians aren’t expected to have sex, let alone enjoy it—as if there were some strange chastity belt automatically attached to us female offspring. God forbid anyone talk realistically about life experiences and natural, sexual instincts. Nope, the answer is always abstinence."

It almost seems like McCain is channeling Vanessa in this column!  To me, Meghan McCain is emerging as one of the most interest political personalities of our generation.  In a lot of ways she deserves the title of Maverick even more than her father.  Although a lot of her opinions do fall within party lines, she's distinguishes herself in her views on social issues like abstinence-only education and gay marriage.  I don't know about you, but I think I'll be following Meghan McCain's work more closely.

Crossposted at Choice Words.

President Obama’s 2010 budget, which was released today, May 7, 2009, eliminates funding for abstinence only programs and redirects funds to a new Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative. The relevant portions of the budget can be read here (pdf).

The elimination of funding for abstinence only programs is a huge victory. Abstinence only programs have no perceivable impact on teen sexual activity - young people who go through these programs are just as sexually active as their peers. Instead, the programs teach inaccurate information about contraception and decrease condom use and other safe sex practices . Further, they often teach a fundamentalist Christian worldview, encourage young people to fit into essentialist and offensive gender roles, and ignore or actively oppose homosexuality . Abstinence only programs waste government funds teaching a belief system rather than scientifically accurate information.

Federal funds for abstinence only programs are not necessarily gone; according to a Wall Street Journal article 25% of the $164 million in funds for teen pregnancy prevention could potentially go to these programs if they pass the evaluation process.

Funds will be directed to “teenage pregnancy prevention programs that have been proven through rigorous evaluation to delay sexual activity, increase contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity), or reduce teenage pregnancy.” The administration recognizes that no abstinence only programs will qualify, as they have been shown to fail on all three counts. They could apply for funds to develop “innovative strategies” to prevent teen pregnancy, though these programs have had zero success showing results so far.

This is a qualified victory; the focus on pregnancy prevention reveals some major flaws. As SIECUS points out, these funds will not be able to go to programs focused on reducing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and HIV. This is arguably one of the most important aspects of comprehensive sexuality education and its conspicuous absence from government funded programs could be incredibly detrimental; I can imagine a scenario where young people are only being taught how to prevent pregnancies, so using birth control without condoms ends up seeming like not that bad an idea.

The current intense focus on teen pregnancy is increasing the vilification of teen parents, who are often viewed as foolish, irresponsible and a drain on society. These stereotypes often become racialized, as the pop culture image of teen parents is almost exclusively people of color; Bristol Palin is seen as an anomaly. Decreasing unwanted pregnancies is a good thing. Giving young people information about the responsibilities of raising a child is a good thing. But the mounting prejudice against teens who do parent needs to be countered.

Finally, safe consensual sex can be a great thing. We need to stop assuming that young people can’t have a healthy positive sexuality. Teens are not being trusted with information on how to have good sex and as a result are turning to whatever sources they can find such as porn, the vast majority of which presents a sexist and unrealistic view of sexuality. A cultural fear of and discomfort with real teen sexuality is clearly harming young people by refusing them important information.

Eliminating abstinence only funding is an important first step. Now we need to fund comprehensive sexuality education. And we need to re-frame the conversation around teen sexuality and pregnancy in a way that is respectful of young people’s intelligence, decisions, and humanity.

(crossposted at Amplify Your Voice)

Barack Obama just released the numbers for his new 2010 budget , and while everything in it isn’t peachy, I have some great news for you:

Abstinence-only funding has been ELIMINATED .

Community Based Abstinence Education funding is GONE.

Title V abstinence-only funding is GONE .

… and Derek the Abstinence Clown just pulled up monster.com on his computer.

Not only are all of the abstinence-only funds eliminated, but $173 million dollars will now be going to teen pregnancy prevention programs around the country that don’t have to adhere to the ridiculous standards that were there before.

While we can celebrate this news for now, we aren’t quite out of the woods yet . A door is still open for Congress to sneak these funds back in if we don’t put enough pressure on them.

Of the $110 million that are going to state-based teen pregnancy prevention programs, 75% are going to “evidence-based” programs, while 25% are going “new models” which aren’t explicitly defined. The danger here is that Congress might still try to slip abstinence-only programs into the budget during the appropriations process. David Obey, the Democratic chair of the Appropriations Committee, has tried to increase funding for abstinence-only programs in the past, and we need to make sure that he and his colleagues don’t allow this to happen now.

Another aspect of the budget that is troubling is that President Obama really missed an opportunity to set up a dedicated funding stream for comprehensive sex education. All $173 million dollars are going to “teen pregnancy prevention”, with none going explicitly to comprehensive sex education that includes teen HIV and STI prevention. While comprehensive sex education programs could fall under the new state-based programs, they will have to come in through the door of teen pregnancy, so to speak, which could make it more difficult. This lack of inclusion of HIV and STI’s is disappointing, as truly comprehensive sex ed cannot ignore this problem.

Despite these aspects, we should all sit back for a moment and just grasp how far we have come. A decade of $1.5 billion in ineffective and harmful abstinence-only funding has just been halted right in its tracks. President Obama’s actions today have shown the way forward for sex education in this country, and sent a clear message that the era of abstinence-only funding is OVER. And for that, we should celebrate and be very thankful.

But, this fight is not over . We must continue to pressure all of Congress, especially Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Obey, and let them know that Obama’s call for a new direction in sex education in America must be answered. We’ve come a long, long way, and we’re almost there, so let’s make sure that Congress finishes what President Obama started !

( and here's an easy form to tell your Congressperson to do so! )

(crossposted at Amplify )

When the National Abstinence Education Association gathered on Capitol Hill last month for their annual lobby day , the sense of fear in the room was palpable. Independent studies had definitively shown that abstinence-only programs are a failure , and their many millions of federal tax dollars were in serious jeopardy.

Faced with these facts, the NAEA and its allies discussed a new strategy to continue its federal funding stream. Instead of abandoning their demonization of condoms and adherence to social conservative ideological over sound science, they would simply rebrand themselves as curriculum that “wasn’t just about abstinence”, but was all about “holistic approaches” to “healthy lifestyle choices”.

In other words, if they just put a new wrapper on their old product, they might fool the federal government into continuing to give them millions of dollars.

