Abstinence-Only education is flawed in its approach to gay and lesbian students. Rather than set reasonable expectations on these youth regarding responsible sexuality, it tells them that there is no acceptable time in their lives in which they can have sex. Ever.
But Abstinence-Only education may also be flawed in its approach to heterosexual students. The appeal of these programs seems limited to those with a strong religious upbringing and seems to ignore those who don’t accept a religious based view of sexuality. Additionally, even those teens who seem to be reached by this educational model may not be truly adopting its ideas. A new report from a doctoral student at the Harvard School of Public Health suggests that “virginity pledges,” a tool championed by abstinence-only activists, may not be having results consistent with their claims.
Todd Zeranski reports:
Researcher Janet Rosenbaum studied the responses of 13,568 participants, ages 12 to 18, from a 1995 national survey and compared them with a follow-up study a year later.
She found that 52% of adolescents who made the pledge not to have sex until marriage in the 1995 survey denied making such a vow a year later.
Almost a third of nonvirgins in the first survey who took a virginity pledge disavowed previous sexual experience in the second survey.
The Concerned Women for America are outraged. In a press release that is devoid of any research, study, or anything other than conjecture, they said the following:
This new ‘finding’ by Harvard is misleading and deceptive. Those who have committed to saving sex for marriage are to be congratulated and encouraged,” said Dr. Janice Crouse, CWA’s Senior Fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute.
Crouse goes on to claim that because teen pregnancies and abortions are down that it is because of virginity pledges and abstinence-only education. Although abstinence-only education is predicated on the idea that information should be limited, Crouse claims:
“Abstinence education is the only effective tool for teaching young men and women the dangers of promiscuous behavior.”
And if her previous arguments are not adequately compelling, Crouse leaves us with the following evidence to support her position and discount that of the researcher:
“The Harvard report is wrong. I know numerous couples who have saved sex for their wedding night.”
Not everyone interprets the reseach the same as Crouse.
“The study adds to the growing body of evidence that virginity pledges have limited effectiveness in delaying sexual intercourse among adolescents and that we need to continue to look for strategies that work,” said Monica Rodriguez, a vice president at the nonprofit Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.
I believe that there is not conclusive evidence that abstinence-only eductation is effective or responsible. It is necessary that our elected officials and our school boards provide information that meets the goals of reducing teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted infections and that programs be based on results rather than religious ideology.
Until objective studies can be performed and the most effective and inclusive programs be established we should hesitate to rush to this educational model that is, at best, limited. Meanwhile, Rodriguez reports that the federal government is spending $178 million in the 2006 fiscal year, and the states are allocating an additional $37.5 million for abstinence education.
I run an abstinence program. Do I think it’s the be all and end all for teen issues? No — not by any stretch of the imagination. But do I think i have a good shot at keeping the kids I work with from having sex while in MIDDLE SCHOOL? Yes — I do. Will they think more about the decision in high school? Yes. Does this mean all my kids won’t have sex until they are married? Hell no. But if I can delay a kid’s initiation of sexual activity from 14 to 16, who is that to say it’s a bad thing?
Also — we do not approach abstinence in a religious manner. Nor do we approach it in a shame based manner. I, in fact, was talking to the kids about sex today. It’s amazing how kids will respond when you are straight forward and honest. We lay out the facts — these are the risks of sexual activity. Our whole approach is focusing our kids on their future. I work in the inner city and help our kids dream beyond the ‘hood. We have a sports program, a community service program, a college prep program — overall, we are just a safe place to be.
Do I think abstinence is the only answer? No — I believe there should be comprehensive education. But I am tired of people slamming abstinence education. Yes — some abstinence educators are idiots. Just like there are some comprehensive education people who are idiots. Most people who are in an abstinence program are VERY reality based and realize that they are not going to delay sexual activity until marriage — but if I can get a 13 year old to not have sex until she is 16 or 17, you know what? I’ll take it. And if I have a kid decide that they don’t want to have sex because they are focused on their future, I’ll take it. Can comprehensive achieve the same thing? Probably. But don’t slam me if I can reach the same results.
And in case you think I am an anti-gay conservative troll, think again. In fact, think the exact opposite.
Catwoman, from what most people have said here, abstinence teaching is not bad as a comprehensive whole, but I can tell you that I was taught abstinence growing up, bith in the church and school. I am 37 now. I wish they had not at least in my case. No one talked at all about homosexuality. Any sex discussion was based on the idea that it was only to be used in marriage and it was dry and boring. I had no idea for the most part what they were talking about, and it made little sense to me.
I did not have gay sex until I was 21. I wish I had not waited. I wish I had sex at 13, 14, 15. I was not an irresponsible child–but the school teaching made me feel alone in that it felt completely foreign to me. To say that all kids should be pushed in a direction of abstinence is problematic. I have had a great life so far, but it would have probably been better if the sex education was honest and if I was having sex early.
I think there’s a middle ground here, and that is what Catwoman is getting at. She states she teaches an abstinence program but clearly does not believe in the “abstinence only” programs so doted on by the religious right.
Don’t beat up on her, she makes some very valid points.
I tend to agree that it’s better to delay sexual activity until one is mature enough to handle it, be it gay or straight. However, the age and circumstances that one is ready to handle sex will differ from one individual to another. Some are best off waiting for marriage (or a same-sex committed relationship in the lack of availability of marriage), although again, depending on maturity level, upbringing, etc. I think this would be the exception rather than the rule. Others are better off not waiting until marriage. Telling the truth and laying out all the options to young people is so important, from a standpoint of credibility and honesty.
In my situation, I lost my virginity at 24, dated around for 6 weeks with two guys, and settled into a committed relationship with the man of my dreams that has lasted 22 years. Probably not the most common set of circumstances, but it’s worked for me. Had there be a more comprehensive sex ed program at the time, I would have ventured out of my shell a few years earlier.
As Catwoman states above, though, comprehensive is the key word in this debate. It shouldn’t be one or the other.
I want to make sure that people realize that I was not trying to beat up on Catwoman. I thought she was reasonable. I personally feel that a one-size fits all is ineffective. However, education today is really pushing in that direction for everything. So it is something that is a problem bigger than just sex ed in my view.
