The Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) was reintroduced recently to the applause of pro-sexuality education organizations across the nation.  Originally introduced in 2007, the bill proposes to provide funding for "medically and scientifically accurate information" as part of "comprehensive sex education" that is "age-appropriate" and promotes "abstinence as the only 100% effective way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy."  Of course, I am not against these things and support any kind of funding that allows states and organizations to choose alternatives to abstinence-only programs.  However, I hope the sponsors, co-sponsors, and committee members seize this incredible opportunity and encourage the use of language and frameworks that go beyond merely preventing disease and unwanted pregnancy to promoting healthy sexuality throughout the life-cycle. 

In reading some of the blog reactions and news posts regarding this Act, I was struck by a couple of similarities between the anti-sex ed groups (or "pro-abstinence-only" depending on who you ask) and the pro-comprehensive sex education folks. The most common issue I noticed was the use of the word abstinence. On one side, we are told again and again that the only message that young people should receive is that they should abstain from engaging in any sexual activity until they are married (or in a committed relationship - from those who are pretending to be more inclusive).  From the other side, we hear that young people should be taught that abstinence is the only 100% effective method for preventing STDs and pregnancy but "just in case" we should teach other methods for preventing these unwanted things and call it something nice like "abstinence-plus."  Another issue that seems to land on everyone's radar is this issue of what is "age-appropriate."  The ab-only folks immediately begin to scream that young children are going to be taught about sexual intercourse (remember the "story" about Obama wanting to teach Kindergartners how to have sex?).  In reaction, the comprehensive supporters tend to ramble on about it being different for different communities and different individuals and never really give an answer.  Finally, both sides get caught up on "scientifically and medically accurate information."  I don't even know what that means, and I've been a sex educator for almost twenty years (yes, I know it's about effectiveness rates and other types of data that are so incredibly meaningful in a 16-year old's life).

In my opinion, these arguments are old and tired, and it is high time that we consider some alternatives. The main thing that I encourage our legislative representatives (and the policy wonks who spend their days talking to our leaders) to consider is throwing out this disease prevention model that does very little to address the real issues that young people face on a daily basis.  Instead, consider what it means to be healthy and what it means to promote healthy sexuality from birth until death. 

First, it means acknowledging that we are all sexual beings, including during infancy and old age, regardless of how we choose to express that sexuality throughout our lives. This means that we start to accept that teaching about sexuality is more than teaching about sex acts and includes providing basic knowledge about bodies and society, even at very young ages.

Secondly, a new approach to sexuality education requires understanding what is relevant and important for different people at different points in life - and this is only achieved by talking to people about this. It is our responsibility as educators and parents to engage young people and ask them what these things are and engage them in conversation.

Thirdly, this model involves providing young people the knowledge and skills necessary to be sexually healthy, such as how to access information and services related to sexuality throughout their lives.  These life-long skills are a necessity at ensuring sexual health and happiness throughout all of our lives. 

Finally, we have to learn to discuss sexuality and sexual choices with a non-judgmental voice. This includes such things as removing anti-gay and exclusionary language, as well as dropping mockery and dismissal of those who choose to wait until they are in a life-long committed relationship (or even marriage) to become sexually active. The goal of such a model--based on promoting healthy sexuality for individuals, couples, and communities, and reaching those with diverse religious backgrounds, sexual and gender identities, race and ethnic origins, political views, physical abilities, and so on--is to embrace and celebrate the very thing that makes the United States what it is - diversity, a pluralistic society, a melting pot, or whatever words and phrases you choose to use.

As the Director of Education and Training at the National Sexuality Resource Center, I applaud Senator Lautenberg and Representative Lee for introducing the REAL Act and acknowledge that this is the first (baby) step in the right direction for healthy sexuality.  However, my hopes are that they will consider improving this legislation by adopting a new philosophy about sexuality - one that is not about avoiding danger through risk-reduction but rather encourages conversations and celebration of our diversity in order to promote lifelong healthy sexuality. The desired outcomes of less disease and less unwanted pregnancy will follow, but we will change the way that we as a society view our sexuality by shifting the focus to happiness, health, and well-being.

This post first appeared on the National Sexuality Resource Center Dialogues website.