Earlier this month in Chattanooga, TN, we may have seen the first clear sign that this rebranding has begun.

WhyKnow, one of the most well-known and well-funded abstinence-only programs in the country, held a large public ceremony to celebrate their sudden change of name . With the assistance of the PR company Maycreate Idea Group, WhyKnow is now known as OnPoint, and they have “broadened its focus and taken on a whole new look”.

Why the big change? Well, read this and see if it sounds familiar:

As to the new direction for the group, in the tech and media-driven world of teenagers, smart decision-making means making smart choices. It’s all about providing teens with the tools and skills needed to successfully navigate life.

“The idea ,” said Lesley Scearce, executive director of OnPoint, “is to get teens involved in new, positive directions that lead to a healthier, more fulfilling life. Without a re-naming, re-branding and re-positioning, this new direction wouldn’t have been possible. And Maycreate Idea Group was the creative force behind it all. ”

The event was highlighted with a look at the new name, logo and promotional materials created by Maycreate. The result is new graphics, new colors, a new message and a new tag line—“Direction for life.”

Yes, instead of touting abstinence, it is all about teaching “healthy decision-making skills”. Same garbage, different packaging.

And here is the “garbage”, so to speak, within WhyKnow’s curriculum, according to SEICUS :

Like many other abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, Why kNOw? offers limited information about important topics in human sexuality such as puberty, anatomy, and human reproduction, and no information about sexual orientation or gender identity. Why kNOw? does contain some detailed information about sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including HIV/AIDS, however, much of this information is outdated, inaccurate, and misleading. In addition, the curriculum presents information about condoms which is focused on exaggerated failure rates, and contains almost no information about other forms of contraception.

Instead, Why kNOw? relies on negative messages, distorts information, and presents biased views on gender, marriage, family structure, sexual orientation, and pregnancy options. In addition, Why kNOw? teaches a “traditionalism” that is patently religious in nature, and even goes so far as to teach Bible stories as history. These biased and inaccurate messages are clearly out of touch with the health needs of America 's youth.

The reason that this rebranding matters so much is that WhyKnow was not just one large abstinence-only program. It is one of the largest providers of abstinence-only curricula to public schools all over the country. As WhyKnow rebrands itself and its curricula, it will provide abstinence-only programs all over the country the opportunity to rebrand themselves as something other than the social conservative junk-science peddlers that they are.

This is why it is so important that we let our government officials know about this rebranding rouse of abstinence-only organizations. President Obama is currently finalizing his 2010 budget, and he will decide whether we continue to fund these programs that have already milked $1.5 billion from our federal government, with nothing to show for it. We must not let Obama and Congress fall for this silly rebranding scheme.

Please send President Obama this letter urging him to zero out abstinence-only programs.

And let your Congressperson know that whatever Obama ultimately decides on, we can’t afford to continue funding these programs.

 

(crossposted from Amplify )

When it comes to sex, one would think that Bill O’Reilly would not attempt to take the moral high ground. With his checkered past of being sued for sexual harassment and the recent heat he’s taken for blaming young victims of sexual violence , Bill O’Reilly does not exactly come off as the most credible person in the world on this subject.

But hypocrisy is no stranger to O’Reilly, as he chose to give a softball interview to Elayne Bennett from the D.C. abstinence-only group Best Friends, in order to show the “success” of abstinence-only education.
 

I was browsing Yahoo! Answers ('cuz I'm lame like that) and stumbled on this question: I'm Concerned That My Son Has a Secret Girlfriend? I'm not gonna retype the question here out of laziness, but apparently "Bethany" was snooping through her son's bedroom and found a "magazine with naked men in it."

Go read it now. Originally, the question made me giggle, but her clarifications made me want to scream. Somebody please tell me that her question was just a joke, and that people don't honestly believe that you shouldn't tell your teenage son about condoms because "that is unacceptable" and "abstinence...is what God and his future wife expects [sic] from him." Please?

Not long ago, I had a conversation with a few girls in my dance class. I've known most of them for years, so we often end up talking about oddly personal things. For some reason, we ended up talking about what would happen if we became pregnant while we were still teenagers.

I didn't say much, but, as I live in a conservative area, there were a lot of comments about how they would never be horrible baby killers and get an abortion. Here at feministing, I know how everyone feels about that, so I won't go off on a rant about the anti-choice. (At least, not this time!)

No, what really stands out to me is a comment that one person made:

"I don't have to worry about it. I'm not going to have sex while I'm a teenager."

I know that should mean nothing to me. I know it is something uttered by well-meaning teenagers all over the world every day. But, it got me thinking about abstinence education and the like, and I came to this conclusion:

It is really, really easy to say you're not going to have sex.

(crossposted from Amplify Your Voice )

Last week, Capitol Hill was deluged with false talking points from the abstinence-only crowd, as they held their annual “Abstinence on the Hill ” Lobby Day. While I’ve gone over several of these falsehoods (“0%” of comprehensive sex education programs talk about abstinence, “0%” of unintended pregnancies would have been prevented with contraceptive access), one that was repeatedly mentioned and deserves some attention is their claim that comprehensive sex education receives more money than abstinence-only education. Several referred to the “fact” that it receives “double” the funding, or “ten times” the funding. All they wanted was “parity” in funding between the two programs.

Such statements are, of course, completely false. The fact of the matter is, there is no dedicated federal funding stream for comprehensive sex ed programs. None.

This is an old falsehood used by the abstinence-only movement, claiming that all Title X funding is actually for “comprehensive sex education”. In reality, Title X funding goes towards health services for low income women and adolescents. They provide not only contraceptive methods, but Pap smears, breast exams, screening and treatment for STIs, and screening for hypertension, diabetes, and anemia. For a large number of these young women, this serves as their primary health care and will be the only doctor’s visit that they have during the year.

But this hasn’t stopped them from trying to muddy the issue with this blatant falsehood. The strategy is the same wherever you look in their circles: use “comprehensive sex ed” interchangeably with “contraceptive programs” or “contraception education” until they become the same thing. The Abstinence Clearinghouse claims that “contraceptive education” receives 12 times the funding of abstinence-only programs, while the Heritage Foundation uses this same figure, directly using the term “comprehensive sex ed programs”.