I also am in a wonderful relationship of almost 14 years, but I still wish I had a teenage dating time that included sex. I was very responsible, and I think many are. I lived in Europe for many, many years. They have very low STD and pregnancy rates. Sex education there is objective and comprehensive. Even Catholic schools have full sex ed. Most people actually start later than Americans sexually. They aren’t necessarily monogamous, but they are much more responsible in choosing a time and place typically than Americans. There is no abstinence education there. Teenage sex can be a very fulfilling thing.
Catwoman,It would help if you could provide some information about what you actually teach. Online materials. What organisations you are connected with. Do you have any supporting evidence that what you do actually works? (Rather than just telling kids about an “ideal”).From what you described — you don’t teach abstinence only — correct? How do you deal with gay and lesbian students? (do you mention them, specifically?). You distinguish yourself from it — but how are your materials different to those for comprehensive education that must, by definition, also include abstinence?Not to put too fine a point on it — but this whole industry is full of deceptive people who claim to be neither religion or shame based. I think we’d all be happy to see that you’re not one of them.
Catwoman,
I congratulate you on your concern about the early sexualization of children and if your program is as described I support your efforts. I think we can all recognize that early and irresponsible sex is one of the greatest problems in the inner city and if you can get these children to delay sex until they are more capable of making informed and responsible choices, more power to you.
I am concerned, however, that if abstinence is presented without more comprehensive information (ie. abstinence-ONLY), that the problems for those who do not succeed at your program then multiply. If a youth, for whatever reason, does not remain abstinent, it may not be of much value to know that pregnancy or disease may result if they do not also know how to best try and avoid these results.
Aaron,
Teenage sex can be a very fulfilling thing.
In as much as fulfilling basically means “satisfying”, sure. However, I think encouraging sexual intimacy at this stage of life would be generally irresponsible, gay or straight. Recognizing that it will occur and dealing with that through education and support seems responsible.
They [Europeans] have very low STD and pregnancy rates. Sex education there is objective and comprehensive. Even Catholic schools have full sex ed. Most people actually start later than Americans sexually. They aren’t necessarily monogamous, but they are much more responsible in choosing a time and place typically than Americans.
If you are going to make such a broad, sweeping claims, you need to back them up with some factual reference. I’m not sure the last sentence could ever be supported, as it is far too general, but you need to provide evidence of the rest or retract it.
David
Actually David, Aaron is correct.
In all the major indicators of sexual/reproductive health, Western Europeans lead the US. STD rates are lower, AIDS rates are lower, teenager pregancies are lower, abortion rates are lower, etc, etc.
Age at first sexual experience is a little more fuzzy, as it the average numbers of partners, but given the above, they are less crucial.
What is also coming out, in addition to the Harvard study, was the CDC showing that abstinence-only education simply doesn’t work. STD rates amongst teenages have actually gone up. Moreover, the same is being shown amongst those that participate in marriage-pledges. Abstinence is only one part of a comprehensive package that is necessary. It’s not going to work otherwise.
I don’t have time to go trawling around for links, but trust me, for those of us that work in this area, this is simply known to be the way things are.
Sarah in Chicago said:
…but trust me, for those of us that work in this area, this is simply known to be the way things are.
What about those who don’t work in that field? I didn’t say Aaron was being dishonest, I said that he was making some broad statements and representing them as fact. Statements like that need to be documented by linking to an authoritative source. We regularly hold ex-gay commenters to this standard and it is necessary to apply this evenly. We drift away from it at times but every six months or so Mike makes a comment about how posts will be deleted without documentation if such broad claims are made without backing them up. This is the only way to maintain the integrity of the information here.
David
David, it is fine. I was speaking only about what I experienced in Europe (specifically France, Belgium, and Luxembourg), but you can find stats everywhere.
The UNECE has great stats:
http://www.unece.org/stats/stats_e.htm
Check out Advocates for Youth:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/rrr/video.htm
Siecus has tons of stuff too about the differences between Europe and the US in sex ed:
http://www.siecus.org/
Almost every young European I knew when I lived there would speak about how they felt they should hold off until they felt ready. This was not abstinence though–and it was not tied to love or commitment. The people I knew talked about sex as something they wanted to wait for until they were mature enough. It was common to hear such sentiments (unlike here in the US where movies are about getting it as early as possible). But then again discussions of things like masturbation are common among friends in Europe. Here in the US, I cannot imagine many men talking about masturbation openly.
David, one question. You state: “However, I think encouraging sexual intimacy at this stage of life would be generally irresponsible, gay or straight.” Why? Now I am not saying encourage it, but simply present the facts and let it go from there. Having a slap the hand and say no policy was not something that was beneficial to me and I imagine others. We are talking about sex later in life, but almost anyone who studies the humanities or history would know that people are actually being held off later and later for sex, but in past centuries, teenagers had sex early (for example, Romeo and Juliet). Why is it better to have people hold off? Damn it, it was frustrating for me at the time. I was ready and responsible, but I was constantly told to hold off. To me, they are the irresponsible ones who do the telling. They did not give me proper info to make proper choices. I would have made effective sexual choices with their instruction if it was correct. I have found that many people have to unlearn the bad info they were given growing up (also, is it really helpful to a gay teen to hold an egg for a week as a baby?).
David, I posted something with links, but I think it has to be approved. I am wrong in one thing, and it is something I teach classes. I can’t really compare what happens in Europe to what happens here. We are a different culture and applying their ideas to ours is problematic. There are lots of different reasons different cultures differ. My whole point was simply this–I was one person hurt by the system at the time. Abstinence based ideas were ineffectual for me, and I wish it was different for that reason. Some people it might help. Again, I just don’t think one size fits all programs work.
Aaron said:
I just don’t think one size fits all programs work.
No argument here.
We don’t have an approval system so I don’t know what might have happened to the post you mentioned. If you are curious, email me and I will check it out.
David
david@exgaywatch.com
Aaron
don’t know why it was held up, but i released it
Aaron, I strongly disagree with you. There is no rationalization for encouraging underage SEX.
