ABSTINENCE HAS REAL RISKS, TOO

elighted as I am to note a vigorous, growing, and exceedingly competent opposition to the Radical Right's "abstinence only" anti sex indoctrination courses for students, the almost total attention given to the "impracticability" of implementing their goal of premarital virginity has a drawback. It implies that the goal itself is sound - even unassailable - but that regrettably, that old villain "human nature" will derail the magnificently chaste ideal we all wish Americans could live up to.

But a fully effective attack on the Religious Right's erotophobic agenda requires an explicit, frontal assault on this not-really-so-benign goal. By spelling out exactly what they're promoting, and not allowing them to keep getting away with vague, glittering generalities, we can do what's needed to alert the public to the danger posed by the philosophy which underlies their "abstinence-only" programs, as well as some negative consequences if their programs were actually followed on a mass basis.

Suppose someone at a public meeting or talk show where the topic was sex education in the schools were to say : "My dream is to bring about a nation in which people are so motivated to repress premarital sexuality that the average 27-year-old man, and 25-year- old woman will not have experienced so much as a single moment of erotic pleasure, and will take pride in this accomplishment." Once the stunned silence or nervous laughter ended, the speaker would be so marginalized that nothing they said or did for the rest of the evening would be taken seriously by either the moderator or the audience. And yet, by simply rephrasing the statement, credibility and political clout could be virtually assured : "I support teaching teens the kind of moral values that have made this country and its families strong. Namely, having enough respect for themselves and their partner to postpone sex until marriage. So let's implement a curriculum based on this traditional value which has served us so well for so many years." When phrased that way, it doesn't sound radical or risky, even though in reality it's both, and should be opposed as such.

What makes their idea sound so (pardon the expression...) seductive is that it contains two fuzzy concepts, both of which can be defined as one sees fit : how long "postponing" really means, and how to define "sex." In the past, when puberty occurred significantly later than it does now, and marriage earlier, the "lust gap" was many years briefer than today. (The average age of a first marriage is now five long years later than it was in 1960, while the onset of puberty has been falling since the 19th Century.) But considering the traditional popularity of "shotgun weddings" (where the father of an impregnated girl made the impregnator "an offer he couldn't refuse") it appears that many of our illustrious ancestors were unable to bridge even the relatively short gap between adolescence and wedding day that they had to deal with. Expecting teens to do so today, when the wait is so much longer, and in a society which is not nearly so steeped in sexual repression and ignorance is ridiculous. But to show just how ridiculous, we need actual numbers. "Waiting until marriage" is one of those deliberately vague phrases which can be interpreted by those who don't spend a lot of time thinking about the issue as meaning pretty much any age - but rarely the average age at which people actually make a first marriage : 27.1 for men, 25.3 for women. Of course, "average" means just that. A third of men and 23% of women aged 30-34 have never

married - and many never will, or want to. For "abstinence" to work, most people must remain totally celibate for over a decade, and substantial numbers for 15 to 20 years or more after the onset of sexual development. So it's easy to see why criticism has been so tightly focused on this aspect of the program, since it's totally justified.

The other vague generality that needs to be cleared up is the definition of "sex." One of the reasons we as a species went from looking at the Moon to walking on it was because we have an incredible ability to overcome obstacles. When confronted by a seemingly impossible situation, we improvise a solution - and there are few more difficult dilemmas for teens than sexuality. One of the ways of improvising their way out of a tough situation - such as trying to deal with a conservative sexual upbringing or environment without suffering many years of either celibacy or guilt - is by redefining sex until only intercourse fills the bill. Every other item on the wide spectrum of sexual delights is "fooling around" or not "real sex." If discouraging the only sexual activity that could lead to an unwanted pregnancy was the Radical Right's only goal or motivation, then they wouldn't be quite as much of a threat. (Fortunately, humans are programmed to be so sexually versatile that numerous other means of pleasuring exist, as people of all sexual orientations happily discover on their journey through life.) But what we need to keep in mind is NOT how people in general interpret "sex," but what the promoters of "abstinence only" really mean by it. And for once, we see eye-to-eye, at least in terms of what sex is. "Sex" is giving or experiencing erotic pleasure in any form. Where we differ is in our totally opposite views of its nature. I see it as something inherently good, which can be made into something bad if force, deception, or irresponsibility is involved ; they see it as an inherently evil and dangerous act, which can only be transformed into something good by a legally valid marriage ceremony. So to the radicals, it's not about "risk reduction" or "taking responsibility," it's about "avoidance" until the Magic Words are spoken by a member of the clergy after the state issues its official "sex permit," and this fearful taboo is miraculously and instantaneously transformed into something Holy and beautiful.

