from: glamour.com
It’s like a wedding but with a twist: Young women exchange rings, take vows and enjoy a first dance…with their dads. “Purity balls” are the next big thing in the save-it-till-marriage movement. Smart or scary?
In a chandelier-lit ballroom overlooking the Rocky Mountains one recent evening, some hundred couples feast on herb-crusted chicken and julienned vegetables. The men look dapper in tuxedos; their dates are resplendent in floor-length gowns, long white gloves and tiaras framing twirly, ornate updos. Seated at a table with four couples, I watch as the gray-haired man next to me reaches into his breast pocket, pulls out a small satin box and flips it open to check out a gold ring he’s about to place on the finger of the woman sitting to his right. Her eyes well up with tears as she is overcome by emotion.
The man’s date? His 25-year-old daughter. Welcome to Colorado Springs’ Seventh Annual Father-Daughter Purity Ball, held at the five-star Broadmoor Hotel. The event’s purpose is, in part, to celebrate dad-daughter bonding, but the main agenda is for fathers to vow to protect the girls’ chastity until they marry and for the daughters to promise to stay pure. Pastor Randy Wilson, host of the event and cofounder of the ball, strides to the front of the room, takes the microphone and asks the men, “Are you ready to war for your daughters’ purity?”
Wilson’s voice is jovial, yet his message is serious—and spreading like wildfire. Dozens of these lavish events are held every year, mainly in the South and Midwest, from Tucson to Peoria and New Orleans, sponsored by churches, nonprofit groups and crisis pregnancy centers. The balls are all part of the evangelical Christian movement, and they embody one of its key doctrines: abstinence until marriage. Thousands of girls have taken purity vows at these events over the past nine years. While the abstinence movement itself is fairly mainstream—about 10 percent of teen boys and 16 percent of girls in the United States have signed virginity pledges at churches, rallies or programs sponsored by groups such as True Love Waits—purity balls represent its more extreme edge. The young women who sign covenants at these parties tend to be devout, homeschooled and sheltered from popular culture.
Randy Wilson’s 19-year-old, Khrystian, is typical: She works at her church, spends most weekends at home with her family and has never danced with a male other than her father or brother. Emily Smith, an 18-year-old I meet, says that even kissing is out for her. “I made a promise to myself when I was younger,” she says, “to save my first kiss for my wedding day.” A tenet of the abstinence movement is that having lovers before marriage often leads to divorce. In the Wilsons’ community, young women hope to meet suitors at church, at college or through family connections.
The majority of the girls here are, as purity ball guidelines suggest, “just old enough…[to] have begun menstruating….” But a couple dozen fathers have also brought girls under 10. “This evening is more about spending time with her than her purity at this point,” says one seven-year-old’s dad, a trifle sheepishly. The event is seemingly innocent—not once do I hear “sex” or “virgin” cross anyone’s lips. Still, every one of the girls here, even the four-year-old, will sign that purity covenant.
Encouraging girls to avoid sleeping around is, without a doubt, a good thing. The same goes for dad-daughter bonding; research shows that girls who have solid relationships with their fathers are more likely to grow up to be confident, self-respecting, successful women and to make wise choices along the way. Question is, is putting girls’ purity on a pedestal the way to achieve these all-important goals?
Fathers who are protective of their daughters’ virginity are nothing new. “Keep your flower safe!” a good friend’s dad used to tell her when we were in college, and we’d laugh—both because it was too late for her virginity and because there was something distasteful to us about his trying to control her sex life. Recently, though, protecting girls’ virginity has become a national, not just familial, concern. In 1996, after lobbying by the religious right, Congress allocated nearly half a billion dollars for public schools nationwide to adopt sex ed programs that advocate abstinence only. Today, all but a few states use government money for classes that basically warn against any sexual activity outside of marriage.
The movement’s latest mission is to make abstinence cool (it’s been called “chastity chic”). There are Christian rock concerts where attendees sign pledges, sites like geocities.com/thevirginclub that list stars who have held off on sex until marriage (Jessica Simpson, divorce notwithstanding, is one of their patron saints), and supportive bloggers (abstinence.net features one called “The Professional Virgin”). Silver Ring Thing, a national abstinence group for teens, has an active MySpace page filled with comments like this from “Brianna”: “I vowed to stay a virgin till marriage two years ago and it’s been a long tough road…but it gets a lil’ easier everyday.”