Keith Deltano, a “comedian/abstinence educator” in Florida, also tries to push this falsehood on his website . On a graph that he recently sent out in an email blast labeled “are you smarter than a 6th grader”, he tries to claim that funding for contraception education and programs corresponds with the rise in teen births, and that they only began to decline once abstinence-only programs started to receive funding.

While it’s somewhat doubtful that a 6th grader would concoct such a blatantly dishonest piece of propaganda such as this, it’s quite possible that a sixth grader could read about Title X programs and realize this is in no way constitutes teaching comprehensive sex education to youth.

First off, the red line of course has nothing to do with comprehensive sex education, as this was a steady “0” over this time frame. Secondly, even if it was, the cuts to Title X funding in the Reagan/Bush era and late in Bush Jr.’s term show a corresponding increase in the teen birth rate. And finally, notice the convenient absence of data at the end of the graph regarding the teen birth rate. With abstinence-only funding reaching record levels in 2006 and 2007, the 14-year trend of decreasing teen birth rates reverses (with this week’s CDC report showing it going up for the second year in a row, by 1.4%).

But this kind of misinformation from Keith Deltano shouldn’t be a surprise. After all, he makes his living being paid by these abstinence-only groups to scream at young people about how condoms “don’t work” and demonstrates this by holding cinder blocks over the genitals of students lying down in front of him. Seriously, check it out . He’s even scarier (and sweatier) than Derek the Abstinence Clown .

With this week’s introduction of the REAL Act by Sen. Lautenberg and Rep. Lee, we can be sure to see these misinformation tactics come out of the woodwork, yet again. The REAL Act would finally provide a direct funding stream for comprehensive sex education. But what will we hear from the abstinence-only lobby? “They already get 12 times the funding that we do! You just want to give them more?”

Let’s be prepared for this false talking point in the coming weeks. You can beat them to the punch by letting your Congressperson know the real truth: it’s time to finally start funding real, science-based comprehensive sex education that actually gets results.

(crossposted at Amplify )

Wednesday morning in the Rayburn Congressional Office Building on Capitol Hill, hundreds of abstinence-only supporters gathered to prepare for their annual lobby day . With their programs exposed as failures by independent studies, a budget crisis, and new leadership in Washington, they know that their funding is in serious jeopardy.

So, what do you do when faced with this kind of dilemma?

Rebrand!

Sitting amongst their crowd Wednesday, the talking point repeatedly drilled into the young lobbyists’ heads was that their programs aren’t just about not having sex. Oh, no… they are actually “holistic approaches” to promote “healthy lifestyle choices”.

Really? Has the social conservative fringe gone New Age on us?

No. No they haven’t. But in the face of the devastating evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs have been a failure with a $1.5 billion price tag, desperation is called for. The order of the day was to rebrand themselves, while fudging as many facts as they can.

After the morning round of Congressional meetings, The Heritage Foundation hosted a lunch with speakers, including some House members and staff. Longtime abstinence-only defender Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation spoke, giving the standard false talking points of the movement.

His most blatant falsehood is that “0%” of comprehensive sex education programs talk about abstinence. This stems from “research” done by the Administration of Children and Families under the Bush Administration in 2007. However, “research” and “science” are not exactly the strong suit of Rector or Bush, as Rector was off by roughly 100% on this one.

This study was thoroughly debunked by ETR Associates in 2007, as they found that ACF merely studied curricula by doing word counts of “abstinence” and “condom”. If they had looked a little deeper and actually “read the content” of the comprehensive sex education programs, they would have found that they are full of advise and strategies on how to delay sexual activity and choose not to have sex, stressing that this is the safest behavior. The limited use of the word “abstinence” stems from studies that have shown this word to turn off students and instead used language that produced better results. Yes, some programs actually care about “results” more than reinforcing their own social conservative ideology. And our results are better .

But why let the facts get in the way of a good smear, right?

(crossposted at Amplify )

This morning, the National Abstinence Education Association is holding its annual Capitol Hill Lobby Day . They will have meetings all day with legislators on the Hill, asking them to continue funding their abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Yes, this is despite the fact that study after independent study has shown abstinence-only programs to be ineffective , and that $1.5 billion of our taxes have already been thrown into this failure.
 
These programs have been nothing short of a national embarrassment over the past decade. We have a subsidized curriculum that gives factual errors, gross misrepresentation of condom effectiveness, proselytizing, anti-abortion propaganda, and harmful gender stereotypes to students. Not to mention Abstinence Clowns and advice to kids not to believe rape victims if they have a “reputation” (i.e., not a virgin).
 
And what do we have to show for this? One of the highest rates of teenage births and STI’s among all industrialized nations. Abstinence-only education has not only been a colossal failure, it has been a horrible bargain.
 
Even with a new president who speaks favorably about comprehensive sex education, and a Democratic Congress lead by someone who has publicly spoken out about the need to transition away from abstinence-only education, we face a situation today that does not guarantee that these ineffective programs will finally be defunded.
 
President Obama is currently finalizing the details of his 2010 fiscal year budget, and these are the possible outcomes we could see when it is released:

1. President Obama eliminates all abstinence-only funding (right on !)


2. President Obama leaves in all abstinence-only funding (major disaster )


3. President Obama makes some cuts, but leaves in some abstinence-only funding

Even in the best case scenario, where Obama cuts all or most abstinence-only funding, this does not necessarily lead us out of the woods. Many in Congress would certainly try to sneak ab-only funding back in through the appropriations process. This is a serious possibility, due to the fact that Rep. David Obey (D-WI) chairs the House Appropriations Committee and actually tried to increase ab-only funding in 2007. Furthermore, in 2008 he continued to ignore the recommendations of his fellow Democrats to cut its funding. In the annals of abstinence-only education, it would not be an exaggeration to call David Obey one of its greatest champions and allies.
 
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.

This is a dedication to all those purity/abstinence fanatics -- watch, listen, and learn!

(crossposted at Amplify )

One of the common themes that you’ll find in abstinence-only sex education curricula (besides factual errors, conservative ideology and demonization of condoms) is the constant shaming or judgmental statements towards young women who don’t uphold certain visual standards of chaste and purity.

Young women are taught to not show skin or flirt, lest they invite dirty lustful thoughts in the boys, who are rendered helpless beasts when tempted by the girls of ill-repute. Not only does such “education” insult the intelligence of young people, but it reinforces harmful gender stereotypes.

