Recently in Abstinence-Only Education Category

(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.