The first purity ball, with all its queen-for-a-day allure, was thrown in 1998 by Wilson, now 48, and his wife, Lisa, 47; the two run Generations of Light, a popular Christian ministry in Colorado Springs. “We wanted to set a standard of dignity and honor for the way the girls should be treated by the men in their lives,” says Lisa, a warm, exuberant woman with a ready smile and seven children, ages 4 to 22. Lisa’s own father left her family when she was two, and despite a kind stepfather, she says, she grew up not feeling valued or understood. “Looking back, it’s a miracle I remained pure,” she says. “I believe if girls feel beautiful and cherished by their fathers, they don’t go looking for love from random guys.”
That first ball got some positive local and Christian press, as well as inquiries from people in 21 states interested in throwing their own. Today, South Dakota’s Abstinence Clearinghouse—a major association of the purity movement—sends out about 700 “Purity Ball Planner” booklets a year (tips include printing out the vows on “beautiful paper” and serving wedding cake for dessert). While the Wilsons make no money from their ball, a cottage industry for accessories has sprung up. Roam the Internet and you’ll find a $250 14-karat pearl-and-diamond purity ring; for $15, you can buy a red baby-doll T-shirt with ‘I’m Waiting’ emblazoned on the chest, its snug fit sending a bit of a mixed message.
The older girls at the Broadmoor tonight are themselves curvaceous and sexy in backless dresses and artful makeup; next to their fathers, some look disconcertingly like wives. In fact, in the parlance of the purity ball folks, one-on-one time with dad is a “date,” and the only sanctioned one a girl can have until she is “courted” by a man. The roles are clear: Dad is the only man in a girl’s life until her husband arrives, a lifestyle straight out of biblical times. “In patriarchy, a father owns a girl’s sexuality,” notes psychologist and feminist author Carol Gilligan, Ph.D. “And like any other property, he guards it, protects it, even loves it.”
When it’s time for dads and daughters to take the pledge (some informally exchange rings as well), the men stand over their seated daughters and read aloud from parchment imprinted with the covenant: “I, [father’s name], choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity….” The men inscribe their names and their daughters sign as witnesses. Then everyone returns to their meals and an excited buzz fills the room.
Purity balls are, in fact, part of a larger trend throughout American culture of fathers spending more time with their daughters and sons—the amount rose from 2.6 hours a week in 1965 to 6.5 hours in 2000, the most recent year for which statistics are available. This togetherness has a real payoff for girls: Those who are close with their fathers generally do better in life than those who aren’t. Dan Kindlon, Ph.D., a Harvard-based psychologist who did in-depth interviews with 113 girls and teens for his new book, Alpha Girls, found that those who had the best relationships with their dads were the most accomplished academically and had the strongest sense of self. Another much-cited study on the subject by two sociologists tracked 126 Baltimore girls from low-income families. It found that those with involved and caring dads were twice as likely to go to college or find a stable job after high school than those without such fathers; 75 percent less likely to give birth as teens; 80 percent less likely to ever be in jail; and half as likely to experience significant depression.
Of course, adolescence poses a tricky challenge: Teens are often more interested in hanging out with friends than in spending time with dear old Dad. And their fathers may not be sure how to treat a child who’s morphing into a young woman. (I vividly recall the betrayed look my father gave me when he caught me, at 14, emerging from a makeout session in my room.) Some experts wonder if dads’ involvement in the family is seeming less important these days, given mothers’ more dominant role—they’re becoming the breadwinners in record numbers. Says Margo Maine, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist in West Hartford, Connecticut, who often works with families, “Our culture—and even fathers themselves—underestimates the power fathers have on women’s self-esteem and identity.”
Randy Wilson wants to change that. With his bright smile, steady eye contact and the erect posture of a small but confident man, he reminds me of the magnetic self-help guru that Tom Cruise portrayed in Magnolia. “Way to go, men!” Wilson says. “I applaud your courage to look your daughter in the eye and tell her how beautiful she is. If you haven’t done it yet, I’ll give you a chance to do it right now.”
I strike up a conversation with Christy Parcha, an 18-year-old brunette who’s here to perform a ballet later on; her 10-year-old sister is attending the ball with their dad, Mike, a math teacher at a local community college. Christy’s eyes are bright, her cheeks flushed, and a smile permanently animates her face. Although she just graduated from high school, she is not going to college but instead will be teaching ballet classes, continuing with piano lessons and writing a book about “emotional purity,” which Christy thinks is even more important than the physical kind. “I am just trying to reserve all those special feelings for my husband,” she says ardently.