Let’s take a tour through the states to look at some of the most egregious examples:

In South Carolina, Heritage Community Services (currently receives a CBAE grant of $600,000 per year from 2006-2011) teaches girls that conservative attire is necessary, or those poor boys will virtually attack you. Here is an excerpt from their classroom curriculum:

“Males and females are aroused at different levels of intimacy. Males are more sight oriented, whereas females are more touch oriented. This is why girls 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 a responsibility to wear modest clothing that doesn’t invite lustful thoughts. ”

(Crossposted at Amplify )

Possession of marijuana. That's a pretty plausible reason to get apprehended for, eh? Now...what about "possession of contraception"? Yeah....arrest me for having condoms.

Last friday, about 12 people got arrested for having weed in their lockers. Now, my first reaction to hearing this was "ahahhahahaha ROFL lol LMAO." While that may have not been the most mature reaction, it came naturally. The school administration then felt it would make perfect sense to raid everyone's locker, to ensure there are no illegal substances/weapons in there. I have many many condoms in my locker because a lot of my friends are sexually active. I'm the "go-to" person when people want condoms. I don't feel offended by this at all. I simply open my locker, give them the condoms, wish them luck, and walk away.

My little independent not-for-profit business was shut down last Friday when the school officials found nearly 50 condoms in my locker. Now, I get why that would look weird. But isn't it smart? I mean, for all they know, I could be having sex day and night. Why wouldn't I keep condoms? Doesn't that make sense?

But no. They pulled me out of class. When 12 students get pulled out of class for possession of marijuana, everyone immediately suspects that anyone else who gets pulled out of class is also getting in trouble for having weed. Do I smoke weed? No. Does my school think I'm a pothead now? Yes. Do I care? Nope.

Anyway, after a half hour of yelling at me for my irresponsibility, they said "We will not be contacting your parents but we will demand you come after school for a two hour detention."

Wait...does that mean....you won't tell my parent's that I'm encouraging people (who are already sexually active) to practice SAFE sex? Geez louise, Mr Principal! Thanks a lot :)

They can kiss my butt. Anyway, I still have those condoms. And I'm still passing them out. Do I care? Nope. I gotta do what I gotta do, right?

I'm reading this Washington Times op-ed by Maggie Gallagher, and it's ridiculous. I already know not to take it seriously, since it is in the Washington Times. She talks about how the media "jumped" at Bristol Palin saying that abstinence isn't realistic for teenagers in a recent interview. At one point, Gallagher states, 

But there is something strangely dehumanizing about the way so many adults are so eager to insist that sexual self-control is actually impossible.

She never goes on to name these adults, so they probably don't exist. But that's not the point of this post. The point is the contradiction that Gallagher demonstrates when talking about Bristol's comments. She goes from decrying this "dehumanization" that "so many adults" are exhibiting to today's youth to saying this,

I wonder if Bristol really thinks sexual virtue is harder these days than it was, say, 30 years ago when her mom and I were teenagers. That would be circa 1979. I could tell Bristol some stories - the sexual revolution has been swinging pretty hard for a good long time now.

She doesn't take that step further and realize that maybe abstinence-until-straight-marriage was never all that realistic for many people. But that's not what this post is about either. I think Gallagher comes off as a bit of a jerk here. The belief that teens having sex was invented yesterday is a common misconception among America's youth. That's due to two reasons, in my opinion: 1) The judgment center in the brain in teens and young adults isn't fully developed yet, and 2) Our parents and other adults are reluctant to discuss with young people the realities of sex. And abstinence-only education, which is what Bristol Palin was exposed to, certainly doesn't try to clear the air on that big secret. I guess wanting to know more about sex than the kids is some sort of pride thing.

But there's more! Gallagher ends her, let's face it, useless editorial with this,

Is it really wise for an entire society to adopt the point of view of the average inarticulate 18-year-old kid?

Yes. Let's instead adopt the point of view of a machete-juggling clown. He really speaks to me. Maybe we should listen to teen parents when they talk to us about teens having sex and babies, instead of the grown-ups who supposedly know better. Because they don't know better.

(crossposted at Amplify )

Details have just been released on the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill , and I must say that it is disappointing news.

Despite the Senate Finance Committee’s recommendation for the House of Representatives to cut $28 million in funding for abstinence-only until marriage initiatives, the bill only cuts $14 million, leaving $94 million for these failed programs for the rest of the fiscal year.

This is despite President Obama’s public statements supporting comprehensive sex education, and his promise in the inaugural address to stop funding programs that don’t work. This is despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s public statement at Netroots Nation last year pledging to redirect abstinence-only funding.

The fact that the Democratic House leadership went exactly halfway towards the Senate’s recommendation is also alarming. Is this a sign that Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership are willing to meet halfway towards the social conservatives’ abstinence-only agenda, despite the overwhelming evidence of its failure, the desperate need to cut funding in the budget, and a strong Democratic majority in the House and Senate?

We certainly hope not, because Obama’s next test is currently underway. His administration is currently drafting their budget for the 2010 fiscal year, and this is Obama’s opportunity to walk the walk when it comes to his public statements on sex education.

We have already wasted $1.5 billion dollars on abstinence-only until marriage funding, and we are long past the time where this funding is, once and for all, zeroed out. Supporters of comprehensive sex education have already sent several thousand letters to Obama to zero out this funding, but we urgently need to send him more so he gets the message loud and clear.

Send this letter to President Obama, asking him to ZERO OUT funding for abstinence-only until marriage sex education in his 2010 fiscal budget.

The sexual health of young people is way to important to continue to leave it in the hands of these failed programs of the social conservative fringe. Abstinence Clowns and these horrifically misleading and harmful programs need go. Please let him know!!!

So I was chosen to take part in Amplify's Great American Condom Campaign. They take applications from students at universities where condoms are not readily available, and if selected they send you 500 trojan condoms to distribute.

My plan was to contact the Student Health center and the Counselling center in hopes of being allowed to place the condoms in the waiting rooms with information on condom use and safer sex. Since sex outside of marriage is strictly prohibited at my college (grounds for expulsion), they refused to help with my campaign and urged me to get rid of the condoms ASAP so I wouldn't get heat from the administration.

Get this, they equated providing condoms to students with providing clean needles to heroin addicts.