I DO strongly support teaching psychological and emotional expectations and responses to one’s feelings around attraction and sex.
Females bond differently than males do, and learning how to navigate relationships and communicate truthfully and identifying what is felt are essential.
This is more than just physical gratification, but emotional too.
How many of us made the wrong decision based on something COMPLETELY unrelated to what we thought sex was for and about?
How many men aren’t into casual affection or intimacy WITHOUT connecting it to sex?
And how many females, try to have intimacy, or think they’ve arrived at a relationship because someone wanted to have sex with them?
Maturity, and growing into emotional readiness is EVERYTHING when it comes to sex and dealing with strong feelings and hormonal fluctuations.
No child should be encouraged to think they can understand a situation that many ADULTS fail on.
It smacks of the rationalization that ephebophiles do when speaking about accepting teens having sex.
Sure they WANT to, or think they do, but what adults learn is that you can’t always have what you want, because you want to.
WHEN it’s right, is just as important as HOW.
But attaching when, to marital status is more unrealistic, than attaching it to emotional maturity and preparation is.
And no, in Europe, they DON’T have it together on that.
Women and girls are still horrendously exploited by males, and there are few laws that are enforced with meaning that punish men for it.
What gay children need, is to have their emotional and psychological needs met, physical needs are rarely all that urgent.
Same as straight teens.
There is nothing about being straight or gay that gives permission to a lock on maturity or sophistication.
But our society on one hand, is immature about self control, and dealing with the consequences when there is a lack of it.
We don’t have to give into every impulse we have, but we certainly should teach that decisions and self determination are our own. And the tools to go forth safely, is a must for every child to be taught.
Regan: I’m not reading Aaron as saying he’d encourage “underage sex”. He specifically did say: “Now I am not saying encourage it…”. What he has said is that he wishes that he had started earlier.
It’s now several years old, but a good summary of some of the underpinnings of sex ed in the US, Germany, France and the Netherlands was examined by AFY in this study tour.The stats from page 5 are quite stark, and repeated in iterally every other study ever done — the US has dramatically worse outcomes. US kids start earlier, or don’t delay longer. Higher preganancy and (hence) abortion rates. Lower contraceptive and condom use. STD rates that would have caused Europeans to hit the panic button.The discussion of the interjection of “values” into the curricula is well worth reading. Europe has largely found a consensus about what needs to be taught to everyone. The US has two highly polarised views, with a high level of local control causing these polarised views to turn up in lesson plans. Sometimes the students get lucky, sometimes they do not.The other major difference is that Europeans see a role for religious groups in shaping personal and family values clarification — they are equally firm that religious-based groups will not be teaching the subject in class. It is done by trained teachers, without fear or favour, and it’s up to the parents to add whatever religious viewpoints they want to as an add-on to the classroom lessons.That’s the way we prefer it — let the classroom discuss the facts and describe “how it is” to all children, and then allow the parents to discuss how those facts fit in with their religious viewpoints (if they want to).Alas, in the US (and increasingly in Australia) there is a hard-core segment of some parents — and “we all know who they are” — who would prefer to have the facts hidden or distorted to all children rather than face explaining how their religious beliefs fit with those facts.Yep — same as evolution. Thank heavens we’ve moved on from whether the Earth goes around the Sun or vice versa…(I might also add that most European nations do not face, to the same extent, another often unmentioned but, we think, important difference: the US is prepapred to tolerate the existence of a permanent underclass — often race-based — that skews the outcomes even more than would otherwise be the case. When you remove sensible, practical sex ed from schools… it is that underclass that is hit the worst. They are forced to rely on their own, often inadequate, resources; and the results speak for themself. And yes, I’d include gay and lesbian kids as one of those underclasses in this regard.)
I guess a good example of who not to invite is “Dr” Judith Reisman.Like a bad egg she keeps reappearing during discussions about sexuality education in the US — heavily promoted by the usual suspects. This, despite the fact she has no qualifications, is prepared to distort the facts, and is plainly a rather cracked individual. She, and her type, simply have no counterparts in Europe.
Let me be clear–while it may seem I am encouraging underage sex, I am not, but I just don’t think many of these programs are realiztic. Give someone the facts and let them make their own choices. I actually think that soem people will hold off given the facts. As for me, I was an incredibly responsible and mature teenager in many ways. I just wanted info I was not getting, and it wasn’t really effective info that I was.
Aaron said:
Here in the US, I cannot imagine many men talking about masturbation openly.
You must be joking! Seriously, I’ve never known of a lack of discussion on that issue, gay or straight.
David, one question. You state: “However, I think encouraging sexual intimacy at this stage of life would be generally irresponsible, gay or straight.” Why? Now I am not saying encourage it, but simply present the facts and let it go from there.
Like I said, I would not think it responsible to encourage it. We seem to be in agreement here.
…but in past centuries, teenagers had sex early (for example, Romeo and Juliet).
Well, aside from the fact that Romeo and Juliet existed only in the mind of Shakespeare, life was quite different centuries ago. What was the average lifespan in Europe then, 35 or 40? It was a very different matter and, in some sense, biologically necessary. Society is not constrained by that need today and has in many ways evolved different sensibilities. We don’t have many arranged marriages these days either 😉 You have found yourself in a time in history when people have more time to mature and to live out their lives. You may have wanted desperately to enter into a sexual relationship when your body first awakened to such things, but we have time now to mature before doing so – and our society is structured around that assumption. And as Regan alluded to, this period during which we generally dissuade sexual activity is also for the protection of the potential partner in such a relationship. It is likely that one or both of you would not have been fully ready for such commitments even though you may have felt you were.
None of this precludes education on the matter. But generally, aren’t the chances that you will somehow be emotionally scared by waiting a few years less than if you were to engage too early? I don’t know but it is a thought.
David
grantdale said:
Europe has largely found a consensus about what needs to be taught to everyone. The US has two highly polarised views, with a high level of local control causing these polarised views to turn up in lesson plans. Sometimes the students get lucky, sometimes they do not.
the US is prepared to tolerate the existence of a permanent underclass — often race-based — that skews the outcomes even more than would otherwise be the case.