As it turns out, not allowing herself to think sexual thoughts makes her nervous, too, because she wants to experience pleasure with her future husband: “I don’t want to be a burden to him in that I am not enjoying [sex].” Recently, a friend took her to see a movie about Queen Esther, One Night With the King—“a really romantic story,” according to Christy. “So I watched it and I had these huge feelings rise up inside me, and I was like, ‘OK, they are still there!’” she says, flopping back in her chair with relief. Still, Christy doesn’t want to date. She associates sex outside of marriage as a girl “getting used, betrayed, having guys deceive you, all that kind of thing.”
Other girls at the ball are far less eloquent about the pledge they’ve just made. To them, the excitement of the ball is buying fancy dresses and primping; one 14-year-old in the bathroom tells me she started getting ready at 9 A.M. When I ask Hannah Smith, 15, what purity means to her, she answers, “I actually don’t know.” Her older sister Emily jumps in: “Purity, it means…I don’t know how to explain it. It is important to us that we promise to ourselves and to our fathers and to God that we promise to stay pure until…. It is hard to explain.” I suspect that the girls’ lack of vocabulary has to do with a universal truth of girlhood: You don’t want to talk about sex with anyone older than 18, particularly your dad. At the same time, the girls seem so unsure of the reasons behind their vows that I can’t help but wonder if they’ve just signed a contract whose terms they didn’t fully understand.
There is no data on whether girls who attend purity balls remain abstinent until marriage; chances are many do, given the tight-knit communities they live in. But there is striking evidence that more than half of teens who take virginity pledges—at, say, rallies or events—go on to have sex within three years, according to findings of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the most comprehensive survey of teens ever taken. And 88 percent of the pledgers surveyed end up having sex before marriage. “No pledge can counter the fact that teenagers are, in fact, sexual beings postpuberty,” notes Cary Backenger, a clinical psychotherapist in Appleton, Wisconsin, who works with teens, including several who have taken virginity pledges. “You can’t turn that off.”
Disturbingly, the adolescent health study also found that STD rates were significantly higher in communities with a high proportion of pledgers. “Pledgers are less likely than nonpledgers to use condoms, so if they do have sex it is less safe,” says Peter Bearman, Ph.D., a Columbia University sociologist who helped design the study. For these teens, he believes, it’s a mind game: If you have condoms, you were planning to have sex. If you don’t, sex wasn’t premeditated, which makes it more OK. The study also found that even pledgers who remained virgins were highly likely to have oral and anal sex—risky behavior given that most probably didn’t use condoms to cut their risk.
Curiously, the teen pregnancy rate is on the decline nationwide. Proponents of an abstinence-only philosophy point to this as evidence that pledges work. But a just-released study by the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University attributed 14 percent of this drop to teens holding off on sex—and 86 percent to teens using more effective forms of birth control, like the Pill. Says study author John Santelli, M.D., a specialist in adolescent medicine, “If most of the progress in reducing teen pregnancy rates is due to improved contraceptive use, national policy needs to catch up with those realities.”
Leaders of the abstinence movement firmly believe, however, that teaching kids about the mechanics of sex and contraception “arouses” them, sparking them to have sex. They claim that those who break their vows were not “strong” pledgers to begin with, and that many more teens do keep them (teens the researchers didn’t speak to). “Kids who abstain are not out there breaking hearts; they’re not dogs in heat. They go on to have great, intimate sex,” says Leslee Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse. “The purity movement celebrates sex but not sex outside of commitment.”
Girls who are getting married do need information about sex, Unruh continues, and she’s there to provide it. (On one occasion, “I had a girl call me from her wedding,” she says.) “I let them know what to expect, that there might be some discomfort,” and she gives detailed information about touching and lubricants when necessary. Unruh thinks purity balls are a commendable way to get girls who want to stay virgins to do so. As she says, “They help girls realize that their fathers care deeply about their future, and then they decide to keep themselves pure.”
Many experts strongly disagree. “Virginity pledges set girls up for failure,” contends Kindlon, who specializes in adolescent behavior. “I like the father-daughter bonding part of the balls, but it is unfortunate that it is around a pledge that is doomed. I always counsel parents to try to encourage teens to delay sex. But when you completely forbid teens to be sexual, it can do them more harm than good. It’s like telling kids not to eat candy, and then they want it more.”
“When you sign a pledge to your father to preserve your virginity, your sexuality is basically being taken away from you until you sign yet another contract, a marital one,” worries Eve Ensler, the writer and activist. “It makes you feel like you’re the least important person in the whole equation. It makes you feel invisible.”
