Taking a different approach this week. I’ve been debating on how I wanted to tackle a couple of issues that have been on my mind lately, so this week will be all about ye olde politics. I will say right up front that I don’t know everything that there is to know about politics. Nor do I presume to know. So if you have a difference of opinion that’s awesome. I’d love to hear it. I’m not looking to change anyone’s ideas. I just want to air our some things that have been on my mind for a long time. Hope you enjoy and want to contribute.
First let me start by saying that I have a lot of respect for people, especially young people, that take an abstinence only pledge and adhere to it. Sex is and should be a special thing between two consenting people, regardless of age, sex, race, or sexual orientation. Each of the participants should know what they’re getting involved in and what the consequences of their actions will be. But we’re all human, and we all do things when we have no idea what we’re getting in to. So how do we prepare our youth for the future when all we do is tell them not to do something, and then the government actually pays the state to NOT teach about contraception? Why wouldn’t we want them to be educated instead of trying to preach to them about the way things “should be?”
Beginning in 1998 the federal government began allocating $50 million dollars per year in essence sponsoring abstinence only education through schools and other community organizations funded by the state. Individual states that accepted federal money had to match the federal funding $4F to $3S or 75% matching. The program began under the Welfare Reform Act under Title V. In 2001 that grew to include Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) which inflated abstinence only funding to nearly $80 million according to the Congressional Budget Office. By the end of the Bush Administration era the number of teen pregnancies had not significantly reduced, nor had the number of STI’s or STD’s. Additionally the average age of “first experience” hadn’t increased. The abstinence only theories from the department of heath and human services and the methods they employed to obtain success were flawed from the beginning.
The federal government was very specific with the guidelines for the states to follow (Title V description, see chart 1.1) in their promotion of abstinence only and the non-inclusion of contraceptive methods. ”Programs must have as their ‘exclusive purpose’ the promotion of abstinence outside of marriage and may not in any way advocate contraceptive use or discuss contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.”(APHA: Statement on Abstinence only Funding). Yes, you read that correctly. Not only did they pay to teach abstinence only, but they taught about the inefficacy of using birth control including condoms. However, this wasn’t just federal funding that went to schools. It began with schools and public health offices in 1998 and moved to faith-based organizations and tax-exempt organizations beginning in 2001.
The good news is that in the 2010 budget under the Obama administration, none of the abstinence only programs survived the cut. I mean that is good right? We’re trimming a $200 million a year budget item that really didn’t work over a 10 year period. But where do we go with sex education? What do we do with all of those people, young and old, who have grown up thinking that sex is bad and that contraception isn’t a viable option when having sexual contact? Basically, what kind of comprehensive educational program will cover everything for everyone and still be able to be funded by the government to support both educational institutions and faith-based organizations?
I’m patiently waiting to see how the current administrations plans to deal with yet another health program that needs immediate attention. In my honest opinion teaching abstinence isn’t a bad thing. But teaching it in addition to the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases and infections is a must. Additionally it should cover the dangers of teenage pregnancy and the definition of consensual intercourse. And there will also be a need to define the target age ranges for the educational programs. With Title V, age ranges were left open and programs could apply for funding even if they were promoting abstinence only to younger age groups. CBAE changed that in 2001, stating that the education had to focus on ages 12-18.
I don’t see anything wrong with faith-based organizations promoting abstinence to 12 through 18 year old young people. What I do have a problem with is the government funding those organizations that don’t provide the truth about contraception or teenage pregnancy. Every organization has the right to promote its own beliefs regarding sex, but they shouldn’t be federally funded in order to do it. Likewise, schools that offer sex education courses that directly infringe on someone’s religious belief(s) shouldn’t be mandatory.
Education, especially sex education, belongs in the home first. Parents should be taking more of an active role in teaching their kids and not relying on the education system to do it all for them. I’m neither a parent nor an educator. But I hope to be one or the other (if not both) one day, and seeing the lack of communication between 60% or more of kids and their parents scares me. Kids can’t or won’t talk to their parents. Some treat them like the enemy. Parents get too busy with work, their spouse or their social life and ignore their most important priority.
To conclude, I am exceptionally happy to see the abstinence only programs fall as a relic of a foregone era. Although I am nervous to see what the future brings with our current administration. But a local start would be nice. Get parents more actively involved with their kids. Give them help and incentives to teach their kids about sex and life in general. Give schools the proper tools to educate. And lastly don’t give up on abstinence. It is the only method to completely prevent infection and pregnancy, but not teaching ways to be safe in addition to abstinence is just a recipe for disaster.
I’m sure I’ll get a few comments on this. Hopefully there will be a few from some educators. Comments can be anonymous, and I do reserve the right to edit content or delete a post for anything inappropriate. Hope everyone has a good Monday. I’ll be back on Wednesday with topic 2.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:24 PM
First, congrat on your engagement. I’m sorry I haven’t picked up the phone to call you, but you and Jessica have been in my thoughts.
I’ve got to keep my thoughts brief cause I’m getting ready for work but…
Have you found much on non-bias statistics on this issue that take into consideration ovulation schedule (Sorry I’m a physiology nerd), age, whether or not birth control is taken a bit off schedule, as well as geography and socioeconomic status.
