The Purity Myth (16 page)

jessica valenti
105

Kempner said. “They’re going so far backwards on the messages they’re giv- ing women—that purity is the most important thing and what you should be striving for is a wedding. Saying that the most important thing you can do is get married and have children isn’t the most empowering message.”

Empowerment is indeed not the goal of abstinence-only curricula, which are built on outdated notions of gender norms and sexist stereotypes about sexuality and relationships, and ultimately seek a return to traditional gender norms. The virginity movement has a captive audience in middle school and high school classes, and it’s planning on using that to its full advantage—why stop at condom-failure rates when you can fit a whole ideology in there?

The social messages of abstinence-only education are nothing if not old school. Women are often described as weak, intellectually inferior, and need- ing men’s financial and physical protection.

In Waxman’s report, one text was said to have listed “financial sup- port” as one of the “5 Major Needs of Women,” and “domestic support” as one of the “5 Major Needs of Men.”
9
Another describes how girls don’t “fo- cus” as well as boys: “Generally, guys are able to focus better on one activity at a time and may not connect feelings with actions. Girls access both sides of the brain at once, so they oft n experience feelings and emotions as part of every situation.”
10

The pivotal moment for me—the moment when I realized how little abstinence proponents value women’s intellect—was when I came across a pink glitter–decorated girls’ T-shirt on an abstinence website, decorat- ed with the message Sex causes babies in a fun font.
11
Just in case you weren’t aware.

Some teachings don’t even bother to hide the degree to which
extremely

antiquated notions—like viewing women as property—are being pushed.

Why kNOw,
an abstinence-only textbook, outlines this instruction to absti- nence teachers: “Tell the class that the Bride price is actually an honor to the bride. It says she is valuable to the groom and he is willing to give something valuable for her.”
12
The same book also notes, “The father gives the bride to the groom because he is the one man who has had the responsibility of protecting her throughout her life. He is now giving his daughter to the only other man who will take over this protective role.”
13

Another popular notion in abstinence curricula is that women don’t like sex (and if they do, something must be amiss*). Because women aren’t as prone to what these texts describe as “practical enslavement to one’s sexual drive” as men are, it’s the girls’ job to keep the boys at bay.

A workbook from
Sex Respect
states, “Because they generally become aroused less easily, females are in a good position to help young men learn balance in relationships by keeping intimacy in perspective.” Another notes, “Girls need to be aware they may be able to tell when a kiss is lead- ing to something else. The girl may need to put the brakes on first in or- der to help the boy.”
14
Because, according to the virginity movement, men have no self-control when it comes to anything sexual. Yet another absti- nence book claims, “A woman is far more attracted by a man’s personality, while a man is stimulated by sight. A man is usually less discriminating about those to whom he is physically attracted.”
15
And no, these textbooks are
not
from the 1950s.

When women
are
accorded a sex drive, it’s generally attributed to the increased sexualization of pop culture interfering with their natural disdain

* Texts often attribute girls’ “promiscuity” (i.e., having any premarital sex) to low self- esteem, depression, or attention-seeking behavior. It’s never described as a natural or pleasurable urge.

jessica valenti
107

for intercourse: “[A] young man’s natural desire for sex is already strong due to testosterone. . . . Females are becoming culturally conditioned to fanta- size about sex as well.”

Making women the sexual gatekeepers and telling men they just can’t help themselves not only drives home the point that women’s sexuality is un- natural, but also sets up a disturbing dynamic in which women are expected to be responsible for men’s sexual behavior.

A passage in
Sex Respect
reads, “A guy who wants to respect girls is distracted by sexy clothes and remembers her for one thing. Is it fair that guys are turned on by their senses and women by their hearts?” Another classroom activity I learned about through SIECUS involved the story of Stephanie and Drew, a couple trying to save sex until marriage. Stepha- nie is too affectionate and wears tight clothing: “Drew likes her a lot, but lately keeping his hands off her has been a real job!” Stephanie has made it clear that she doesn’t want to have sex; “her actions, however, are not matching her words.”
16

Sounds a bit like “no means yes,” “look what she was wearing,” and various other rape-apologist excuses. When abstinence curricula contain information about sexual abuse or assault (though they often don’t), the message is similar: The onus of preventing sexual assault is on girls—not on men.

