As it would turn out, there's more confusion been added into an already-confusing topic with the recent publication of a study that suggests that abstinence-only sex education can delay sexual activity in young adolescents.
Part of the confusion stems from the fact that, although many people seem to think they know what abstinence-only sex education is all about (who hasn't heard of Bristol Palin by now?), the term itself is often widely, and wildly, misunderstood.
Fortunately, the Feds have provided us with a definition.
This is significantly apropos, because Obama has recently proposed cutting Federal funding for some aspects of abstinence-only sex education.
So what do the Fed consider abstinence-only sex education to be? [My emphasis added]:
THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF ABSTINENCE-ONLY [SEX] EDUCATION
According to federal law, an eligible abstinence education program:
A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;
C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
E) teaches that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;
G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances; and
H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.
Source: U.S. Social Security Act, §510(b)(2).
Note here that this is the current definition put in place by the United States government. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of my source, which is Advocates for Youth.
Now let's look at a couple points.
- "has as its exclusive purpose" -- this means no teaching about contraception, except in the context of distorting the fact that contraception is not 100% effective into some sort of larger agenda.
- "teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children" -- this means that a Federally-funded, abstinence-only sexual education program for adolescents must teach that sex -- any sex -- outside of wedlock is not acceptable. Realistic? I think not, and nor do the vast majority of American citizens.
- "teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity" -- again with the marriage thing. And, what about gay, lesbian, or bisexual adolescents, or adolescents who are simply questioning their sexuality? Do they not have sex, or do they simply not exist? Does not this mandated teaching deliberately denigrate a significant percentage of adolescents? And doesn't this shame kids who know the realities of single-parent families? Are their single-parent mothers or fathers engaging in sex outside of "..the expected standard[s] of human sexual activity.."?
- "teaches that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects" -- um... here's where we clearly see that the Federal definition of abstinence-only sex education is not founded in any rational understanding of human sexuality, but rather in evangelical Christian morality.
And that's just what the current Federal standards regarding abstinence-only sex education are: founded in evangelical Christian morality.
From The History of Federal Abstinence-Only Funding at Advocates for Youth:
Socially conservative legislators arrived at the narrow, eight-point definition (often referred to as the “A-H definition”), not through public health and social science research into effective programs, but as a reflection of their own conservative views. These ultra-conservative legislators were savvy enough to insert the obscure policy add-on into a “must-pass” piece of legislation at the center of the policy agenda of then President Clinton.
So where does all the above leave us, in examining this new study?
First, what is Federally-defined as "abstinence-only" sex education is more properly called "abstinence-only-until-marriage" sex education.
Thou shalt not have sex outside of wedlock.
Period.
And so this study, which included abstinence in a discussion that went beyond just waiting until the kids were married:
Eight hours of abstinence-only education addressing risks of HIV and other STDs as well as pregnancy, seeking to promote waiting to engage in oral, anal, and vaginal intercourse "until later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex"
Note: not waiting until you're married.
And what's this about oral and anal sex?
And note:
Jemmott and colleagues indicated that the abstinence-only program used in the study was unusual. In fact, it would not have qualified for abstinence-only federal funding because it did not rely on moral principles, nor did it criticize condom usage.
So the authors of this study admit that, by its very content, the study does not examine a curriculum that would qualify for Federal funding as "abstinence-only" sex education.
Why is the term "abstinence-only" being used in connection with this study, when there's a Federal definition of "abstinence-only" sex education that this study doesn't even meet?
Well, there's at least one conspiracy theory going around already about that.
So what’s the point of it? It’s a cutout, a bait-and-switch, a shield to protect the millions of dollars in faith-based taxpayer-funded pork for the religious right-winger groups that back the GOP. (The timing — right after the unveiling of Obama’s new budget, which defunds abstinence-only programs — could not be more suggestive.)
umm.. well, not so much, IMO.
I think the term "abstinence-only" was used properly in that one part of the study applied "abstinence-only" sex education in a context of medically- and scientifically-established human sexuality, not in the morally-derived context of "abstinence-only-until-marriage" sex education.
And for that reason, I think it's going to be helpful -- if we can only keep the religious right from distorting what it did, what it didn't do, and what it concludes.
But hey, distorting (or ignoring) facts is what the religious right is so very good at, so good luck with that!
- bp