I’m not sure that Europe is quite so idealic, but to the extent which this is so I have to mention that the US has a much different and much shorter history than Europe. At least part of the differences that you and Aaron mention certainly must be associated with factors (cultural, historic) that have nothing to do with intentional, planned programs and curricula. In other words, I’m not at all sure that these things would produce the same results here. In many cases we are two different worlds.
David
Sarah,
If you do not have time to “go trawling around for links” then I’m afraid there is little reason for you to post.
I’d like to believe you, but you have given us no reason to trust you — you have no verifiable name, no professional credentials, and you speak in absolutes much like the religious right (though from an opposing political perspective).
While I value new and diverse commenters, there are few faster ways to get banned from XGW than to persistently post unsubstantiated absolutes that have the effect of disrupting discussion rather than informing it.
Aaron said:
As for me, I was an incredibly responsible and mature teenager in many ways.
Read what Regan said. How could you be sure your partner was just as mature and responsible, and not just jumping in before they were emotionally ready? This really is the same reason we don’t allow adults to interact sexually with minors, is it not? If you really were say 16 and mature enough for such a relationship with another 16 year old, then would you not be in the same position as a 25 year old except for the chronological age? We expect the adult in such a situation to prevent a sexual encounter because they are supposedly the mature element – it is too easy for someone that age to be hurt (and is why this is illegal).
And to be honest, if you were genuinely this responsible and mature, and I will accept that you were, then would you not have seen the wisdom in waiting a couple of years? Perhaps the real pain you are feeling here is that information on sexual relationships was not shared with you appropriately so you felt unprepared later on?
David
David: I’m not sure that Europe is quite so idealisticOh, I’m not claiming that! To the contrary — I thinking they, in general, are simply being practical and pragmatic.Personaly… I think the intrusion of (and I’ll use all the almost meaningless terminology here to illustrate) that “purity” “saved” for a “gold standand” of “abstinence until marriage” between “One man and One woman” and all that underlies those viewpoints is far more idealistic (and unrealistic).And I don’t buy the “it’s our culture”, frankly. Sorry, but most Americans are far more sensible that that; even if they are currently being sold a pig in a poke. Things will right themselves, eventually.See, ever we have faith when we need to 🙂
urgh, there’s something wrong with my fingers. Please excuse bulk typos.
grantdale said:
…even if they are currently being sold a pig in a poke.
You assume that we are being sold something. The ideals that you are talking about are quite deeply held by Americans. And you sorely underestimate our ability to reject something we don’t agree with, even something as benign as the metric system. You start playing those videos over here of kids gleefully buying condoms and daddy sending them off on a date and just watch things fly!
David
David, you are demanding reasoning in these situations, but you still are not dealing with the “whys” behind your assumptions.
You state: “How could you be sure your partner was just as mature and responsible, and not just jumping in before they were emotionally ready?”
This could be true of my age now as then. Why assume that I can’t make responsible choices regarding partners who are also mature. I could just as easily have an emotionally immature partner today. Age, I have found, does not necessarily have a lot of bearing on wisdom or reasoning (I have students at 55 who as immature as a 12 year old can be). It is an assumption on your part that age brings wisdom, and I don’t think that is necessarily true.
“This really is the same reason we don’t allow adults to interact sexually with minors, is it not?”
No it is not. Exploitation of minors is the reason those laws exist, but sometimes they are problematic and arbitrary. I know a young woman who is very mature. I hired her thinking she was in her twenties. Turns out she is 14 but highly intelligent and went to college. She is dating a 25 year old male. Her parents actually support the relationship, but his do not–his mother turned them in. Now, the relationship is mature and nonexploitive (at least from my vantage point). I am not arguing these laws are wrong–but making blanket assumptions that older is better is wrong. Some can’t handle early relationships, some can. Let the education happen and let them make choices. Why should the school be presenting the morality of the situation when that should be the job of the parents?
“And to be honest, if you were genuinely this responsible and mature, and I will accept that you were, then would you not have seen the wisdom in waiting a couple of years? Perhaps the real pain you are feeling here is that information on sexual relationships was not shared with you appropriately so you felt unprepared later on?”
Well, that last part is a cheap shot, but I will forgive it. Young heterosexual teenagers have a variety of resources. They have the ability to forge relationships sexual and nonsexual. While I suspect it is easier today for gay teenagers, we are told by society to hold off. Many gay people do not have teenage lives. They develop friendships but not romantic relationships. This is not true for all, but it is fairly true (and there is story after story of gay people in their 20s who have to go through a relationship learning process because they don’t have it in high school–my spouse was 27 before a first relationship, for example). You tie wisdom to age, and I don’t see why you assume that. Age is a social construct. To assume that lines are drawn because of date of birth and years lived is ridiculous to me because I don’t see those things. Maturity is much more important in my view.
I also don’t know where you are living David, but from my personal experience Europeans are much, much more open about sexual discussions than Americans. One of the reasons the Surgeon General wanted to discuss masturbation in sex ed is because people aren’t willing to talk about it (and look what happened to her).
Let me very clear–All I am saying is that give people info, let them decide. If they are ready, they are ready. Maybe they make some bad choices. People will, but why not lay it all out on the table and let them choose. People who make choices for others are saying they are superior–I say break down that wall and just freely discuss.
David, while there are many, many articles about masturbation discussions among Americna males (and its taboo status), you can start here:
http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/IES/USA07.HTM
I’m genuinely conflicted by what you are saying, so let me try to understand.
Aaron said:
She is dating a 25 year old male. Her parents actually support the relationship, but his do not–his mother turned them in. Now, the relationship is mature and nonexploitive (at least from my vantage point). I am not arguing these laws are wrong–but making blanket assumptions that older is better is wrong. Some can’t handle early relationships, some can. Let the education happen and let them make choices.
Ok, you seem to be saying two completely different things here. On the one hand, you say that this 14/25 relationship is fine (i.e. mature and non exploitive) and on the other hand you say that you are not arguing that these laws [against Pedophilic relationships] are wrong (which conversely means you think they are right). Then you say some can’t handle early relationships and some can… let them make choices. Let’s get this out of the way in a clear, concise comment. Do you believe that any sexual relationship between a minor and an adult should be allowed?