SIECUS’s “No More Money for Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Pro- grams” project notes that classes portray abstinence as a choice—which, considering the high rates of rape and sexual assault among young people,* it often just isn’t.

* Eighty-five thousand cases of child sexual abuse are
reported
every year.
17

Federal guidelines for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs associate sexual abstinence with all things virtuous and sexual activity with a life doomed to failure. Not only is this untrue, but it serves to inf lict greater

harm upon those who have survived coerced sexual behavior. Such messages are likely to cause further feelings of hurt, shame, anger, and embarrassment in these already victimized young people.
18

In addition to shaming sexual-assault victims, positioning abstinence as women’s domain further promotes the notion that it’s women’s morality that’s on the line when it comes to sex—men just can’t help themselves, so their ethics are safe from criticism.

Other young people suffering under these discriminatory teachings are LGBTQ youth, who are outright ignored or ostracized. Queer sexuality is not discussed at all; in fact, federal guidelines for abstinence-only programs make even mentioning gay sex near impossible.

In 2006, the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF) created new guidelines for organizations applying for grants to support abstinence-only education programs. These rules mandated that curricula were to define sexual absti- nence very specifically, as “voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual ac- tivity until marriage . . . sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse.”
19
Educators were also required to define the term “mar- riage” as only “a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife,” and the word “spouse” as only “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Since, according to the virginity movement, only married people are “allowed” to have sex, queer students are essentially

jessica valenti
109

taught that sexual intimacy is something they can never experience.*
20
For students who may have gay friends or family members, the message is simi- lar: Their loved ones don’t exist.

And, of course, for heterosexual teens who are already sexually active, the only information available to them is all false statistics meant to shame them.

Despite its history of fear-based messaging and regressive goals, absti- nence education is becoming decidedly more upbeat as of late. Perhaps rec- ognizing that herpes slideshows and threats of cinder blocks to the crotch weren’t quite cutting it, abstinence educators are now pumping up the “youth” factor in their presentations.

Bringing in peer educators, hip-hop groups, and comedians has become par for the course in recent years. As has a healthy dose of consumerism— why let MTV have all the fun? Students can buy shirts proclaiming their virginal status with messages like ChasteGirl, Chaste Couture, and (my personal favorite) No Trespassing on This Property, My Father Is Watching.
21
Abstinence Clearinghouse also sells promise rings, posters, bookmarks—anything you can think to slap a purity message on is there for the buying.

Abstinence leaders are joining in on the fun, too. In a continued effort to revamp its scaremonger image into something more mainstream, the annual conference for abstinence educators, organized by the Abstinence Clearing- house, decided to have annual themes. In 2006, it was a
Wizard of Oz
confer- ence, complete with panel titles like “If I Only Had a Brain: The Effects of Sex

on Brain Physiology,” “A Horse of a Different Color,”
†
and “Ding, Dong, the

* Unless they want to remain closeted and marry someone of the opposite sex, of course— a popular course of action for some Republican lawmakers these days.

†
This panel title is for a group of hip-hop dancers. Ahem.

Witch Is Dead! Which Old Witch? (The ‘Safe-Sex’ Witch).”
22
To further avoid being perceived as out of touch with youth culture (because what says “hip” like a movie from 1939?), the 2008 conference hosted a contest called Ab- stinence Idol: “Performances can include the following, but are not limited to: singing, drama, oratory, pantomime.”*
23
And who among us can deny the draw of chastity-based pantomime?

But whether it’s by using comedians or Velcro gloves, retro textbooks or ruby slippers, these programs are working hard, and not just to get teens to hold off on sex until marriage. Abstinence-only education seeks to create a world where everyone is straight, women are relegated to the home, the only appropriate family is a nuclear one, reproductive choices are negated, and the only sex people have is for procreation.

c h a s tit y c a s h

Though controversy over abstinence-only education, as well as criticism thereof, are fairly recent—the Bush administration’s sex-education policies made it quite a popular subject—this kind of “teaching” has been alive, kick- ing, and well endowed for over twenty years.

Abstinence-only education programs have received more than $1.3 billion dollars since 1996; they’re currently slated to receive $176 million in federal funding in 2008.
24
But abstinence education was really born in 1981, thanks to the passage of the Adolescent Family Life (AFL) Act under

the Reagan administration.
†
The AFL authorized the funding of pregnancy