Abstinence and Absurdity
Jason Kuznicki on Apr 17th 2007 09:08 pm |
Given the way the current battle lines are drawn, I suppose I’m on the side of the abstinence educators, since I’d much rather have my (hypothetical) sixth-grade kid’s school telling him or her to hold off on sex than handing out Trojans after class. –
Andrew Sullivan Ross Douthat, today (at Sullivan’s blog).
I’m not on the side of the abstinence educators, and here’s why.
Yes, yes, I do think that all education should be private. That said, the mere existence of public schools complicates this debate in ways that go far beyond the obvious fact that we are never, ever going to all agree. We can’t agree on these issues, and we won’t, but the trouble goes deeper still.
First, abstinence-only education is a cruel absurdity to gay and lesbian students. “You must wait until marriage,” the educators say. “Oh, and you can’t get married, because you’re not heterosexual.” The whole point of abstinence education for gays and lesbians is that they are never to have sex.
Good luck selling that one to a teenager. Think abstinence until marriage is a hard sell? Try abstinence forever.
Second, I object to the notion that marriage is or should be a government license to have sex. Yet that’s precisely what teaching abstinence-until-marriage entails that we teach to our kids: It’s wrong to have sex, unless you get a permission slip from the government.
Aren’t these the same people who claim that marriage is sacred? How much more profane can you get? And when the state charges a fee for its magical power of making sex okay, we have ceased to have a government. Now we have a national voodoo prostitution ring.
Third, let’s suppose that the government did not really presume to give permission slips for sex. Let’s say that permission was left up to the individuals involved, their own religious beliefs, and their own consciences. Fine. Now what business does the government have getting mixed up in any of that?
“Don’t have sex until your religion (whatever it is) tells you that it’s okay!” is a message no government should ever be pushing. Indeed, I’d much rather that my sixth grader came home with a pack of condoms. At least the condoms might be of some use to him; this message, from this messenger, is contemptible nonsense. And you know what? By the time I was in sixth grade, I already knew where to get condoms anyway: the men’s room of the local bowling alley. (Try it, kids! Meanwhile, adults, doesn’t this suggest that there is both something wrong with spending government money on condoms and something wrong with the moral panic about it?)
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Insofar as marriage might be a legitimate concern of the state at all, it is only a question of legal responsibilities and legal designations to protect individuals’ rights. The state’s role in marriage is not about God’s blessing for what you do in bed. And it’s certainly not about the state’s blessing for what you do in bed. In the end, I’m not on the side of the abstinence educators, because they are anti-gay, paternalistic, and — frankly — indecent.
Filed in Uncategorized
Just a quick note: this post from Andrew Sullivan’s blog was actually written by Ross Douthat (Andrew is going on vacation again). I’ve always thought abstinence education was a bunch of hooey, for many of the reasons you argue above. Enjoy your blog!
Just a minor nit, but that post was actually written by one of Andrew’s three guest posters, Ross Douthat, not by Sullivan himself.
I don’t think I have anything substantive to add on the actual issue here. I find abstinence-only sex education to be a problem because it doesn’t work, meaning we’re muddying the waters for no actual benefit, which offends my utilitarian sensibilities. If it’s not accomplishing its goals, then why bother?
As far as the basic idea of sex education, I’m conflicted. On the one hand, I support the general idea that kids should be taught what can happen if you have sex (babies might come out in nine months!)l. I can even see a case to be made from a utilitarian perspective that they should also be taught that taking responsibility for any child that might result is part and parcel of agreeing to engage in the act in the first place.
I get uncomfortable, though, when the government starts advocating “Only sex in the confines of this religious institution is all right”, since that seems to be an unwarranted blurring of the separation of church and state.
Like I said, I don’t really have a coherent position on the issue, I’m on the fence. Mostly I just wanted to make it clear that the post in question wasn’t written by Sullivan himself, but then I got lulled by the sound of my own typing. A fatal character flaw if ever there was one.
Point taken on the authorship. I hadn’t known Sullivan to support abstinence education previously, and I admit it did seem strange to me. (Is it possible that the authorship was added in as a subsequent edit? I swear I didn’t see it there when I read the post for the first time.)
It’s subtle, they put the guest poster’s name in brackets at the beginning but it’s easy to overlook. Several times during previous Sullivan vacations I’ve read a post and done a serious double-take before re-reading it and catching that it’s from someone else.
Let me begin with the caveat that I doubt sex ed is really something the gov’t should be teaching to beging with, and I have my doubts about the effectiveness of abstinence only education. That said, I’ve got to disagree with one characterization of the abstinence camp:
Yet that’s precisely what teaching abstinence-until-marriage entails that we teach to our kids: It’s wrong to have sex, unless you get a permission slip from the government.
Here’s a thought experiment for you. Imagine that the U.S. government actually handed out permission slips for sex. Imagine further that there was a special category of permission slips that were good for one-night stands, another that was good for six-months in the same relationship, another that was not partner specific. Do you honestly think that abstinence education promoters would endorse any of those permission slips?