Legally, I think the school can do anything to me for simply having the condoms in my possession. There is no mention of condoms in the Student Handbook or the Student Contract we were forced to sign in order to attend school here. And since I myself am sexually abstinent, they can't expell me.

Any ideas on how I can effectively distribute condoms to students without causing a campus uproar? Or should I just do something drastic and take the heat?

Every year several girls get pregnant because they are having unprotected sex. Plus the school has a significant homosexual population. HIV and Pregnancy tests are even provided at our health clinic.

I've considered just selling the condoms on eBay, or donating them to a local organization, but my intention was to help students at this college practice safer sex and avoid the heartache and shame that comes with unplanned pregnancy and STDs here at school.

(crossposted at Amplify )

For the past three weeks, we have chronicled the sad tale of Derek Dye, the abstinence clown. Derek is employed by an organization that received an $800,000 CBAE grant in 2007 to promote abstinence-only until marriage sex education. He juggles, he misleads, he... frightens. And his qualifications for teaching middle schoolers about sex? A "Bachelor of Fun Arts" from Barnum Bailey Clown College, and an abstinence educator certification that can be purchased for $50. If you haven't seen the video yet, seriously.... check it out , it is amazing. Don't drink anything while watching it or you'll ruin your keyboard.

To date, we have spent $1.5 billion on these failed, ridiculous abstinence-only sex education initiatives. IT MUST. STOP. NOW.

Right now, President Obama is hard at work on his first budget for the fiscal year 2010, and this is your time to weigh in and make sure that he ZEROES OUT funding for this program.

TELL PRESIDENT OBAMA TO SEND OUT THE CLOWNS! Stop funding failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs!

Today was my first day in an eight grade sex-ed class. An abstinence-only class, I might add. I honestly thought my private school would cough up something better than that.

It was everything I expected, which is not good.

Points of which I was not particularly happy:

- They supported the stereotype that women are the weaker ones in the relationship and that men only want sex (which is only true to an extent). They never even mentioned the possibility that girls might want to have sex just to have sex!

-The only reasons the teenage girls they talk about have sex is because of social pressure, they didn't even want the idea that people have sex because they like it planted in our heads.

-The instructor told the story of a smart senior who was accepted to Harvard, but she got pregnant and now she is 22 in a miserable marriage with three kids. The instuctor made the statement "Because she chose to have sex, she couldn't go to Harvard."

There are so many things wrong with that statement.

She chose to have sex, so she became pregnant;she chose to keep the baby, and did not try to find a way to juggle college and a kid. That is why she did not go to college. The instructor never even mentioned that she could have given it up for adoption or terminated the pregnancy. Abortion apparently doesn't exist in abstinence land.

More tomorrow on day two in my sex-ed adventures.

Comments?

Hi, all. This is my first post :D (though I've commented on things a few times). Part of me hates to make it a rant, but part of me loves it.

So, a few days ago I saw something that really made my blood boil. I was in the car, coming back from Costco, when I saw a giant orange billboard with nothing written on it but "Abstinence always works" in huge block letters. I normally don't get riled up too much by things like that, but for some reason I was really infuriated this time. It seemed so ridiculous to me, this billboard put up on a random urban street somewhere that was spewing this... lie. I can't think of a better word to say it. Abstinence always works? Are they kidding me? It's fairly obvious that these things are targetted at teenagers, but that message couldn't sound more out of date. It's very patronizing and I don't know anyone my age (high school) that would actually believe that. Of course, I live in a really liberal area of MD, so that might change things. But up until now, I was convinced that this message was a pitiful attempt to conform people into a false and idealistic way of thinking.

But then I realized that they were right. Encouraging abstinence always works. It works to misinform people about their morality and self-worth, it works to unprepare people for the fact that it doesn't always work, and it works to leave them stranded when (surprise) it doesn't work. And it works to create a situation in which if you have sex, you will either get an STD (because who needs education about how to prevent diseases when you have abstinence) or have a baby (because contraceptives are immoral and unnecessary, to say nothing of abortion). It works to create a culture where people are deserted and left ignorant for not following someone else's unrealistically high personal standards.

And I couldn't help think, what if it were the other way around? Would a billboard be allowed that said "Abstinence doesn't work"? I may be wrong, and it may depend on the area, but I don't think so. And why is that? Why is it that these ridiculous oversimplifications of life are allowed a megaphone but realistic alternatives that actually deal with real problems are so often frowned upon? Sure, abstinence works if you don't have sex. But when over 95% of Americans have shown that abstinence doesn't always work, we need a new philosophy.

Has anyone else seen these billboards? What group/organization are they from? What is your response?

Last night, TLC had a Wedding special in which the eldest son of the Duggar family got married.

If you've never seen this show, or are wondering who they are, do a quick google search... the same two parents have birthed 18 kids & the family is INSANELY conservative.

I usually don't waste my time on this kind of trash, and have never seen the show prior to last night's special, but I couldn't resist watching two people VOW LET "GOD DETERMINE" HOW MANY CHILDREN THEY WERE TO HAVE in their ultra-traditional, "I promise to submit to my husband who has complete authority of me" wedding vows....

The ironic, and no doubt the best, part of it all--which tickled me pink beyond belief--was that this special was commercially sponsored by Plan B !

Great marketing (and sense of humor) on their part... for both those of us who watched the program for amusement/bewilderment, and for those who were watching it seriously.

I must share this anecdote with the Feministing Community...

I have a close family friend who is several years younger than me, so I have always been like a big sister to her. She is 17 years old and goes to a Catholic high school, and unfortunately she has received an abstinence-only sex education. She is sexually active, so as the-big-sister-she-never-had, I have always made sure she knows about contraceptives, STDs, and pretty much everything else about sex… she honestly had no idea about the different kinds of birth controls or how to calculate your period on the calendar or how to prevent pregnancies – this is why, as her “big sister,” I keep her informed. (I am also introducing her to the wonderful world of feminism!) Anyway, I get a text from her the other day telling me that two kids in her school were “caught doing the dirty” (her words) in the bathroom and got suspended.

Abstinence-only sex education at its finest.

(crossposted at Amplify)

ABC News has quite a fearmongering article today on a study that has just come out reporting that anal sex is on the rise. It's five pages long, so of course there is tons in the article that I have problems with - from the only case study being of a young woman seemingly coerced into having anal sex to the judgement of the act itself as wrong (did you know that we're having anal sex because social mores are loosening?). And don't get me started on the article's exclusive focus on heterosexual behavior.