This could be true of my age now as then. Why assume that I can’t make responsible choices regarding partners who are also mature. I could just as easily have an emotionally immature partner today.
Well of course, this last part is certainly true. However, we give parents responsibility for the lives of their offspring until roughly the age of 18. It’s not a perfect line, but it is the line we have given. And again, our society is structured around this “milestone of maturity” as well. Most legal rights are conveyed at that age, save the right to consume alcohol and a few other obscure things. Ironically, there was a time not so long ago when many more people became married before the age of 20. My sister was barely 18 and had a child within a year (1970’s). To the current generation, that seems very, very young. Things do change but in surprising ways I guess. The point is that since we can’t know for sure when two people are mature enough, we use the general boundary of maturity that we do for most everything else. In the case of a heterosexual couple, that means the legal privileges and responsibilities to care for what might be the product of such a union. This isn’t the only reason but it is part of it. I realize gay couples don’t have this particular “risk” but no one wants the image of gay youths spearheading a new “do it when I feel ready” campaign in the US.
Perhaps the real pain you are feeling here is that information on sexual relationships was not shared with you appropriately so you felt unprepared later on?
Well, that last part is a cheap shot, but I will forgive it.
That was absolutely not meant as a “cheap shot”. It was partly in response to your remarks:
They did not give me proper info to make proper choices. I would have made effective sexual choices with their instruction if it was correct. I have found that many people have to unlearn the bad info they were given growing up…
I was suggesting that perhaps what was more damaging in your case was that you (at least I thought you had said this) that you had not been given adequate education on the matter early in life. If I offended you, I apologize – it wasn’t intentional.
I am living in the US, Florida actually. I read some of your German reference on American attitudes toward masturbation. My comments only reflect what I have noticed throughout my life. Guys in my school started talking about it in about 6th grade and never stopped. Adult male friends talk about it when it comes up, but it’s more or less something that everyone knows about and does, but I mean they don’t sit around talking about methods are anything. It’s just not been that taboo in my experience – at least among groups of the same sex. As for Donna Shalala Joycelyn Elders, if I remember correctly she said one too many things without discussing them with President Clinton, though I am sure the masturbation issue was the final straw. I’ll grant the prude factor there. To be honest, I think she would have had a shot at getting into the schools if she hadn’t talked about it so much at press conferences 🙂
Why should the school be presenting the morality of the situation when that should be the job of the parents?
About 180 million Americans just nodded in agreement.
People who make choices for others are saying they are superior–I say break down that wall and just freely discuss.
The bottom line is this Aaron, for parents of young adults, this is their primary purpose – sometimes they make the choices and sometimes they guide the choices, but in the end our society gives them the final say in the rearing of their children. That’s what gives them the right. And you are correct that we can’t expect everyone to be mature at one magical age, but it’s a reasonable marker and it’s set in our laws and our culture (yes grantdale, culture does exert great influence).
Sorry if I am rambling, I’m off to bed. Take care,
David Roberts
aka ReasonAble
ReasonAble,
Dona Shalala was secretary of Health and Human Services under Clinton. Perhaps you are referring to Clinton’s Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders. In 1994 she participated in the United Nations World AIDS Day event. In an interview afterwards, she was asked, “…if masturbation might be taught as a way to prevent AIDS?”
She responded, “masturbation is something that is a part of human sexuality, and is a part of something that perhaps should be taught.” She went on to clarify later that what is taught in each school is a matter for the local school board to decide.
Non-the-less, she was fired by President Clinton a week later.
Apparently, using the dreaded “M” word in public, let alone suggesting that masturbation is a natural part of human sexuality, didn’t set well with those exemplified by the What’s Wrong With Masturbation? workshop mentioned in the post about the Exodus Conference.
Obviously, a frank discussion about sex, including masturbation, whether it be by the Surgeon General or anyone else is frowned on in our country.
Bill Ware said:
Dona Shalala was secretary of Health and Human Services under Clinton. Perhaps you are referring to Clinton’s Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders.
You are correct, my mistake. Posting while sleepy can be dangerous! I do remember the atmosphere though, and one got the impression that she was often saying things that had not been cleared through the President or those who should have known how to respond later – not good to make the President look bad if you are on his staff.
There do seem to be other issues that don’t make this such a slam dunk for Elders. First, even if her stance was a correct one, she certainly could have anticipated the response such a public comment from someone in her already highlighted position (she had pushed for drug legalization and national health care, two extremely unpopular subjects in the US, especially at that time) would have on what is (at least externally) still basically a prudish culture. Ignoring the backlash that could easily have been predicted was not good strategy and counter productive to what she wanted to accomplish.
The other issue that is on the minds of parents are the all too common incidences here of inappropriate sexual behavior between school teachers and children. They can’t help but wonder if the increased discussion of such things and pleasuring oneself as instructed by someone in authority over them may spark more such activity. It matters little if you or I think this would be so (I honestly don’t know as I have seen no data on it) but this is the culture we are dealing with. Ignoring such feelings by telling the nation that we should teach masturbation in schools was a non-starter and only hurt the cause of sex-education as I see it.
I’m not comparing this to the Exodus workshop because these are issues that exist with or without the religious context, i.e. one doesn’t need to have an opinion on whether or not masturbation is a sin for these factors to be influential.
Thanks for the correction 🙂
David Roberts
aka ReasonAble
“It is an assumption on your part that age brings wisdom, and I don’t think that is necessarily true.”
Age brings experience and the ability to reason, the building blocks of wisdom. While age may not automatically bring wisdom (many people attain years but remain fools), wisdom cannot be achieved without these building blocks. What you are saying seems contrary to this.
You may have been remarkable mature for your age, but at 13 you could not have had the experience or knowledge that would have allowed you to approach your sexuality in the same way that you did nearly a decade later.
