The New York Times reported that abstinence-only "education" has taken a hard hit. It turns out that teenagers like sex. They really do. In fact, even when Texas devotes $17 million to pleading bumper stickers, t-shirts, and billboards of cute blonds scolding "pet your dog, not your date", a Mathematica study found that teens who receive abstinence-only "education" have sex for the first time at the same age as teens who get no such education.
The message is clear: Congressional Democrats need to stand up for what's right and stop funding programs that teach crap and accomplish nothing. We voted you into office for a reason.
The Times article points out that states are getting smart and increasingly rejecting abstinence-only, but federal money is still flowing towards those initiatives. As Christina Larson highlighted in a 2002 Washington Monthly piece, a commitment of federal funds for abstinence-only marked a major shift in the landscape, allowing conservatives to securely proliferate such programs. And for the duration of President Bush's tenure, unless Congress grows a spine, the funds will arguably continue.
Despite the Bush administration's calls for parental involvement and individual responsibility, it has chosen to override the overwhelming majority of parents who, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey would much rather have their kids receive comprehensive sex education. It doesn't matter that both the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics oppose abstinence-only programs. Never one to let scientific evidence and medical expertise get in the way of a political agenda, the administration ominously tossed the provision for abstinence-only education into the welfare bill. Funding is contingent on requirements to teach gems like sex before marriage is psychologically damaging. And abstinence-only curricula are peppered with unapologetic gender stereotypes. Here's a real winner from Sex Respect's curriculum:
"A young man's natural desire for sex is already strong due to testosterone...females are becoming culturally conditioned to fantasize about sex as well."
Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p. 11
OK, then.
Certainly, we all wish that kids wouldn't be in such a rush to grow up, that culture wouldn't hyper-sexualize young girls, and that teenagers wouldn't be hormonal morons. Most experts and parents agree that abstinence should be the foundation of all sex education. But data and common sense demonstrate that we need to be realistic if we want kids to stay as safe as possible, be as informed as possible and make the best choices possible. Leaving them in the dark about life only fuels their fire for exploration.
If the Times article is correct and the era of teaching ignorance is coming to an end, then we may have some hope.
No doubt that the likes of Senator David Vitter, who co-sponsored legislation to finance abstinence-only programs, will be upset about this. They'll argue that the more you teach kids, the more they'll want it. They'll cloak themselves in holier-than-thou rhetoric and point accusatory fingers at the other side of the aisle, whose members are clearly trying to sully the morals of our youth. They'll turn a blind eye to their own hypocrisy.
And they'll speak proudly of events like "Purity Balls", attended by father-daughter couples who pledge together to protect the girl's virginity until marriage, sealing the deal in writing and making it shine with a V-pendant on a silver chain. Forget that there's something unbelievably creepy about girls effectively pledging their special parts to their FATHERS until marriage. In the Bush-sanctioned patriarchy, it is those powerful white men with access to federal funds who are playing the part of "Dad" and taking charge of young women's sexuality.
But as Senator Vitter knows well , people like sex. And until the day when that's no longer true, teaching kids "abstinence-only" won't mean less sex. It will just mean that teens won't have a clue about they're doing and will likely make stupid choices that will get them knocked up or diseased.
So will the Democrats on Capitol Hill who want to use their power for good please stand up?