It’s not hard to imagine the anxiety young women must feel about being a purity failure. Carol-Maureen, an acquaintance from my hometown of Fargo, North Dakota, who got a purity ring in seventh grade and still wears it at 22, told me, “If I had sex before marriage and my parents found out, I’d be mortified. I’d feel like I failed in this promise to them, even though it’s really not their business.”
Marie, a Texan I met through a colleague, took a virginity pledge at 14 but actually felt no shame about breaking her vow a year later. “When I took the pledge, I was true in my heart, but as I got older I had a broader world view,” she says. Still, she snuck around to have sex with her boyfriend so her parents wouldn’t find out, and ended up getting pregnant at 19; she married quickly thereafter. Would she ever ask her son to take a virginity pledge? “No,” she says. “I don’t want him to tell me something just because he thinks I want to hear it and then lie to me about it.”
Figuring out your sexuality on your own terms is a major passage into adulthood. Back when I was 19 and contemplating having sex for the first time, I presented my virginity to my boyfriend as this great treasure he could take from me. He looked at me and said, “But I don’t want to take anything. You should be having sex with me because you want to—and if you don’t, then you aren’t ready.” I was embarrassed by the smack-down of my “gift,” but his words made me realize sex wasn’t just something to give to him but something to do for myself, too. Learning that was more meaningful to me than actually having sex.
When I point out to Christy Parcha’s father, Mike, that experience with relationships, bumps and all, can help young women mature emotionally and become ready for sex and marriage, he warily concedes that’s true. “But there can be damage, too,” he says. “I guess we’d rather err on the side of avoiding these things. The girl can learn after marriage.” Like other fathers I speak with, Parcha says that if his daughter were to fail in her quest to be pure, she would be met with “grace and forgiveness.”
But, he continues, “I am not worried about that. She is not even going to come close to those situations. She believes, and I do too, that her husband will come through our family connections or through me before her heart even gets involved.” Randy Wilson’s oldest daughter, Lauren, 22, met her fiance, Brett, a young man from the Air Force Academy, at church, and other fathers and daughters mention this to me as a hopeful sign that God will open similar doors for them. God has been throwing some curveballs lately, though; a week before the ball, Mike and Christy Parcha’s pastor, Ted Haggard, a man who has openly railed against gay marriage, made headlines nationwide when he admitted to receiving a massage from a man (one who claimed Haggard had paid him for sex), showing how at odds what is preached and what is practiced can be.
Following dessert—chocolate cake or fruit coulis for the adults, ice cream sundaes for the girls—couples file into the adjacent ballroom. Seven ballerinas, including Christy Parcha, appear in white gowns with tulle skirts, carrying on their shoulders a large, rustic wooden cross that they lift up and rest on a stand. Lisa Wilson cries as she presents each of their three ceremonial dances, one of which is called “I’ll Always Be Your Baby.” Afterward, Randy Wilson and a fellow pastor, Steve Holt, stand at the cross with heavy rapiers raised and announce that they are prepared to “bear swords and war for the hearts of our daughters.” The blades create an inverted “V” under which girls and fathers kneel and lay white roses that symbolize purity. Soon there is a heap of cream-colored buds wilting beneath the outstretched arms of the cross.
It’s a memorable image at the end of a memorable night. I’ve been moved and charmed by the Wilsons, an uncommonly warm, polite and loving brood. Over and over, the five daughters have told me how great their father is at giving them attention, love and hugs. When Khrystian ballroom-dances with him, they look so comfortable in each others’ arms that you wish every girl in the United States could have that closeness.
But the real challenge, in my mind, is for a father to remain loving toward his daughter and at the same time nurture her autonomy. The purity movement is, in essence, about refusing to let girls grow up: Daddy’s girls never have to be adults. “The balls are saying, I want you to be 11 forever,” says Kindlon. These are girls who may never find out what it means to make decisions without a man involved, to stand up for themselves, to own their sexuality.
I deeply wish that the lovely things I have seen tonight—the delighted young women, the caring, doting dads—might evolve into father-daughter events not tied to exhorting a promise from a girl that may hang over her head as she struggles to become a woman. When Lauren Wilson hit adolescence, her father gave her a purity ring and a charm necklace with a tiny lock and key. Randy Wilson took the key, which he will hand over to her husband on their wedding day. The image of a locked area behind which a girl stores all of her messy desires until one day a man comes along with the key haunts me. By the end of the ball, as I watch fathers carrying out sleepy little girls with drooping tiaras and enveloping older girls with wraps, I want to take every one of those girls aside and whisper to them the real secret of womanhood: The key to any treasure you’ve got is held by one person—you.
