Unexpected Consequences of Abstinence-Only Zealotry
by Amie Newman
January 23, 2007 - 7:55am (Print)
Willful Ignorance is Courtney Martin's insightful analysis of the true consequences of abstinence-only zealotry (because abstinence-only "education", once and for all, is NOT education). Martin's hypothesis states, "If we want to change the toxic sexual culture on our nations' college campuses, we need to start looking at the sex education our high-schoolers receive." And it's got progressive bloggers buzzing. But is Martin's theory enough to explain away some of the more vicious offenses on college grounds?
Martin argues that lack of proper sexuality education in our public schools is essentially disabling communication about sex and sexuality between young college students. Because we are not giving our young people the information they need to navigate these discussions about sex and their sexual needs, campuses are teeming with repressive young adults. Which, in Martin's opinion, can lead to violent crimes like sexual assault and rape.
College students are essentially receptacles of raging hormones and spotty sexual information. Throw in the fact that most of these young people are living independently for the first time - and young women and men are paying too high a price for society's fear of sex.
Of course the ways in which this lack of sexual knowledge manifests itself in young women and men is not surprising. As Courtney writes, "One study found that 75 percent of the males and 50 percent of the females involved in college campus acquaintance rapes had been drinking when the incident occurred."
Clearly, young men raping women on college campuses are not just "having a difficult time articulating their own sexual needs" and respecting "those articulated by their partners" as Martin writes. I absolutely understand her hypothesis that alcohol plays a definitive role in young people's abilities or lack thereof to handle their own sexuality. But when she talks about rape on campus, she says: "All parties involved can be hurt by a failure to properly delineate and stick to boundaries."
Well, Courtney, yes that's true. But there are vast differences between the way a man is "hurt" when he chooses to rape a woman and the way a woman is hurt when she becomes a victim of rape.
Will a more comprehensive curriculum for high-schoolers, one that goes beyond the simple science of sex to address a much deeper level of sexuality discourse, help dilute the toxic soup?
One reader of Campus Progress - a blog for the college crowd - notes:
"But I think the general idea of making sex less taboo in schools and opening up honest discussion about the complexities of situations many teens have or will be faced with is a good idea, as well as making it a focal point to discuss how to have not just consentual (sic) sex but sexual relations that are built on respect. ...Abstinece (sic) only programs or even programs that push abstinecne (sic) too hard often make it so many kids are not comfortable talking about it with adults or each other in a mature way. I think a lot of teens almost see sex as some act of rebellion and that's how it starts becoming degrading and in some cases, harmful, so finding a way to change the way kids percieve (sic) sex and those they may want to be sexually involved with can make big changes."
Progressive blogger "Pinko Feminist Hellcat" says,
"Martin asserts--and I do agree--that sex education has to go beyond the mechanics and talk about the ethics. There is a desperate need for teenagers to learn about true consent and enthusiastic participation, true respect, and all of the responsibilities that come with sex. These responsibilities don't just end at putting on a condom and making sure you took your pill. It is, as Martin says, listening to your partner, knowing what you want, and treating each other with basic dignity and respect."
If we are to counteract violent crimes like rape on college campuses, is developing a more comprehensive sexuality-education curriculum that focuses on how to talk about sex the only answer? Certainly teaching our young people how to have an open, honest discussion about sex is necessary to creating a healthier sexual environment on college grounds. But our society must grapple with the not-so-hidden sexism and sexual repression that permeates abstinence-only zealotry and society as a whole, in order to have any hope of defeating vicious crimes like sexual assault and rape - whether the aggressor is a nineteen-year-old college student or a 59-year-old blue collar worker.
As Feministe remarks about the article,
"Abstinence-only education is problematic not just because it doesn't deal with how to articulate desire (that is, how to say yes and no, and how to hear that), but because it emphasizes unhealthy and patriarchal sex roles."
Our college campuses' "toxic sexual culture" is simply a reflection of our nation's same culture. And "unhealthy" and "patriarchal sex roles" can be found everywhere - from Bratz dolls on the shelves of Target to Hollywood movies and popular television shows. Willful Ignorance does an excellent job of showcasing how abstinence-only zealotry is woefully negligent in its job. Not just because of its utter lack of depth when it comes to information and knowledge about sex and sexuality and how to communicate about them, but because of its insistence on reinforcing damaging gender & sexual stereotypes. Ms. Martin's article, and the provocative analysis it's generated in the blogosphere, is more fuel for the fire as we attempt to burn down this abstinence-only house of logs.