However there is something the article touches on that I think is extremely important; young people don't know the actual risks of our behavior or how to protect ourselves, and when we do  experiment with our sexuality, we are judged. Reasons cited in the article for usengaging in anal sex were to please our partners, to keep from getting pregnant, and to preserve our virginity. Those who take so-called "virginity pledges" and those who were less likely to use condoms for vaginal intercourse were more likely to engage in oral and anal sex. Extrapolating from this, young people who were more likely to engage in anal sex were more likely not to know the risks of the behavior.

I was not surprised. As a "young person" myself, I have heard the idea of engaging in anal sex to preserve virginity in many places. When I studied abroad in a Muslim area of Kenya it was common for women my age to engage in anal sex with thier boyfriends because part of the Swahili marriage ceremony is traditionally the "blood on the bedsheet test" to prove that the bride is a virgin. While my friends and I at first were shocked by this, I didn't have to think to hard to remember a friend at home who only engaged in anal sex because she wanted to remain a "virgin" until marriage. 

While protected, consensual anal sex in itself can be another healthy way for people to express themselves sexually, this article shows that this is definitely not always the case. In fact, this shows how at risk we are. Like my favorite blogger, Megan Carpentier, who is quoted in the ABC article, I blame the government. Because of all that money being spent on abstinence only programs rather than comprehensive sex ed, we are taught that our virginity is what makes us valuable instead of being taught about how to safely engage in sexual behavior when we make that choice as an autonomous person. 

When my friend engaged only in anal sex, with several partners and not always protected, she was still putting herself at risk, even if she kept her hyman intact. If only healthier attitudes about sexuality was taught in schools and in our society, she would have the tools she needs to decide when and if to engage in any sort of sexual activity, and how to protect herself.

ABC ignores a lot in this article and passes a lot of judgement, but it highlights an important problem in our society. Not that young people are having anal sex, that we don't have the resources to understand our own sexuality. 

(crossposted at Amplify)

Anyone catch that special on the founders of the Purity Ball on TLC last night? Wow was that creepy. I personally can't wait for Jessica's book on this whole purity movement thing...any thoughts on the special from anyone who saw it?

My favorite part: "If I meet a boy my Daddy has to inspect him first." Wow. And these girls did not even kiss the guy until their wedding day...weird.

There is a special on purity balls tonight on TLC at 8pm (central ST)

This is the description:

"A unique look into Purity Balls, where fathers and daughters subscribe to the single fundamental notion of chastity, with the fathers pledging to protect their young daughters' purity, and the daughters pledging to remain virgins until they marry."

It should be interesting, but I don't think it will hold me over until Jessica's book comes out.

I hope everyone checks it out!

By Nancy Goldstein, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project

The special fall issue of the journal Sexuality Research & Social Policy , titled Human Rights, Cultural, and Scientific Aspects of Abstinence-Only Policies and Programs , represents the latest research-backed critique of costly, misleading, and ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. It appears at a time when concerns about these programs, which require the exclusive teaching of abstinence until marriage and prohibit teaching about condoms or other contraceptives other than to discuss failure rates, are running high. That anxiety is driven by reality: despite having received over $1.3 billion in federal funding over the past decade, no viable evidence suggests that they actually work .

Sexuality Research & Social Policy 's special issue features articles written by some of the most prominent experts in the fields of adolescent sexuality, public health, human rights, and education. Topics run the gamut from state refusal of federal funding for abstinence-only, and a critical look at scientific errors about condoms present in abstinence-only programs, to yet another study that suggests that "abstinence programs have little evidence to warrant their widespread replication" while "strong evidence suggests that some comprehensive programs should be disseminated widely."

What may be new for even seasoned consumers of information on abstinence-only programs is the volume's emphasis on sexuality education as a component of human rights principles as they have been defined internationally. Against that backdrop, the notion that teens should have access to medically accurate, comprehensive, ideologically neutral information about sexuality, sexually-transmitted diseases, and contraception simply indicates compliance with agreed-upon health and human rights standards.

This matter-of-fact attitude towards granting teens access may come as a shock or a relief to readers in the United States, where sex has long been portrayed as dirty and dangerous — something to protect teens from — while the myth that teens who are deprived of sexual knowledge will remain chaste survives against all evidence to the contrary. But in this volume, and in the human rights context, teens are seen as having, as one of the many inalienable and universal rights that comes with being human, a right to obtain the kind of comprehensive information that will make it possible for them to make healthy and responsible decisions for themselves.

The issue's overview article , which offers a critical perspective on the history and (in)effectiveness of abstinence-only policies and programs, notes that "offering information only on abstinence and withholding potentially lifesaving knowledge on risk reduction raises ethical and human rights concerns." The authors go on to explain that access to accurate health information as a basic human right was described in the Programme of Action at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development — a meeting that focused on reproductive issues and the application of human rights to the arena of sexual and reproductive health — and that similar ethical notions appear in later international statements that address HIV/AIDS and children and adolescents, such as those issued by the 2003 Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Another piece that uses international human rights principles to examine the impact of abstinence-only programs on adolescents argues that abstinence-only programs in the United States defeat the object and purpose of a number of treaties, including the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. (The United States is one of only two member nation states in the United Nations to fail to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the other being Somalia.)

This special issue is dedicated to the memory of Guttmacher Institute senior public policy associate Cynthia Dailard, who was remembered in a tribute by Guttmacher's Board of Directors and staff as being "driven by an abiding concern for human relationships, intimacy and commitment, and for sexual and reproductive health." This volume's rigorous scholarship and its commitment to justice pay fitting homage to a woman who, as the introduction notes, "tirelessly championed adolescent health and reproductive rights and fiercely opposed policies that she found to be scientifically misguided."

One thing some reading of posts here has had me thinking was... the fact that I can't remember whether or not I took an abstinence pledge or not.

It's funny that some of you remember clearly your abstinence pledges. I seriously am having trouble with this!

Feministing has the Friday Feminist Fuck You/Yeah now, where they either vent their anger about a particular anti-woman person or group or praise someone who has helped the cause.  In a sense, this is a bit like that.  I'm saying thankyou, on a Friday... but not to any one person, not to an organisation.  I would like to thank Feminism.