Comments
EXCUSE me?????????????
The older girls at the Broadmoor tonight are themselves curvaceous and sexy in backless dresses and artful makeup; next to their fathers, some look disconcertingly like wives. In fact, in the parlance of the purity ball folks, one-on-one time with dad is a “date,” and the only sanctioned one a girl can have until she is “courted” by a man. The roles are clear: Dad is the only man in a girl’s life until her husband arrives, a lifestyle straight out of biblical times. “In patriarchy, a father owns a girl’s sexuality,” notes psychologist and feminist author Carol Gilligan, Ph.D. “And like any other property, he guards it, protects it, even loves it.”
When it’s time for dads and daughters to take the pledge (some informally exchange rings as well), the men stand over their seated daughters and read aloud from parchment imprinted with the covenant: “I, [father’s name], choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity….” The men inscribe their names and their daughters sign as witnesses. Then everyone returns to their meals and an excited buzz fills the room.
Are these people closet freaks who can't hide or control their need to own their daughters, as kept-women or are these men hungry to re-live their own youths through girls they find beautiful and devoted with their love? I don't think there is anything sweet or sentimental about this "pleding my love to my father", it's borderline incestuous!!!
Broadmoor
Broadmoor huh, you say, how fitting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A7414292.
Serves them right!
This gets sicker as we dig:
Profile: Broadmoor mental hospital
news.bbc.co.uk
Broadmoor opened as a mental institution in May 1863, and has since become synonymous with some of Britain's most notorious criminals. As investigations into alleged abuse of female patients continue, BBC News Online profiles the hospital.
When Broadmoor began life in the 1860s the attitude towards mental health was radically different.
Asylums were kept as far away from normal communities as possible - an 'out of sight, out of mind' mentality.
The Broadmoor 'criminal lunatic asylum', as it was called, was opened in 1863 with 95 female patients. A block for male patients followed a year later.
The hospital was built after the passing of the Criminal Lunatics Act of 1860 - also called the Broadmoor Act.
It drew attention to the poor conditions in British asylums such as Bethlehem Hospital, which was known as 'Bedlam'.
It also followed the setting up of the McNaughton Rules, a series of questions which determined whether a person was too insane to be charged with a criminal offence.
The site covered 290 acres (116 hectares) on the edge of the Berkshire moors some 32 miles from London.
The asylum was "intended for the reception, safe custody and treatment of persons who had committed crimes while actually insane or who became insane whilst undergoing sentence of punishment".
The imposing building was designed by Major General Joshua Jebb, a military engineer who is said to have based the building off two other hospitals - Wakefield in Britain and Turkey's Scutari Hospital.
The site also included cultivated land and 57 cottages for the use of staff. Even a school was built on the grounds.
Security was reported to be very lax during the asylum's early years. The first Physician Superintendent, Dr John Meyer, was attacked by a patient while attending a service at the asylum's chapel soon after it opened.
Security improved after Dr Orange took over as the second head of the asylum a few years later.
Famous patient
The asylum hosted some of the British Empire's most notorious criminals. Roderick MacLean, who shot at Queen Victoria at Windsor Station, was sent here in 1882 after being found "not guilty by reason of insanity".
Possibly the most famous, though, was Dr William Chester Minor, the former US Army physician who spent 38 years in the hospital after killing a man outside his house in London after going insane.
While staying in Broadmoor, Dr Minor, a learned scholar with an enormous library, sent thousands of citations and quotations to the first Oxford English Dictionary.
Broadmoor changed from institution to hospital after the 1948 Criminal Justice Act.
In 1952 security was stepped up after a patient, J.T Straffe, escaped and killed a young girl while he was at large. Now there is a siren at the hospital - if it sounds, local schools and institutions have to lock their doors.
A cordon is also set up around the nearby village of Crowthorn and each car checked by the police.
In recent decades, the hospital's inmates have come to include Peter Sutcliffe, the 'Yorkshire Ripper' jailed for murdering prostitutes in the north of England in the 1970s.
It also houses some of the country's most serious sex offenders.
More recently, the hospital has been dogged by accusations of high levels of sexual abuse suffered by female patients.
It has been claimed a woman tried to hang herself last year after alleging she had been raped on a sports field by a fellow patient.