Believers in abstinence don’t (typically) hold that sex is okay when the government says that it is; they (I suppose “we,” since I abstained until marriage) hold that it’s okay when the couple involved have made a lifelong commitment to one another (the lifelong nature of a good portion of those commitments is, of course, dubious). It just so happens that government is currently the enforcer and gatekeeper of those commitments.
“I doubt sex ed is really something the gov’t should be teaching to begin with”
I guess I don’t see a big difference between teaching sex ed and teaching about drugs/alcohol, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone demanding that only drugs/alcohol abstinence be taught. My understanding is that the main idea behind abstinence only sex ed is that if you teach kids about sex, they may be more likely to engage in it; I don’t see how that same argument doesn’t apply to drugs (on which I do think kids should be educated). It’s tangentially related to an excellent point I believe Jason made in his earlier post on marijuana, where he essentially said the government erodes it’s credibility with the ridiculous laws against marijuana when tens of millions of Americans know that it’s just plain not that harmful, either to the user or society. Sure, drug use and sex are obviously risky behaviors, but kids are also smart enough to notice that for every one person who catches an STD or gets pregnant (or overdoses or drunkenly wraps their car around a tree) there are 5/10/’x’ number of people who engage in those behaviors responsibly without negative effects. At least if you have actual education on these topics you can emphasize the dangers and risks; having the education on these topics essentially being, ‘don’t do it’ is just encouraging them to find out for themselves, either from dubious sources or by practice.
The obvious difference between sex and and drug education is the religious beliefs of believers concerning sexual behavior, which, if that’s the only reason to demand abstinence only sex ed, is a very weak justification.
It may be different depending upon where it’s taught but in my experience abstinence education has nothing to do with marriage. That’s not the message or even a part of the message.
It’s simply about trying to delay sexual activity. The idea being that given a few more years young people, as they generally do, might wise up some.
I know that you know this already, but the classical Christian position on marriage is a bit more complex than getting a government permission slip to have sex.
AMW,
You write,
No, I don’t honestly think that abstinence education promoters would endorse these other permission slips. But the fact that the state happens to issue only one type of permission slip does not make it any less a permission slip.
Perhaps, yet I see no reason why it should be. For most of history, individuals, churches, and communities performed this role.
Jason,
No, I don’t honestly think that abstinence education promoters would endorse these other permission slips. But the fact that the state happens to issue only one type of permission slip does not make it any less a permission slip.
Since fornication is either a) legal or b) tacitly legal in every state, I don’t see how a marriage certificate is a de facto permission slip. People have sex before/outside of marriage hourly without any fear of prosecution.
Perhaps, yet I see no reason why it should be. For most of history, individuals, churches, and communities performed this role.
I also see no reason for that to be the case. It seems to me that the most just system would be to allow private entities to perform the role with government enforcing the contracts they came up with.
Dave L,
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone demanding that only drugs/alcohol abstinence be taught.
You can’t possibly be serious. The standard approach to drug education is Mr. Mackey’s “Drugs are bad, mmmKaaay?” When did you ever hear a teacher tell you about responsible drug use? Everyone besides libertarians are abstinence-only advocates for drug education.
I phrased that terribly; I realized that when I’m referring to ‘abstinence’, I’m taking it to the extreme, that essentially nothing at all is said about sex except ‘don’t do it’, not even the science of it. I at least had at least a couple health classes in my public high school where we went through every popular illicit drug and learned the effects and dangers of each and I thought that was the norm. Obviously no one said here’s how you responsibly use drugs; kinda tough to justify educating kids on how to break the law. I admit though that maybe that was unusual and may not occur today; it is frightening if we’ve dumbed it down the the Mr. Mackey level.
Marriage is a permission slip? Sounds too “ivory tower” to me, much like this recent book:
More Sex is Safer Sex
Realizing that trying to prevent healthy young adults from having sex is impractical, making a marriage license a “permission slip” for sex a lost cause, some are promoting a marriage license as a “permission slip” for procreation instead. Every child deserves to have a married mother and father they proclaim. Since gays can’t procreate, this leaves them out of the equation, of course.
[...] I’ve taken some heat from longtime commenters Scof and AMW regarding my claim that much of what Americans see or value in state-run marriage is essentially a permission slip to have sex. I’d like to take a bit of time to develop that claim and maybe answer their objections. [...]
[...] Over at Positive Liberty, Jason Kuznicki presents a few intellectual arguments against abstinence only sex education policies. Not wanting to dilute the intellectual tenor of that post, I chose to post my comments here. Please allow me to present a more practical example of the idiocy of abstinence only sex education. [...]
I think that the whole idea of handing out “sex permission slips” is absolutely rediculous. Sex should be a PERSONAL experience that YOU yourself choose to participate in based on your personal beliefs and morals. The government has no right whatsoever to try and control that aspect of someone’s life. Even if they did decide to hand out these so called permission slips, teenagers in this generation would only laugh and pay no attention to it at all. Yes i am a firm believer that you should wait until marriage to have sex, but that doesnt mean i think the government should pass pointless laws stating that. This country is founded and based on freedom, and having sex when YOU are ready falls under that. The government can’t decide when your ready to have sex. Everyone is ready at different points in their life, so passing a law stating that you only can when the government SAYS you can is completely outrageous.