"Abstinence Plus": Soothing to Parents, or Still Lying to Teens?
Belief:
Atheism and Diversity: Is It Wrong For Atheists To Convert Believers?
Greta Christina
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Don't Fear the Deficit Bogeyman
John Miller
DrugReporter:
The War on Weed: Marijuana Is Basically Harmless -- The Monumentally Stupid Drug War Is Not
Jim Hightower
Environment:
White House Garden Won't Make Up for Obama's Nomination of Pesticide Lobbyist for US Chief Agriculture Negotiator
Jill Richardson
Food:
Don't Be Scared of Food: Are We Being Needlessly Hysterical About Food Safety?
David E. Gumpert
Health and Wellness:
47,000 Women Could Die As a Result of the New Mammogram Guidelines
George Lakoff
Immigration:
Republican Playbook on Immigration Debate Long on Emotions, Short on Facts
Mary Giovagnoli
Media and Technology:
The Memory Scrub About Why Ft. Hood Happened Is Almost Complete ... If It Weren't for Archives
Mark Ames
Movie Mix:
Disney Apocalypse: Why 2012 Sucks
Alexander Zaitchik
Politics:
White House's Ties to Health Care Industry Deeper Than Visitor Records Show
Daniela Perdomo
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Can't We Look Away From Sarah Palin?
Vanessa Richmond
Rights and Liberties:
Whatever Happened to the CIA Black Sites?
David Corn
Sex and Relationships:
Hot Mormon Muffins and Models for Jesus: What's With All the Sexy Christians?
Liz Langley
Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders
Water:
Poseidon's Financial Shell Game: Why Is a Private Desalination Plant Asking for Public Money?
Peter Gleick
World:
Is Obama Following in the Footsteps of Bill Clinton?
Jeff Cohen
As expected (or at least Obama promised during the campaign), the process of zeroing out funding for abstinence-only programs has begun, and there's even an emphasis in the new appropriations bill on using evidence-based evaluations of the programs to receive federal funding for sex education, instead of the hope and tweaking method used by the religious right to evaluate their own abstinence-only programs. While this is all very good news, however, sexual and reproductive health advocates have every reason in the world to be cautious and skeptical of the new standards. As Jodi points out in her report on the new bill, the narrow language of using teen pregnancy as the sole standard for evaluation leaves out the various other important aspects of sex education that also need to be considered, such as STD and violence prevention.
On top of that concern, I'd like to also argue that the skittish emphasis on abstinence shown by legislators might cripple the efforts to even achieve the stated goal of reducing teen pregnancy. With such a narrow stated goal like "reducing teen pregnancy" instead of something more comprehensive, there's a lot of room for programs that, while teaching contraception, still engage in slut-shaming and other shaming and scaring tactics. Could that mean there's a risk that abstinence-only programs could make minor changes to their sexist, retrograde, ineffective programs and continue to get funding to scare and misinform your kids about sex?
These aren't idle fears. I've been fascinated by the evolution of the National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy into the newer, shinier, but appallingly conservative National Campaign To Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, a name change that suggests the very real expansion of their focus to include young women who are legal adults. There wouldn't be anything wrong with this, except that while the Campaign isn't anti-contraception like abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are, they also are not particularly realistic about the likelihood high school and college aged students will experiment with sex, nor are they willing to be positive and upbeat about sex, even though most human beings actually have pretty positive feelings about sex (for themselves, though the popularity of scare programs shows that people are willing to be negative about sex for others). And by being sex negative, the good information the Campaign has to offer will fail to get through to their intended audience, which will be turned off by the horror show tactics.
On the podcast, I've been having some fun with the National Campaign-funded website Sex, Really, which I find representative of some of the major issues I have with the National Campaign's tactics. Even a casual perusal demonstrates that the site is more about throwing a temper tantrum that dating styles are different for young people now than they were in the 1960s, and just generally promoting male dominance over women than it is about finding realistic strategies for women (who seem to be the only intended audience, because of course Sex, Really doesn't seem to know or care that men can take contraceptive responsibility) to take control over their sexual health. Site manager Laura Sessions Stepp's real mission is more about persuading young women to date according to a specific plan Sessions Stepp has than about helping young women make the best decisions for them. According to Sessions Stepp, there is only one real way to date, and that's what I like to call the baiting method. It assumes that men have no natural ability or desire to spend time with women, and so in order to extract love from men (which is all that women are supposed to want), women have to manipulate men using the only thing men think we're good for, which is sex. You're supposed to give the man small tastes of what sex might be like, but not have sex with him until you've extracted a commitment from him after a long dating process.
See more stories tagged with: sex, religion, education, teens, obama, abstinence, sexuality, sex ed
Amanda Marcotte co-writes the popular blog Pandagon. She is the author of It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »
You've chosen to turn comments off for the entire site. Would you like to turn them back on?
Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.