-----------------------------------------------------------
As fun and ironic this name-association thing is, there is a bigger topic worth discussing, and that's a parent's responsibility to his/her own child.
Consider the following link, and ask, who is helping kids adjust to adulthood?
http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexualhealthqanda/Sexual_Health_Q_A.htm
Political background
from: guttmacher.org
New Bush Administration Policy Promotes Abstinence Until Marriage Among People in their 20s
Coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the 1996 welfare reform law that launched the federal government's first major investment in abstinence-only education, the Bush administration announced a new set of restrictions on the $50 million abstinence education grant program to the states. The new restrictions outlined in yet another program guidance represent the latest in a series of policy changes adopted by the administration since it transferred its major abstinence education programs from the division of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) responsible for administering the public health bureaucracy to the more ideologically driven Administration on Children, Youth and Families just over two years ago.
Across the state program's 10-year history, a central and persistent question has been how much latitude the states should have in interpreting the welfare law's infamous eight-point definition of what constitutes a fundable abstinence program. Two of the definition's eight planks, for example, require that programs teach that sex outside of marriage will likely have harmful physical and psychological effects and that a mutually faithful monogamous marriage is the expected standard of human sexual behavior. The Clinton administration, for its part, opted to provide states with some latitude to select which of the planks they wished to emphasize, as long as their programs did not contradict any of them.
In contrast, the Bush administration's evolving policy has increasingly tied the states' hands (related article, November 2005, page 13). Current policy stipulates that "Each element…should be meaningfully represented in all grantee's Federally funded abstinence education programs and curricula." And while states have always been prohibited from promoting or advocating contraceptive use in their federally funded abstinence programs (implicitly under Clinton and explicitly under Bush), they must now go so far as to provide assurances that they are taking measures to ensure that funded programs and curricula "do not promote contraception and/or condom use." Together, these new requirements reflect the administration's growing desire to ferret out state-run abstinence education programs that do not contain sufficiently "authentic" abstinence-until-marriage content. They also help to achieve the administration's goal of bringing the state grant program more in line with its more restrictive sister program, which provides federal grants directly to community-based organizations for education programs designed to discourage sexual stimulation of any kind among unmarried individuals, regardless of age (related article, Winter 2006, page 19).
According to the new guidance, moreover, the states must now target "adolescents and/or adults within the 12- through 29-year-old age range" in their programming, signaling that the federal government will no longer allow states to use their federal funds to support programs targeting preadolescents. This is likely to require governors to significantly redirect their existing programs, given that the states have most commonly targeted youth ages 9–14—an age-group in which few individuals are sexually experienced. (In fact, the administration in May threatened to deny New Mexico its grant allotment if it continued to use its funds to target children in grades six and younger.)
At the other end of the age range, the administration is placing a new emphasis on promoting abstinence among people in their 20s, because "contrary to popular opinion, the highest rates of out-of-wedlock births occur among women in their twenties, not among teens." The guidance provides some examples of focal populations the states should consider, including "students at a local university, college or technical school"; "single adults involved in a local community or community-based organization"; and even "single parents in their twenties" (emphasis added). However, with women and men typically delaying marriage until ages 25 and 27, respectively, the administration's goal of persuading adolescents and young adults to postpone sex approximately a decade beyond the age they typically first have sex (age 17) now appears clearer than ever before; at the same time, it may be ever more elusive and unrealistic.—Cynthia Dailard
Will Policymakers Heed the Message
from: guttmacher.org
The Case for a New Approach to Sex Education Mounts; Will Policymakers Heed the Message?
By Heather D. Boonstra
Abstinence-only-until-marriage education is a key component of social conservatives’ global moral and religious agenda, and the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s approach to reducing U.S. teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection (STI) rates. Since 1996, when a major overhaul of the nation’s welfare policy prompted a massive escalation of funding in this area, the federal government, with mandatory matching grants from the states, has spent well over one billion dollars to promote premarital abstinence among young Americans, through highly restrictive programs that ignore or often actively denigrate the effectiveness of contraceptives and safer-sex behaviors.
Fearful of being portrayed as anti-abstinence, policymakers have continued to support these rigid, ideologically driven programs even though there is clear evidence—including compelling recent evidence from a long-awaited, congressionally mandated report on federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—that they are not effective in stopping or even delaying teen sex. In fact, the federal government has been supporting and evaluating single-purpose abstinence promotion programs since the early 1980s, and there is now evidence suggesting that they may be harmful to young people in the long term. Meanwhile, there is still no comparable federal program to support comprehensive approaches that promote delayed sexual activity as well as protective behaviors for when young people do initiate sex, even though such programs have been shown to be effective at accomplishing both.
