2003 a controversial decade: 10 years of tracking debates around sexuality education.

... What We Have Learned We cannot deny that proponents of a strict abstinence-only-until-marriage approach have had a very good decade. There has been a dramatic rise in the amount of money that both federal and state governments spend on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs; the current administration is committed to increasing funding; the media has seized on the concept of the "new virginity"; and communities have welcomed abstinence-only speakers, fear-based curricula, and chastity rallies into their schools with nary a second thought.

These successes are not based on luck, nor do they indicate that proponents of this approach have tapped into the will of the general public. In fact, when surveyed the majority of parents, educators, and voters repeatedly say they want a more comprehensive approach to sexuality education.

Opponents have been successful because they have been calling the shots and framing the debate from the beginning. Conservative far-right organizations targeted sexuality education as an arena in which they could successfully effect social change. While they initially called for sexuality education to be removed from schools on the grounds that only parents should teach young people about sex, they gradually began to shift tactics. Chastity education was born in the early 1980s and opponents of comprehensive sexuality education saw this as a way to change what young people learn. Instead of arguing for the removal of sexuality education, they began to argue for a shift in message--a tactic that was easier for many communities to accept.

The success of the abstinence-only-until-marriage movement is owned in large part to the ability of its proponents to shift tactics and try new messages. In fact, over the years they have responded to many of the criticisms against them. Early drafts of fear-based abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula were clearly religious in nature and made outrageous and dangerous suggestions like washing one's genitals with Lysol after sexual activity. In today's drafts, overt religious statements have been replaced with subtle references to spirituality and morality while blatantly false information has been replaced with mild exaggerations based on legitimate sources.

Today, their message is savvy and unified. School boards and lawmakers across the country are presented with the same requests and hear the same arguments: "Comprehensive sexuality education encourages promiscuity." "Condoms don't work." "Responsible adults know that teens should be abstinent." "The only morally acceptable approach is to tell teens to remain abstinent until they marry." These unified messages are backed by national organizations like Concerned Women for America and Focus on the Family, which continue to get involved in local debates.

These tactics have not only led to an increase in the number of communities accepting abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, they are, at least in part, responsible for the rise in federal funding supporting these programs. Such successes build on each other. The federal funding is now seen in many communities as a stamp of approval and additional schools are willing to adopt such programs with little or no thought. In addition, as the economy falters and school systems suffer from a lack of resources, fully funded programs become even more appealing. Overall, this has meant that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are reaching more students than ever before, with much less debate ...

In order to ensure that more students receive high-quality sexuality education, advocates will have to remain vigilant, create unified messages, and take proactive steps in states and communities. By initiating actions to support comprehensive sexuality education and responding strongly to attempts to restrict it, advocates can shape the issue, define the terms, tap into public support, and eventually declare victory.

Martha E. Kempner, M.A.

Excerpted from SIECUS Report, Volume 31, Number 6, Fall 2003.