"What for?", you may well ask.  "There are lots of positive things that can be attributed to the feminist fight, are you grateful for ALL of them?"  Well, yes... but today, there's one particular reason at the forefront of my mind.

My virginity.

After watching Sarah Palin lie and attack her way through last night's acceptance speech at the RNC, I have decided I can no longer tolerate her silence, or anyone else's, around the political and social implications of her daughter's pregnancy.

I don't write this to attack Bristol Palin for the choice she made or the consequences it has yielded. But I think it's important for people to understand that the nature of Bristol's pregnancy carries far more weight than people think it does, and speaks volumes to a nation where teen pregnancy is quickly becoming commonplace.

Barack Obama was correct in saying that the private lives of the candidates should not be the focus of media attention, and that we should instead concentrate on the political issues at hand. But in a country where abstinence-only education has yielded a significant increase in pregnancy and std-rates, and on a platform that makes a case for so-called "family values" by removing comprehensive sexual education from the agenda, Bristol's teen pregnancy (unplanned, without a doubt) calls into question Sarah Palin's own family values. Furthermore, it leaves us all wondering how she has or will translate them into policy if in office.

Inspired by Jessica's post yesterday on the new "Earn your right to wear white" thong, my co-worker Julia Kaye vlogged about the "virtues" of abstinence-only education:

More info and links are up on our blog .

This September, Northwest Arkansas (NWA) will host its own version of Dancing with the Stars called Dancing with the NWA Stars. And, unless my eyes deceive me, it will benefit an abstinence-only education program called Reality Check, Inc.

When I first discovered Reality Check, Inc., I hoped that because the group shares its name with my most favorite podcast ever, RH Reality Check, maybe Reality Check, Inc., would be similarly awesome.

Not so. Now, I have never identified an abstinence-only education program before, but I am pretty certain that I have this one right. Their website explains the "Adolescent Brain," and has headings like "Condom Limitations," a citation to Fox News (the same one appears on every page for some reason), a page full of unorganized, scary stats about the HPV vaccine, and it touts quotes from kids attesting to their approval of the program (not surprisingly, they failed to post any negative comments from kids).

Also according to their website, scheduled performers include Miss Arkansas USA, a newly elected Arkansas Court of Appeals Judge, and the daughter of Congressman John Boozman (R), an abstinence-only education supporter. Sadly, according to an article, even Arkansas's U.S. Senators, both democrats, support Reality Check, Inc., and it already receives over $530,000 in federal funding.

In sum, it looks like a seemingly innocuous event will raise even more money for an insane and federally funded abstinence-only mis-education program. My hope is that Arkansans will protest via blogs, newspapers, hey, maybe even in person! (I know my personal fantasy is to crash the dance like Tracy Turnblad crashed the Autoshow in the last scene of the original Hairspray movie).

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1823930,00.html?cnn=yes

Most of this post just makes me want to throw a chair through a window.  I mean, I have no issue with making sure teenagers understand that sex has consequences, but this story misses the issues with Purity Balls in a big way.

I can't type any more right now because I'm just too frustrated.  Bah.

On April 29th, the Daily Show did a segment on the Committee for Government Reform's hearing on Domestic Abstinence-Only Programs. It was - as usual - hilarious. Phrases like a boy's "God-stick' and a girl's 'Shame-cave' were used.

It probably wouldn't have been so funny (or so worrying) to me if it weren't so close to the truth for some students. As Stewart mentions, the government (particularly the Bush administration) has spent a lot of money making sure kids know three things: sex before marriage is wrong, you shouldn't do it, and that's all you need know.

Now for some background on me: I work primarily in emergency preparedness and response. However, because I work in what used to be the health education division, I do a bit of health education on the side. Primarily, I work with middle to high school age girls talking about everything from healthy relationships, self- and body-image, girl power, and - yes - sex education. I've had specific training on comprehensive sex education programs for teens.

Aside from that, even if it wasn't part of my job, I'd still feel that sex education is a vital - VITAL - part of an adolescent's education, and that neglecting it can have serious consequences.

So! I'm doing a let's-educate-ourselves-through-dialogue post.

I just watched what is quite possibly the most hillarious movie I have ever seen--Teeth. The first hour runs like an abstinence public service announcement (hillarious and scary), and then we get to the kicker: Dawn (purity advocate and all around good girl) has a toothed vagina, and she doesn't know it until her pseudo boyfriend date rapes her and his dick gets bitten off. Shock and awe insue.

Though the rest of the film doesn't completely cover all the psychological bases of Dawn's condition, and she turns into a bit of a bitch (right-fully so?) when she starts chomping on dick for fun, it raises some great feminist questions and offers an excellent parody of abstinence-only-purity-ring thinking.

As if that wasn't enough, I also stumbled upon this gem of a website: IRON HYMEN (http://www.ironhymen.com).

I would like to thank ElizabethLeigh for leaving a comment on my last post directing me to Mr. Henning's web site. For everyone who doesn't know, Brad Henning gives abstinence-only presentations at high schools. I just sent him this e-mail.

...

Mr. Henning,

You gave a presentation to my school back in 2000. I was a freshman, a believer, and a virgin. I remember that your talk really resonated with me and I reaffirmed my commitment to stay a virgin until I was married.

That commitment lasted a year.

I actually wrote this as a blog post way back in January. But, since it was inspired by Feministing, I thought I'd post it here for the new community. I did edit it slightly, since it's no longer January.

...

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.

You see, when I went to WWVA--Walla Walla Valley Academy, a denominational school for a strict Christian sect--I had the pleasure of watching a speaker, Brad Henning, tell us for two or three hours how badly we need to stay virgins until we're married. There were nine reasons and, though a Google search told me his name, I cannot find a list of the reasons. That's okay though, right? I mean, how well a message gets through depends on how well it's remembered, so let's see what I remember. (Plus I have a news article and it's refreshing my memory of his presentation a bit.)

But let's start off with the duct tape metaphor. It is similar to the flower demonstration, where girls pull petals off a flower to symbolize how they "give away" pieces of themselves to everyone they have sex with until, when those damned dirty sluts finally get married, they have nothing but an ugly nub of a flower to give their husband. These two metaphors differ in the one key respect, however: the duct tape metaphor implies an exchange of dirtiness (the duct tape leaves behind some stickiness and picks up some dirt from the fat girl) while the flower metaphor makes no room for receiving something from your partners. Apparently, boys aren't beautiful flowers with petals to give away.