Adding to the body of evidence on sex education approaches and teen sexual behavior, three new studies from Guttmacher Institute researchers forcefully demonstrate that the current U.S. emphasis on stopping teens from having sex is out of touch with young people's lives and needs. The question that now presents itself is whether the new Congress may at long last be ready to change course and, if so, how far and how fast.
Restrictive Policy
The Bush administration has recommended that a total of $204 million be spent on abstinence-only-until-marriage education in FY 2008, up from $176 million in the current fiscal year. Of that, $50 million goes automatically to the states for abstinence education programs that must conform to a highly restrictive eight-point definition enshrined in Title V of the Social Security Act. Some of the more controversial components of this definition include teaching that "a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity" and that "sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." Because one of the planks of the eight-point definition requires funded programs to have as their "exclusive purpose" the promotion of abstinence outside of marriage, these programs are barred from providing any information that could be construed as promoting or advocating contraceptive use. In practice, programs have a choice between not discussing contraceptive methods at all or doing so in a negative manner by emphasizing their failure rates. Moreover, as of last year, state programs must now target "adolescents and/or adults within the 12- through 29-year-old age range" in their programming, signaling that the federal government will no longer allow states to use their federal funds to support programs targeting only preadolescents.
Some states have found the rules that govern the abstinence program so restrictive that they have decided to turn down the funding altogether. In March, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D) announced that his administration will not reapply for Title V abstinence education funds when the current $1.6 million grant expires. Ohio joins a growing list of states—among them, California, Maine, New Jersey and Wisconsin—that have said they cannot accept the federal government's restrictions.
The lion's share of abstinence program dollars bypass state governments altogether and go directly to local organizations, including faith-based groups. Recipients of grants under the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program must comply with the stringent rules that govern the states—only CBAE is even more rigid. Its guidelines expand on the definition of what constitutes a fundable abstinence program to 13 "themes" and expound at length on the recommended curricula content (related article, Winter 2006, page 19). CBAE is a favorite among social conservatives, and funding for the program—currently at $113 million—has risen 465% since its inception just five years ago. Indeed, all of the increases for abstinence-only education in recent years have gone to the CBAE program.
New Research
In the last few months alone, Guttmacher Institute researchers have published three studies that, when viewed together, demonstrate just how dysfunctional the U.S. government's approach to sex education is. The first, published in the December 2006 issue of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, analyzes trends in the provision of school-based instruction about contraception and abstinence between 1995, the year before enactment of the welfare reform law, and 2002. It shows that during this period in which abstinence-only funding grew exponentially, the proportion of U.S. teens who had received any formal instruction about birth control methods declined sharply, while the proportion who received only information about abstinence more than doubled (see chart).
Equally important, many did not get birth control information when they needed it most. In 2002, only slightly more than half of sexually experienced males and six in 10 females had received any instruction about birth control methods before they first had sex. Minority and low-income youth were especially disadvantaged: For example, only one-third of black males had received instruction about birth control prior to first sex, compared with two-thirds of their white peers. And teens living below 200% of poverty (an annual income of $34,340 for a family of three) were less likely than their higher-income peers to have received birth control education before first sex (see chart, page 4).
This trend is all the more disturbing considering the critical role of contraceptive use in preventing teen pregnancy. The second study, by researchers from Guttmacher and Columbia University, analyzes the relative contributions of abstinence and contraceptive use to the 24% decline in the U.S. teen pregnancy rate seen during the same 1995–2002 period. This study, published in the January 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, finds that the decline occurred primarily because teens were using contraceptives better. Examining data from two rounds of a large-scale national survey, the researchers conclude that the vast majority of the decline (86%) was the result of dramatic improvements in contraceptive use, including increases in the use of individual methods, increases in the use of multiple methods and substantial declines in nonuse. Just 14% of the decline could be attributed to a decrease in sexually activity.
Not surprisingly, abstinence played a greater role among younger teens aged 15–17, but even among this age-group (in which sexual activity declined a healthy 17% between 1995 and 2002), only 23% of the decline in teen pregnancy could be attributed to decreased sexual activity. Among 18–19-year-olds, there was no change in sexual activity during this period; accordingly, the pregnancy rate decline among this group was entirely attributable to improved contraceptive use.