This is an important topic and connection to make, but are you sure that comprehensive sex education is going to make as much of a positive impact as you hope at developing the kind of interpersonal communication skills needed to help young people avoid sexual victimization in date/acquaintance settings?
.
I'm not saying that bad sex education, like abstinence-only curricula that directly promotes rape myths isn't harmful, I think they likely are harmful, rather I'm saying that comprehensive sex education still is classroom-based and can't do much to promote the kind of intimate dialogue and interaction needed to teach the communication skills and assertiveness needed.
.
Beyond what one's family, faith, and philosophy can teach a young person, one is most likely to learn and discuss these issues in a confidential clinical setting, like with a primary medical care provider. For many young people this might be a family planning clinic that offers comprehensive services, but public funding for clinics that offer those kinds of services -- Title X clinics -- has been cut back or has barely kept up with inflation now for nearly a generation.
.
Of the services referred to, only domestic violence intervention-related services and "crisis pregnancy centers" that don't prescribe or refer for abortion or birth control services have had their funding significantly increased in the last generation. I don't know if the generation that we see today entering college (or the workforce) is significantly more violent, vulnerable, or dysfunctional than their parents were a generation ago, but if so, I have to wonder if it may be more a ripple effect from poor services their parents received when they were growing up, more so than the sex education that adolescents and young adults are receiving, more even than "raunch culture" and so many of the other supposedly new negative influences that have developed during their lifetime. Either way, addressing these problems will involve evaluating funding priorities for all these services.
.
There obviously needs to be more discussion on improving clinical services, especially comprehensive health care and unbiased social services. Sex education curricula is important, but the differences in quality and access that more or less privilaged and more or less academically advanced young people find to clinical services -- health care and social services -- is arguably more significant than the difference that good and bad sex education makes to them. It's the clinics and the counseling setting where young people are going to go for help and care. They're not likely going to pull out their notes from their high school sex education module when they get sick, scared, or hurt, or when they fall in love and want to start a family.
.
The best sex education programs, even with the best staffed and equipped high school health clinics, can't fully compensate for underfunded or inaccessable low-cost health care and social service providers in the community at large. That may be especially true for the young people who don't go to college and only finish high school, as they may be less influenced by the little exposure they get anyway to sex education, and more influenced by the limited and biased options and the lower quality of services that are available to them.
.
southern students for choice
Which is why I wrote:
Certainly teaching our young people how to have an open, honest discussion about sex is necessary to creating a healthier sexual environment on college grounds. But our society must grapple with the not-so-hidden sexism and sexual repression that permeates abstinence-only zealotry and society as a whole, in order to have any hope of defeating vicious crimes like sexual assault and rape - whether the aggressor is a nineteen-year-old college student or a 59-year-old blue collar worker.
Courtney makes a good point that abstinence-only "education" could very well be contributing to a campus culture where young people just don't have the information - or even the language - to dicuss sex or to navigate a sexual relationship. I don't think that's new but then again sexuality education has never been "comprehensive" so I'm not surprised.
I do believe that if, as a society, we had a healthy relationship to sex and sexuality then we would certainly be raising generations of young people who did too. "Healthy sexuality" does include acknowledging power dynamics in relationships and understanding the effect of sexism and traditional gender roles on one's sexuality. Things that comprehensive sexuality education most certainly can address - if it were rooted in evidence-based and medically accurate information.
You are right that ultimately the more privileged schools will have access to more and better information and health care. Right now our federal government is funding abstinence-only-until-marriage religious zealotry! So, I have to imagine that it will only get better if we stop funding this completely ineffective program and put our federal dollars towards creating a curriculum and a grant-making process that rewards comprehensive, accurate sexuality education in schools.
Clinicians are always a fabulous resource and I am the first to say that access to culturally competent, unbiased health care should be a right of every citizen in this country. But I think that our young people need help, information and advice from the places and people with whom they spend the most time - schools & families.