So I was eating breakfast at the kitchen table this morning when I came across an article in my local paper on purity rings and pledges that I couldn't help but read. Since my county is a very conservative one, I wasn't surprised by the ultra-positive spin the article put on purity pledges and all their wonderful entailments, Purity Balls included. However, I was interested in a study cited in the article by the Rand Corporation that surveyed youth at three different points over the span of three years. These were their results, as cited from this page at the Journal of Adolescent Health:

Pledgers and nonpledgers differed substantially in preexisting characteristics. However, after propensity weighting and statistical controls, pledging was still associated with delayed intercourse. We estimate that in the absence of pledging 42.4% of virgins with characteristics indicating an inclination to pledge initiate intercourse within 3 years; in the presence of the pledge, 33.6% of such youth initiate intercourse. Among those who had sex during this period, pledging was unassociated with condom use. Among those who did not have sex during this period, pledging was unassociated with engagement in noncoital sexual behavior.

I did a little research and found that Rand Corp. is a research organization mostly based in militaristic studies but working in other areas as well. I understand why lots of youth and their parents would feel bolstered by these results, like the sentiments expressed in the newspaper article, but in a news release over at Rand's web site one of the psychologists heading the study had this to say:

“These findings do not suggest that virginity pledges should be a substitute for comprehensive sexual education programs, or that they will work for all kinds of kids” said Steven Martino, the study’s lead author and a psychologist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “But virginity pledges may be appropriate as one component of an overall sex education effort.”

I originally read this article yesterday in a newpaper while on vacation in North Carolina

This article by Kathleen Parker comments on a large number of pregnant teenagers at a high school.  Speculation on the so called "pact" aside, Kathleen Parker tries to explain why... as she sees it.

Here's one: Where's Dad? Not the "fathers" of these unfortunate pre-borns, but the fathers of these pregnant girls. Where, in other words, is the shotgun?

Back in the day when birth control and abortion weren't readily available to high school kids, fathers were pretty good deterrents to pregnancy. Boys knew they'd have kneecap problems if they got daddy's little girl pregnant. If they were lucky, they'd be married by the morning after.

AH the good ol days... when girls couldn't think for themselves and boys are uncontrollable sex machines held at bay with threats on their lives.

The article in general had a very judgemental view of "illegitimate" children/pregnancies, and tried to focus on anything OTHER than sexual education in schools.  She went on to speculate that the pregnant teens came from fatherless families, because they had sex with boys cuz they wanted male attneiton cuz they dont get it at home.  Sounds a little too Freudian to me. According to her they were also influenced by movies like "Juno" that "glamorized" teen pregnancy.

The clear issue (that absinence only education doesnt work) was completely clouded in this opinion article turning it into a "kids these days.." issue, barf.

This is my first post, i hope its not too riddled with errors, i'd love comments/discussion on this, i'm sure there are plenty of opinions out there! :)

 

(Consider this my own Friday Feminist Fuck You.)

Hamilton, Ontario is home to a lot of people.  It's the ninth largest city in Canada and an hour drive southwest of Toronto.  The people here are proud of their blue collar roots, with the city's nickname, "Steel City," reflecting the hard work of many men and women who are employed in the local steel industry.  It's also called "the city of waterfalls," with over 60 waterfalls that flow over the beautiful and picturesque Niagara Escarpment.  It's also a place I call home (at least during the summer months). 

But it's also a place where the teen pregnancy rate is higher than in the provincial average. According to the city's Social & Health Issues Report 2005 in 2001, 34.6 per 1000 female teenagers in Hamilton became pregnant, compared to the provincial rate of 30.5. It was also higher than the rates of other cities including Middlesex-London, Ottawa and Windsor-Essex.  There were 584 teen pregnancies in the city of Hamilton in 2001.

So that's why I get a little angry when I ride the bus to work everyday and see hanging above me campaign posters created by the Hamilton Sexual Health Network that have the infuriating catchphrase "I'm Worth the Wait."  First launched in 2003, this sexual health campaign encouraged local youth to say "I'm Worth the Wait."  The posters appear on buses, bus shelters, during previers at movie theaters and if that's not frightening enough, local high schools.  The campaign's goal?  "To lower the number of unplanned pregnancies and to lower the number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases amongst Hamilton's youth," said Teresa Hartnett, chair of the Sexual Health Network in a press release that can be found here. 

Well, it's 2008.  And the posters are still around.  They have also conducted parent workshops about "I'm Worth the Wait" as recently as April of last year.  The posters usually feature a photograph of a young, smiling female.  My favourite woman on one of the posters is the blonde, white woman holding a snowboard who also looks not a day younger than 35.  The text beside the woman usually reads as follows:

He wants to have sex. But I'm not ready.
So I told him "if you really love me you won't pressure me."
Move Too Fast and It Won't Last
Sex isn't going anywhere fast. But I am!

I'm Worth The Wait: A popular choice teens make about sex.

Fuck you, Hamilton Sexual Health Network.  And fuck you to your "I'm Worth the Wait" campaign.  My frustration with these posters begins with their ignorance of female desire.  The text always reads "He wants to have sex.  But I'm not ready."  This frames the conversation to mean that sex is something that women give to men and that if they move too fast, the ambiguous "it" won't last.  This is the wrong message sending to the youth of my city, especially young females. 

Asking teens to say "I'm Worth the Wait?"  Fuck you.  What I'm worth, and what local youth are worth is comprehensive sex education; not public transporation rhetoric that promotes a thinly veiled abstinence-only message.  What they're worth is access to accurate and helpful information.  What they're worth is a sexual health campaign that will help to keep them safe.  Not a sexual health campaign that does little to help except further put teens at risk. 

This concept of "I'm Worth the Wait" is in the same vein as virginity pledges, purity rings and another harmful slogan we've all come to know and loathe, "True Love Waits."  I hope that they realize that studies show that teens who are told to "just say no" to sex also don't equate oral or anal sex as sex, putting them at risk to contract STIs including HIV. 

So fuck you, Hamilton Sexual Health Network.  Wake up.  Hamilton youth are worth more than this campaign.  This campaign has gone on for far too long without protest.  Hamilton youth are worth fighting for and I believe as the city's sexual health network, you can do better.  The wait is over.