Aaron, I don’t wish to diminish you or your opinions, but something you said suggests that perhaps you were not as mature as you now believe. You suggest that it was the lack of information provided to you that held you back in what could have been a fulfilling sexualized teenage period. I can’t help but think that if you were as mature as you believe yourself to have been, that you would have been able to find the information on your own. The mechanics of sex, along with it risks and requirements were available 24 years ago in any public library.
If I can be so presumptious, I want to suggest that perhaps what you missed out on was not so much a number of shared orgasms, but rather the romantic/sexual socialization that you saw in straight students around you.
If that is what you missed, I can empathize. I think it unfortunate that many gay kids (especially those our age and older) never had a chance to agonize about whether he was going to call me on Friday but I saw him in the library with another guy and were they just studying or did he kiss him like I heard and should I answer his call if he does call but will my Mom let me stay out on Friday until 11:30 so we can make out after the movie but I don’t know if I really want to because there’s this other guy I talked to at the mall…
Fortunately, many gay and lesbian kids now are coming out much earlier and are able to go through the same teenage angst as their straight counterparts and are then on the same track to find a spouse and settle down. Interestingly, as best I can tell, many of these out gay kids decide not to have sex early, or at least not earlier than their straight counterparts.
So perhaps, Aaron, if you were given the same info and choices they are given, you too would have choosen to wait until you were older and ready.
David: yes grantdale, culture does exert great influenceWell, yes. Umm, DURGH?We know it does. We also expressed faith in “the American people”. Fools that we are :)We know… at the same time as declaring all men are equal, it was agreed that blacks were 3/5ths on a person … the land of the free was the last (Western) nation to end slavery. And we could go on.This is not meant to discourage you, or others. The “Dream of America” has sustained a great deal of faith for over 200 years, even if America itself has failed to liveup to that promise on many occassions. The rest of us remain as bewildered as do thinking Americans on this issueWe also remain bewildered as to why the US is so religious — as in, political driven religious and not just personal faith. Why so many (frankly) “nutcase” comments come from a political system that should — we hope must — know better. It seems to corrupt, for all sorts of reasons, at a profound level. The rest of the World, pleased as we were with an American decision for action, utterly cringed when the President introduced that action as a “Crusade”. Good God, you are not the Pope and this is not the 13th Century…Whatever. We hope you get what we mean.And we still have faith in the Dream, none the less. Perhaps Americans no longer do?
grantdale said:
The rest of the World, pleased as we were with an American decision for action, utterly cringed when the President introduced that action as a “Crusade”.
I think we are crossing the “political” line here so let me just refer you back to my comments that America is not Europe (and vice versa). That and what the heck does “DURGH” mean?
David Roberts
aka ReasonAble
ok, boys!! play nice
no intercontinental squabbles. too many wars fought over that kind of thing
ok, boys!! play nice
Oh gosh, ok mom 😉
David
David mentions (in re: Joycelyn Elders), “Ignoring the backlash that could easily have been predicted was not good strategy and counter productive to what she wanted to accomplish.”
Well, yes, her truthfulness did her in. So are you suggesting that we would be better off with an administration that avoided the “backlash” by not being truthful about anything?
Oh, wait…
It is now scientific fact that teenager’s brains are lacking certain chemicals where restraint are concerned. And also with hormonal fluctuations, emotional responses to certain stimiulus is NOT healthy for them.
Putting someone who is still physically developing in a serious emotional situation is not only unnecessary…it’s risky.
Children (yes, teens ARE still children in more ways than biologically) CANNOT process things the way an OLDER teen (18 or 19) would.
Children develop crushes on older adults, if not someone in their peer group. It’s healthy and normal to develop attractions, but ACTING on them, is part of the impulsive nature of kids.
That’s why ADULTS must help them navigate the insecurity and clumsiness around attractions. Not exploit them because the child can predictably BE more impulse and will give into their emotions.
This is also true of depression, suicide and aggression.
Messing around with kids emotionally with adult issues and behavior, will make them also display the above.
And I put it to ephebophiliacs and kids alike THIS way.
A young person ONLY has eighteen precious years to be guileless, unconcerned with a career, children, mortgages and rent and health insurance and car payments, sex and other self maintenance.
Adulthood, with all these attendant responsibilities could last the next 60 YEARS after the age of 18.
Why rush?
BE A KID and adults should LET THEM, that’s OUR job.
Sexual activity feels good, but it’s also serious business where emotions (and responsibility) are concerned.
And for the young, they really don’t have the biochemical maturity that can help them through such things.
And another thing that’s different about Europe as opposed to the US.
They are also more physically demostrative on average.
There seems to be more affection between people there.
I also know that an affection starved child, is the saddest and most vulnerable child.
It’s up to their parent to KNOW when their child is naturally affectionate or not and handle that accordingly.
Or else the need for affection can be mistaken for some other need and exploited in the worst way.
I think boys might suffer from this most of all.
Sorry David if it came across that way — it wasn’t meant to be political. I said “President” and didn’t name anyone for that reason.It was a comment on how a single word — the use of “crusade” — can cause a very different reaction, based on culture alone. An illustration that we agree with you that that “America is not Europe”.(I realise the use of the word also caused cringing in the US too, but not anywhere like it did elsewhere.) I have no idea if using the term was deliberate, or plain silly — but one doesn’t tackle a Midd.East problem and use that word. Too much cultural baggage for Muslims, even if we (in the “Christian West”) have largely forgotten what the whole sheebang was about all those centuries ago.I’m not sure how the rest was taken, but I hope our affection for the US and ‘the American Dream’ came across clearly. Like it or not, realised or not, those ideals continue to inspire much of the World’s people. (I’m trying to remember how we even headed down that path… oh yes, it was about the corrupting influence of polarised viewpoints etc.)And “DURGH” is a capitalised “durgh”. It means “Well, of course I know that…” Sorry, Australian slang. It’s the second word our children learn, after “beer” 🙂
Citation, anyone?
It is now scientific fact that teenager’s brains are lacking certain chemicals where restraint are concerned.
