"Slutty Girls Seducing Stupid Boys": Yet Another Absurd, Sexist Fallacy of Abstinence-Only Education

One of the common themes that you'll find in abstinence-only sex education curricula (besides factual errors, conservative ideology and demonization of condoms) is the constant shaming or judgmental statements towards young women who don't uphold certain visual standards of chastity and purity.

Young women are taught to not show skin or flirt, lest they invite dirty lustful thoughts in the boys, who are rendered helpless beasts when tempted by the girls of ill-repute. Not only does such "education" insult the intelligence of young people, but it reinforces harmful gender stereotypes.

Let's take a tour through the states to look at some of the most egregious examples:

In South Carolina, Heritage Community Services (currently receives a CBAE grant of $600,000 per year from 2006-2011) teaches girls that conservative attire is necessary, or those poor boys will virtually attack you. Here is an excerpt from their classroom curriculum:

"Males and females are aroused at different levels of intimacy. Males are more sight oriented, whereas females are more touch oriented. This is why girls need to be careful with what they wear, because males are looking! The girl might be thinking fashion, while the boy is thinking sex. For this reason, girls have a responsibility to wear modest clothing that doesn't invite lustful thoughts."

Yes indeed, girls. It is your duty to the country. More from HCS's website

"A good minimum guideline is to declare everything covered by a bathing suit as off limits. Everyone needs to know his or her boundaries before getting in a risky situation. Once someone is excited physically, it can be difficult to stop."

Teen Awareness, Inc.

, out of California (received $3.2 million in CBAE grants) agrees:

"Be careful about how you dress (are you sending the wrong message?)"

As do Abstinence Education Consultantsin Kansas (has received $3.1 million in CBAE grants). From their website:

"Dress modestly. Sometimes the way you dress can send unintended messages to others, especially men because they are sexually aroused by what they see"

The theme being expressed, with our tax dollars' subsidization, is not only that girls have a

responsibility to dress like puritans or whatever it is that these groups are advocating, but that if they don't, young men are uncontrollable dolts who will, presumably, "force" sex upon them.

LifeGuard Youth Development in Missouri (has received $3 million in CBAE grants) reinforces this insult:

"Guys can be compared to a microwave. They see something enticing and like 30 seconds later, they are ready to go! Because we know they are using only one side of their brain at a time (logic and not emotion) and their testosterone causes their sex drive to always be "ON," generally they may not connect feelings with the act of having sex. Girls can be compared to a slow cooker. Usually, for a girl to be turned on, a whole lot of time, attention, words, affection, and touch needs to be slowly added before she is aroused. These actions engage her emotions and for her, sex does equal a personal relationship."

Yes, this is the "science" that our government subsidizes.

But a quick glance around at other abstinence-only programs shows that not all girls are "slow cookers." Oh no, some of them are pure trouble. You know, those girls who show skin and flirt, tempting your poor son into a sex-crazed madness.

In Indiana, A Positive Approach to Teen Health, Inc. (receiving a $600,000 CBAE grant each year from 2007-2011) asks why these troublesome girls have the audacity to flirt with boys: