With Obama's recent move to de-fund abstinence-only education, the conservatives have been left in a state of frenzy, trying to re-brand a program that at its worst caused many STIs and unwanted pregnancies by holding back information about birth control and, at best, instilled confused and shameful patriarchal attitudes about sex in young men and women (especially women.)

Take Cheryl Wetzstein for instance, who wants us to "tell teenagers sex is for adults." More specifically, Cheryl proposes that we:

Make "abstinence until 20" the public-health message for unmarried youth. With one stroke, we would send the message that sex is for adults.

Was this proposal drafted by the Trix Bunny? (The fact that this is all I was thinking about while reading this article says a lot about my maturity level... but that's another post.)

First of all, when did 20 become the age standard for adult? At eighteen we can legally vote and go to war - but, we can't have sex? Really? Secondly, when and why did age become the deciding factor in sex?

According to Cheryl:

Saving sex until 20 takes direct aim at unwed teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. It gives cover to high-school kids and college-age teens who don't want to be pressured into sex. It helps both heterosexual and homosexual youth reject the advances of older sexual predators.

It also meshes with what we know about brain development and judgment. Compared to teens, a 20-year-old virgin is more likely to choose his or her first sexual partner with care. They can insist on contraception and use it more effectively. They can even decide to keep their pants on until their wedding day.

Noble goals, however I have to ask... wouldn't education about contraception more effectively take direct aim at unwed teen pregnancy and STIs? At best this 'age limit' on sex takes an indirect aim at these issues, by simply putting off (hopefully) their onset. If a program like this were actually effective, we'd simply have a bunch of twenty year olds - who had not been taught about protection, only taught that they need to wait - getting pregnant and getting STIs because they never received education on how to avoid these issues.

In addition, programs like this proposal (and abstinence only programs) on a whole do not do much, if anything, to detract from the pressures that teenagers all people feel to have sex. That pressure, which comes from a hyper-sexualized society that places undue value in men's sexual prowess and women's 'purity' and ability to be sexy all at the same time,  is something that can only be reduced by changing the dialogue about sex.

The abstinence only movement's intense focus on purity is only adding to the problem by stigmatizing sex and making it something that teenagers do not feel comfortable talking about and getting advice on, in order to make smart decisions. If sex were framed, not as a moral issue, but as something that is beautiful and fun in the right context - a context that needs to be developed and chosen by an individual - then we could help teenagers make decisions for themselves about sex, thus reducing the pressure they feel from society, their families, their peers, and themselves.

As for helping, "both heterosexual and homosexual youth reject the advances of older sexual predators" I don't even know where to begin. This statement is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard, honestly. Teenagers should NEVER feel responsible for resisting sexual predators - the responsibility for keeping sexual predators from preying on innocent victims lies in the hands of law enforcement, not in the teens. It is this exact language, pushed forward by the abstinence movement, that has seeped into our society and made victim blaming such a prevalent thing. 

As for this last statement: "compared to teens, a 20-year-old virgin is more likely to choose his or her first sexual partner with care. They can insist on contraception and use it more effectively." All I have to say is this: anyone can make these decisions effectively when armed with decent information and a safe context in which to seek advice about sexual decisions... this is what comprehensive sex education does, it provides the options (including abstinence), ways of protection from the potential physical side-effects of UNPROTECTED sex, and a safe context in which the emotions involved in sex can be worked through.

Abstinence-only defenders are quick to point out that age does not equal maturity, when they can use this concept to continue keeping teens in the dark about sex - but that fact seems to be forgotten in this proposal... the truth is some people are mature enough to handle sex at seventeen or eighteen, and some people (even twenty year olds) don't have the emotional capacity for healthy sex until way later in life.

Instead of obsessing over an arbitrary age for when sex is "appropriate" why don't we focus funding and dialogue on instilling a sense of responsibility about sex in people, regardless of age.

Articles like this help us to see beneath the facade of religious arguments used to push abstinence-only education, and help us see the true motives: control. The only appeal of an arbitrary deadline (like waiting until twenty) is control, specifically the ability to set a standard for purity that keeps women in line and allows society to ridicule and judge those women who choose (or have the choice made for them, in the case of rape) not to abide by these arbitrary guidelines.

We have achieved a major victory in getting federal funding for abstinence-only education off the table, but that does not mean we are done yet... re-branding of abstinence-only education, like this ridiculous "sex is for adults only" program, needs to be monitored lest it manage to slide its way back into our schools.