Unfortunately, I think you might have to troll to NARTH for that one. I traced that study to the author some time ago but can’t find my notes. You will find it because NARTH distorted it into a way to prove that adolescents shouldn’t be allowed to “identify” as gay because they (adolescents) tend toward risky behavior and can’t control it. If that sounds nutty to you, you are on the right track. I’ll try to find the journal entry I traced it to, but it had nothing to do with what NARTH morphed it into. In keeping with earlier remarks, Regan really should support that statement with a reference – I only vaguely remember the issue. Regan?
grantdale said:
It was a comment on how a single word — the use of “crusade” — can cause a very different reaction, based on culture alone. An illustration that we agree with you that that “America is not Europe”.
I’ll give you that, both sides of the equation should learn a bit more about how to intelligently and thoughtfully deal with the other. Avoiding stupid mistakes is a good thing, especially when there are plenty of genuinely hard issues that must be dealt with by both together to survive.
…the US is prepared to tolerate the existence of a permanent underclass — often race-based — that skews the outcomes even more than would otherwise be the case.
I wasn’t too keen on that statement, it even brought up some defensiveness in me (being candid), but it has been on my mind since I read it. I’m still not sure how other factors about our culture play into this, but I did some reading on statistics of incomes, housing, health coverage, etc. You have me thinking, and I’m not sure I like what I am discovering. It perhaps goes against my individualist, capitalist nature, but my humanity and faith tell me other things can be more important. It is amazing how numb one can become to something that is in front of one’s face daily.
No worries, mate(s) – but it’s 4:00 AM here and I have to get some sleep again. Take care.
David Roberts
aka ReasonsAble
Here’s two citations (don’t know how to get to the original articles though):
this and this
Thanks David — we hadn’t meant to offend.And we’ll also add — just to show we’re not paying holier than though — that the continuing position of aboriginals in Australia is a source of deep embarrassment for us. We went from interference, to neglect, to self-actualiation… and despite the $billions and hours of “resources” poured into todays “solution” it seems things are as a whole not making progress. The stats are shameful for that 2% of the population, bearing no resemblence to the rapid inclusion of, say, the port-war European migrants or Asians in more recent decades.
Sorry, guys…the reference came from recent TIME magazines on teens and there was a show on TLC about it.
I should have remembered about references you could use here.
Apologies.
I thought too, that it was common knowledge.
Teens act like mutants for a reason.
But NARTH isn’t in the business of dealing with homosexuality the way it should be.
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with sexual maturity or negative biochemistry.
If it did, then NARTH would cede that it’s natural and not a choice and can’t and shouldn’t be controlled through psychotherapy.
And there are no drugs for homosexuality, as there are for other (diagnosable) chemical imbalances.
But physical immaturity IS biochemical, and there isn’t a reason to control teens through medication, as their physical and biochemical maturity is normal and natural.
Teens simply can’t and don’t function as adults. They aren’t meant to, and for a good reason.
And frankly, they never really have. Regardless of the length of lifespans and function in society as a whole in history.
NARTH ignores the function of gay people in public life, and their concerns for the sexual privacy of gay people isn’t their business.
And that’s what therapy or the need for it means.
Whether or not a person can successfully function and is competent in their lives.
NARTH, Exodus and every other person who still ignores that adult gay people function just fine without their intervention.
It’s catwoman again — I just skimmed over the responses. I am impressed by the level of discussion. I have read exgaywatch.com for quite awhile now, but this is the first time I have posted. FOr the most part, it seems to be a very rational, respectful discussion. I apologize for the shock, but being in abstinence ed, you get used to things not being so respectful.
In answer to someone’s post, sorry — no online materials to review. We are a pretty small program. But in terms of what we cover to ‘prove’ we ain’t shame based: the bulk of our curriculum is on self identity, self esteem, relationships, goal setting, dreams, etc. We talk about sex and STDs. I am prevented by my funding to really discuss contraceptives. I can talk about their effectiveness and that’s about it. HOWEVER – I can refer to other organizations that can pick up where I have to stop. And I do so gladly. People may argue that my program is invalid. We do what we can to impact our kids. Do I have any hard core data? Not yet — we are still in the early stages of our program. We do have an extensive evaluation component, so as the years go on — the more data we will have to see if we influence attitudes. I honestly believe our greatest impact will be with the students we work with after school. It is much more relationship than teaching.
As for GLBTQI youth, ah — yes — you have hit on one of my greatest professional frustrations. I am funded by abstinence money, I work for a faith based organization and my program is in a small, VERY CONSERVATIVE, heavily Latino school. So I am pretty much hamstrung from many different directions. I do what I can to insure that we have a respectful environment when we are in the classroom and when we are with our kids. It took us two years to get the school to let us talk about straight sex. It’s going to be a bit longer for me to ease in GLBTQI youth. But I am slowly working on it. I work to train my staff to be sensitive in the language they use ‘boyfriend’ ‘girlfriend’ or the assumptions they make (that all kids are straight). It’s extremely difficult as we live in a very homophobic society. But every step forward brings us closer to the day of equality. Have to believe that, or I’ll go nuts. 🙂
I think that’s my greatest priority. By working with young people in the way I do, I hope to influence them to believe in themselves and that they too can change the world, even if it is ‘only’ touching one other person’s life. I try to get them to believe that they are responsible for the change they want to be in the world. I want them to know that they are the best and in my program, they are loved unconditionally. My attempt to leave the world a better place than when I got here. 🙂
Thanks catwoman for the explanation you were able to give.So… you basically provide one component — the abstinence part — but personally do realise that the rest is also necessary for some? (in one form or another).(Also understand too that you may not want to identify yourself if the program is small and the employer may not take kindly to you “pushing the envelope”.)I hope it has come through clearly that none of us here, at least not in my memory, have ever suggested that waiting longer (or even until marriage, or whatever) isn’t a perfectly reasonable decision for a young person to make. Those are reasonable and supportable decisions.At the same time, we have a reality that it is a minority that will “really” want to be completely abstinent from mid-teens until (heterosexual) marriage at mid-late 20’s; and even fewer will actually keep to that decision. As well, all non-heterosexual kids are literally abandoned to their fate by programs that exclude them — and I’d say that the exclusion is of itself a form of shaming and stigmatizing. Gay kids already realise why they are unmentionable…But I guess you know all that :)I am also glad to see that you do put youths in contact with education and support, even when doing that lies outside your own funding restrictions. Nobody needs approve or disapprove of anything in order to meet the young man or woman at the place where they are and ensure they are as informed and as safe as practicable.