Second, this is something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately. I am going to South Africa in January and some of the items on the curriculum is sexual health and gender empowerment. One of the goals of the organization is to “delay the first encounter”. I know the issue is charged wherever one goes, however it will be interesting to see how a gender oppressed culture and HIV/AIDS plays into the discussion. I will be meeting with some friends from South Africa soon so I’ll give you an update on our conversation.
Thirdly, what are your thoughts on sex and Christianity? You know where my heart lies on this subject. Without getting too deep into theology and crap these are my thoughts…As someone who believes that God has my best interest in mind (He created me, why shouldn’t it be that way), and it would seem there is a desire from God that I would avoid extra-marital (which I assume here as pre-marital also) and even more than a suggestion from Jesus to keep ones thoughts pure (so masturbation appears to be scratched off the list) then how do you suggest singles, dating, and engaged couples navigate their sexuality?
-Ken
November 9th, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Hey Ken. This is pretty much exactly what I was hoping for. I try to keep my posts open and fairly vague on specifics so anyone can kind of take the conversation in any direction. Thanks for the congrats. We’ve been working hard on planning already and some good things are coming together.
I would love to see statistics on all of those things that you mentioned in the first section. My belief is that “first encounter” age is a strictly cultural determination that is different in different cultures. Therefore what works in one country might not work in another country due to a number of things including education, religious doctrine, rate of maturation, etc. But I’m not so concerned with other nations so much as I am with ours only granting funding to abstinence only programs and education instead of looking at the things that you mention as determinants and prohibitors.
I am going to be very interested to hear about your trip all together, but this should be a very interesting subject to go with that experience. I believe that delaying “first encounter” as a preventative method for contracting HIV/AIDS is good…in theory. But providing a comprehensive education on preventative methods and the proper use of contraceptive devices in addition to the deadly consequences of unprotected sex is a better way to demonstrate how/why delaying that first encounter can prove to be life saving.
As far as Christianity and sex is concerned it seems pretty cut and dry, as you say, without getting too deep into theology. One could make the argument for “thou shalt not fornicate” and then in the same breath say that if you are truly repentant of your transgression, ask and you shall be forgiven. So it’s not as cut and dry as it seems. Add to that a difference of opinions between Christian denominations regarding what each considers sexual intercourse. Some say no touching or masturbation of any kind on either body, but others claim that both oral and anal intercourse aren’t considered penetration and are still considered abstaining from sex. What it comes down to in the end is how you, as the individual, can take what you know and have learned through education and your upbringing and make the right decision when the time comes. Each individual is responsible for their own actions and ultimately their own souls. When entering into relationships where the topic of sex is sure to come up, one should be self-assured in the decision. They should have the knowledge of STDs and STIs and know the dangers of premarital sex but not be scared into remaining “pure” by teaching that sex is bad. In the end people should be concerned with how their decision is going to affect their own spirituality. It is a very personal choice, but also one that is going to affect the life of another person as well. So when it comes to dating, singles, and long term relationships alike, it really comes to their own moral compass. It’s not a decision that should be dictated by society.
I have more on social standards for increasing the age of adulthood, i.e. higher drinking age, driving age, etc. But that’s for another topic unless it comes up here. As I also mentioned in an earlier blog, the average age for women getting married is getting higher as well. So you have 6-8 years from physical maturation and post-pubesence until marriage when a female is asked or expected to be remain “pure.”
November 15th, 2009 at 12:46 PM
I’m just catching up on your blog, which is very well done I might say! Just a quick question about the very last sentence of your last comment (about females remaining pure)…why not address men remaining pure as well? Not sure if you’ve covered that topic before…but why, historically, do females have to remain pure, with little emphasis on the opposite? I know you’ve read as much on femininity as I, but how do we perpetuate the theory that it’s not always on the pure virgin female to abstain? Guess I’ve never been taught otherwise. According to my grandfather, I always needed to keep my legs closed, but my male cousins should be out there ‘chasing them all before settling down’…..
November 15th, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Hey Ashley. Thanks for catching up. I was really trying to focus on the change of marriage from the socio-economic transfer of property, in which case a virgin or pure woman would be more valuable, versus our more modern concept of a love based marriage. I did cover the emergence of the female controlled “eff buddy” relationship a little here. I think you have me covered in femininity since you went the Dr Ruud ‘Women and Gender’ path and I went with ‘Expansion.’ But I will keep focusing on relationships and I’m sure this topic will continue to come up. I really expected more on the abstinence only post considering that statistically girls are more inclined and expected to participate and promote abstinence more so than young boys. So the question is really, have we changed that much from still holding women to a different standard from men, and if so why and to what extent?
November 16th, 2009 at 2:19 AM
Sorry, I had to look again. I didn’t know that Ashley commented on this post. I thought she commented on the Love and Marriage post. Monday’s blog will go a little bit deeper into the abstinence only conversation.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:57 AM
[...] pointed out in her comments that the bias is heavily in favor of women remaining pure while men are encouraged to sew their [...]