The third study demonstrates how unrealistic the goal of abstinence until marriage is now and has been for decades. According to the study, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports, premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans: By the time they reach age 44, 99% of Americans have had sex, 95% have done so before marriage and 74% have done so before age 20. Even among those who abstain from sex until age 20 or older, 81% eventually have premarital sex. (The typical age of marriage is currently 25 for women and 27 for men.) Further, contrary to public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage (see chart).
What Should Be Done?
Most people would agree that teens, especially younger teens, should be encouraged to delay sexual activity. Sex among very young adolescents is frequently involuntary, at least to some degree: It may involve a partner who is substantially older, which may make it hard for such teens to resist their partner's approaches or to insist on using condoms or other contraceptive methods. Teens who have sex at a young age tend to have relatively unstable relationships and quickly acquire other sexual partners, which increases their risk of exposure to STIs. And young teenagers who get pregnant are rarely, if ever, in a position to support and raise a child.
The fact remains, however, that although only 13% of teens have ever had sex by age 15, sexual activity is common by the late teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 teens of both sexes have had intercourse. Therefore, the challenge is in helping teens, especially young teens, delay sexual initiation, while also preparing them with the information and skills needed to protect themselves and their partners when they do become sexually active.
The good news is that comprehensive sex education can assist young people in the transitions inherent in adolescence by helping them delay and prepare. According to Douglas Kirby, a senior research scientist at ETR Associates who has analyzed hundreds of program evaluations, there is strong evidence that comprehensive sex education can effectively delay sex among young people, even as it increases condom and overall contraceptive use among sexually active youth. This is in sharp contrast to what can be said about the effectiveness of abstinence-only education. A recent, congressionally mandated evaluation of federally funded abstinence-only programs by Mathematica Policy Research—conducted over nine years at a cost of almost $8 million—found that these programs have no beneficial impact on young people's sexual behavior. As Kirby puts it, we can no longer say the jury is out on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs (see box).
To the extent that they ignore contraception and the benefits of safer-sex practices generally, abstinence-only programs do nothing to help prepare young people for when they will become sexually active. And some abstinence-only programs may be doing long-term damage by deterring contraceptive use among sexually active teens, increasing their risk of pregnancy and STIs. According to research by Hannah Brückner and Peter Bearman published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in 2005, the majority of teens enrolled in grades 7–12 in 1995 who pledged to remain virgins until marriage had sex before marriage or by the time of a follow-up survey in 2001–2002. Furthermore, compared with those who never took a pledge, "pledge breakers" were less likely to use condoms and to seek testing and treatment for STIs, and just as likely to test positive for STIs.
Turning Point?
Counter to the priorities of the Bush administration and social conservatives, most Americans believe that sex education should promote abstinence and provide information about the effectiveness and benefits of contraception. According to the results of a 2005–2006 nationally representative survey of U.S. adults, published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, there is far greater support for comprehensive sex education than for the abstinence-only approach, regardless of respondents' political leanings and frequency of attendance at religious services. Overall, 82% of those polled supported a comprehensive approach, and 68% favored instruction on how to use a condom; only 36% supported abstinence-only education. These results are consistent with those from a range of previous surveys among adults, parents, teachers and young people.
Over the last several years, various measures have been proposed in Congress to address the disconnect between young people's need for realistic sex education and the hard-line abstinence-only approach embodied in current federal law. The more modest of these proposals have sought to curb the most grievous excesses of the current policy. One such proposal, for example, would require medical accuracy in abstinence-only educational materials, after a Government Accountability Office report raised serious concerns on that score. Another would remove the most unscientific and ideologically driven planks in the eight-point definition of abstinence education, such as the one requiring grantees to teach that sex outside of marriage is likely to be physically and psychologically harmful. As far back as 2002, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) proposed a "state flexibility" approach, which would give states the option of using their allotments to promote abstinence according to the eight-point definition or to teach abstinence within a more comprehensive sex education program.
Ultimately, however, most opponents of abstinence-only-until-marriage education argue that the time has come for Congress to make a more significant break from the past. In light of the changed political climate and the more robust body of research in support of a comprehensive approach, they are calling on Congress to throw its support behind the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act, sponsored by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Christopher Shays (R-CT) in the House and Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) in the Senate. The REAL Act would support state programs that operate under a nine-point definition of "family life education" that stands in sharp contrast to the eight-point definition of abstinence-only education. According to Lee, "We should absolutely be teaching young people about abstinence, but we shouldn't be holding back information that can save lives and prevent unwanted pregnancies."