Just had a thought…(not much of one, don’t get excited)In the same vein as a push to thrust exgay viewpoints into schools… surely an equally valid movement would be to promote teen pregancy in schools?I’m sure I could russle up more positive, glowing testimonies from 15 and 16 year old single mothers than Exodus manage to find for exgays. I’m sure, in the name of ironic or sarcastic humour, many of us could find a few solid biblical passages to support our position. I’m sure I could distort a few small surveys etc into the medical and scientific “proof” that being a teen mother was a great thing to be (and therefore, all should be).The National Association for the Research and Treatment of Non-Pregancy (NARTnP) has a nice ring to it.And I’d manage to achieve all this right before an angry mob daubed me with tar, covered me with feathers and ran me out of town on a rail…
Yes – I do realize ‘the rest is necessary for some’. That’s why in my first post I said abstinence is not the answer alone and I am glad there is comprehensive. And that’s is why I said in my second post that we GLADLY refer kids out to organizations that can do what we can’t.
Here’s my view though — we got this funding to do programming for youth. I can decide that it’s not good enough since I can only ‘provide one component’. So fine — walk away. Then I lose the chance to influence young people in any way — including getting them to accept GLBTQI youth as every other youth and getting GLBTQI youth to accept themselves. THAT I can do because of who I am as a person and the environment I require in my program. But I could just walk away since it isn’t ‘perfect’ and lose what chance I have to influence the young people I do influence. Btw– I have a 20 year old young man who went through the program and is now an alumni. He is also in the Army. We have had the ‘gay rights’ talk when he talked to me about soliders who were gay and lesbian. I challenged him to look at things differently. Oh yeah — did I mention he has a baby and isn’t married? No – he didn’t wait. But he is still used as a mentor and role model for my kids because he took his responsibility. And he would tell them to wait.
Bottom line is — in our program, kids are loved, be they gay, straight, gang members, sexually active, drug users or straight A students. And I sincerely doubt ANYONE — at least anyone who has actually done anything to work with youth — can argue with THAT approach.
I have to agree with Aaron on one particular point. I wish I had had sex earlier. I also think that it would have helped me come out of my shell.
On a slightly dofferent note, I spent most of my schooling in Christian schools that had daily worships and talked ad nauseum about how great it was to wait until marriage. The problem with this was that I was never once told that there was a responsible way to have sex outside of marriage. I made mistakes that I am positive that I wouldn’t have if I had more points of view presented to me. I definately would have used some form of contraception the first few times I had sex. I had no idea where I could get any birth control except condoms. I could have bought some but I was too embarrased. If I’d had more open discussions I wouldn’t have been so uncomfortable with it. I also think that if there had been more discussion about what actaully happens rather than one group’s “ideal” I wouldn’t have made such a mistake in the person that I had sex with. I had such a feeling of it being wrong to have premarital sex that I really thought that only an irresponsible, unpleasant person would want to have sex with me so I ended up having sex with such a person.
I’m in college and I took a psych class last semester called Human Sexuality. I did so because I felt that there were huge gaps in my knowledge. The things I learned in that class were valuable and I’m glad I took it, but I would have liked to have a LOT of that information at some point before I was 21.
The attitude that I was presented with was that if you have sex before marriage, you’re not being a real Christian. I’m not so sure about that statement now. It doesn’t matter to me a whole lot because I don’t consider myself a Christian (for reasons having nothing to do with sex).
As stated above, encouraging respnsibility is hugely important. I’m sure that if I had more education, my experiences would have been different. I’m not exactly sure how they would have been different. I had sex the first time at 19. I think I may have had sex earlier with more comprehensive education, but I would have been more respinsible about birth control and I would have had a higher regard for what I was doing. Being told that it was wrong and bad became a self-fulfilling prophesy. I made it into something bad and unfulfilling exactly because that was all I had ever been told that premarital sex could be. I wish that I had a different and more positive experience whether it was earlier or later. I feel like I was set up to fail in my first sexual experience and I did exactly that. Every single thing about the decision that I made was wrong because I didnt’ know anything else.
catwoman,
You reminded me that we don’t always get everything we want and sometimes have to select the best of what we CAN get.
There are some schools and communities in which there is no way that comprehensive sex education is going to take place right now. But if there can be at least some education, and someone to talk to, it’s better than nothing.
And since the school in which you are conducting your program is only going to have abstinence education, it’s far better to have someone like you there than to have some Church Lady ranting at the kids about Satan.
Shannon at May 7, 2006 03:34 PM
Wow. I feel sorry that your first sexual experiences were so unpleasant. I hope things have picked up some.
One thing you mentioned that strikes me as one of the biggest mistakes that some churches make today:
“The attitude that I was presented with was that if you _______________, you’re not being a real Christian.”
Some churches are all fired up telling folks that they aren’t real Christians – and then they wonder why their youth leave the church. Of course not all churches are like that, thank God, but it is still far to prevalent.
Lol, don’t worry too much about my first sexual experience. It was a mistake, though I’m sure it could have been worse. Don’t lots of people have relationships that they later realize were a mistake? Actually, about six months after that the guy came to me and apologized for the way he had treated me. I’m not too worried about it anymore, it was over two years ago. It took me about 3 months or so to get over that whole relationship, but I’ve been fine about it since then.
Also, I did have a pretty comprehensive sex-ed class whe I was in sixth grade at a Christian school that did discuss condoms and HIV in a responsible way, but things like that need to be emphasized over and over for them to stick. I went to a different Christian academy, which is where I had the daily worships with all the talk about waiting until marriage. It’s mainly that school that I think failed me.
Yes, things are much better now. I got over that guy and moved on. I have made better choices since them. The main point I wanted to make was that I didn’t have any role models or advice that would have helped me make responsible decisions about sex outside of marriage. I know quite a lot of people from that school who had sex before they were married and several who had kids while they were still teenagers. I’m sure that I’m not the only person who wishes that there had been more information available.