Abstinence

Generous as this conclusion may seem to vocal opponents of abstinence-only education, its supporters aren’t too happy with the results. Two members of the CDC Community Guide have issued a minority report claiming that the panel’s recommendations “fail to acknowledge the effectiveness of abstinence education” and “make comparative effectiveness claims about [comprehensive risk reduction] versus AE that are based on weakly supported assumptions.” Unfortunately, the dissenting report bases its claims on evidence that has not yet been cleared for release to the public, so there’s no way to scrutinize its claims. Randy Elders of the CDC responded in the Washington Post by saying that “all of those points were considered by the task force” and that their criticism reflects “a fundamental misunderstanding of a systematic review process.” He explained, “The whole point of what we are doing is to aggregate data from as many studies that are critical to answering the question. What they were doing was chopping up the evidence into very fine subsets to poke holes.”

Debates over the effectiveness of various sex ed approaches have always been contentious, but that is especially true right now because there is a tremendous amount on the line: Congress is currently mulling President Obama’s proposal to allocate government funds only to sex ed programs that are scientifically shown to work. Based on this report, at least, abstinence-only would be out.

The site, which is run by the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts, centers on the fictional character Maria, an 18-year-old who dispenses sexual health information in teen-speak with the help of her aunt who is an OB/GYN. Maria has a diverse group of friends who accurately reflect the range of teenage experience that you see in the real world: Some are abstinent, some are sexually active; some are gay, some are straight; some have protected sex, some do not. The edgiest language can be found in a section of the website that explains various sexual acts in technical terms, alongside the slang translation kids are more likely to have heard. It’s a sweet, albeit sometimes awkward, adult attempt at “speaking their language.” For example: “digital sex” (“fingering/hand job”), “cunnilingus” (“going down on her”), “clitoris” (“clit”), “fellatio” (“giving head” or giving a “blow job”), “erection” (“hard-on”),” “anal sex” (“butt sex”), “anus” (“rectum” or “butthole”). Yes, they said “butthole” — I hope no one needs a paper bag to hyperventilate into.

The other issue that triggered local politicos’ protest is, of course, abortion. The site acknowledges that termination is an option for pregnant young women and that abortions are “safe and effective” — all of which is without a doubt factually correct. Before abortion is even mentioned, though, adoption and parenthood are listed as options — and yet state Rep. Colleen Garry calls it part of “a blatant agenda by the liberal part of our society to introduce children to sex and give them the opportunity to have an abortion without their parents’ involvement.” You know us liberals, we just can’t wait to pressure teenagers into having sex and to corrupt their innocent ears with “disgusting,” “inappropriate and crude” sexual slang.

This is one of those cases that reveal just how profoundly the war over sex education is influenced by adult fears of sex. Teenagers aren’t the issue here — they’re the ones generating this apparently horrifying slang, after all — but rather the alleged grownups who want to stick their fingers in their ears, hum a pleasant little tune and protect themselves from the scary and complex reality of human desire. When I read Rep. Poirier’s remark that “there are words that I would find difficult to speak,” I genuinely and affectionately think: Poor darling, if only your youthful curiosity had been met with support — and awkward adult attempts at speaking your language — instead of shame and reproach.

But, here’s the thing: They are still getting money. You would be forgiven for thinking otherwise, though, based on the AP’s headline (“New sex ed funding ends decade of abstinence-only”) and the HHS press release, which leaves this minor detail until the verrry end: “[M]ore than $33 million is being issued today for abstinence programs in 29 states and Puerto Rico.” (Cue the sad trombone.) This is part of an eleventh-hour provision in the healthcare bill that sets aside $250 million for abstinence programs over the next five years. As the AP eventually notes in its sunny article, “Abstinence programs will still receive a $50 million annual federal grant that requires states to match $3 for every $4, and about 30 states have applied for that money.”

I’m not trying to ruin your Friday, though, so I will let in this ray of sunshine: On Wednesday, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg and Rep. Barbara Lee introduced the “Repealing Ineffective and Incomplete Abstinence-Only Program Funding Act” — which is exactly as awesome as it sounds. It would redirect that $50 million annually to evidence-based, comprehensive sex education programs. Until that happens, though, the abstinence-only era lives on.