The problem is that such instantaneous transformations of thought or action are easier said than done. "Force of habit" is a phrase to be taken literally. Any action or thought pattern that is consistently repeated soon becomes a habit, and any habit that persists for very long becomes somewhat of a compulsion. There is no doubt that nicotine is powerfully addictive, but it's not enough to fully explain the hold that it has on a smoker. What is also at work is the constant repetition of certain behaviors that become as addictive as nicotine itself. Since this substance must be ingested in so many tiny doses over the day, each puff becomes a repetitive, automatic behavior that establishes a kind of "mental groove" that deepens each day. Even if someone were puffing away on the most benign, non addictive substance known, just the repetition of this action so many times would, after even one decade, become such an instinctive, natural reaction that it would be exceedingly difficult to stop. The same principle would apply to the committed abstinence practitioner, only more so. Smoking is a rather recent innovation, and humans have no "smoking gene" that compels them to inhale tobacco. We do have a powerful genetic disposition toward sexuality, and there are few if any other areas of life where habits become more quickly or firmly established, especially when young. So, considering the number of times each day that a committed abstinent must reject or repress sexual thoughts and desires, the total number of times that this ritual is repeated over many, many, years is truly staggering, and therefore becomes a powerful force in and of itself. While most people have a variety of responses to the daily variety of sexual stimuli, the true practitioner of abstinence, who believes wholeheartedly in the philosophy behind the movement, must constantly and consistently repeat the same pattern. No matter what the stimulus or potential opportunity, the response must always be absolute rejection. Not just for today, but for an indefinite time into the future. Never a "yes," or even a single blissful moment of considering one's options, even if the eventual decision is not to pursue an opportunity. Never even a "maybe." Just a consistent, unvarying, "no." By itself, each repetition would have little effect, but the cumulative impact could be devastating. Imagine an unloaded ship able to easily change or reverse course at sea. Adding a small box of cargo would have no real effect on its maneuverability, but as the boxes continue to pile up in the hold, it soon becomes a vessel so heavily laden with baggage that any attempt to stop or reverse course must be planned many miles in advance, and becomes a major feat. The same principle applies to human behavior. The sheer inertia of thinking "no, no, no" tens of thousands of times without the slightest break in the pattern, and seeing every normal sexual feeling as an opponent to be fought, has to make it difficult for some to do the kind of overnight behavioral pirouette the promoters of abstinence think will easily and naturally occur right after one's wedding. Considering the problems that exist even among couples with quite typical sexual histories, it's hard to imagine the levels of sexual dysfunction that would arise if we lived in a nation where newlyweds in their late 20's had the sexual maturity and experience of 13-year-olds.

In the real world, 13-year-olds, 18-year-olds and 25-year-olds are radically

different from each other, and writing the same behavioral prescription for all three isn't just "impractical." It's demeaning and insane to treat a high school senior or self-supporting adult like a 8th grader, and any plan that does is fatally flawed on that count alone.

Of course, criticizing someone else's idea or goal requires stating an alternative of your own so that they may return the favor. And here it's doubly important, because the Radical Right tends to present every battle as a choice between "their values" and "no values." But in fact, there is an objective, constructive, secular value on which ALL behavior - not just sexual - can be judged : Equality. By defining equality as (a) treating others with the same dignity, respect, and consideration we want for ourselves and those we care about most, and (b) taking full responsibility for our actions, a very strict - but not repressive - code of sexual behavior can be derived. It's a code that addresses all the very real risks that sexuality entails, but it does so in a way which presumes that those old enough to consent to sex have many viable choices to make, even though making right choices is sometimes a very difficult and complex task, not something that can or should be avoided by embracing a simplistic, and essentially anti sexual philosophy.

The gradual, age-appropriate process of sexualization is something that needs to be respected and protected. It's good that our society understands the damage done by accelerating that process, and quite justifiably deals out heavy (though not heavy enough) punishments to pedophiles who prey on those who lack the maturity to give the kind of full, free consent that sexuality requires. We're also seeing a much-needed backlash to the kind of sexually explicit marketing done to younger and younger children simply for profit and without consideration of the consequences. But retarding the process of sexualization can have consequences, too. Since the problems it causes aren't nearly as obvious, there are no major studies, or front-page stories about the effects of long-term repression of sexuality.

But personal experiences ARE valid, and though I grew up long before "abstinence pledges" were in vogue, my socially restricted
upbringing in an era already notorious for sexual repression gave me unsought insight into the negative effects of retarding the natural process
of sexualization. So the potential risks described here are not just idle speculations by someone unfamiliar with the phenomena being described, but logical conclusions based on a combination of my own history and observations of human nature in general.

Though most teens seem quite content to happily go about their lives without the need of slickly designed, glitzy ceremonies in which they promise premarital abstinence, and with the help of comprehensive sex-ed courses manage to navigate through the difficult years and choices they have to make, those who go the "abstinence" route are at risk regardless of failure or success. Numerous studies show that most students who made "virginity pledges" become ex-virgins long before marriage, so one landmark of sexual development is accompanied by a sense of failure, unlikely to engender positive feelings about either themselves or sexuality. And, since they "didn't need to listen to all that stuff about contraception or sexually transmitted diseases" because they were going to "remain virgins until marriage" they are, according to studies, much more likely to put themselves at risk than a non-abstinent teen who does plan ahead.

But for those who "succeed," let's remember what they've "succeeded" at. If they've totally accepted the actual recommendations of the abstinence movement, and haven't simply been having many different forms of sex and calling it something else, then they've "successfully" repressed a vital part of their humanity, and missed out on a lot of what may very well be experiences important to achieving maturity. It isn't that everyone has to do everything in regard to sex in order to become a complete, well-adjusted adult. Far from it. Making choices means saying "no" as well as "yes," plus being able to postpone gratification - in many areas of life - when doing so is beneficial or the responsible thing to do. But seeing sex as an "all or nothing" proposition, with even the mildest of pleasurable activities to be avoided like the plague for over a decade is not conducive to a well-adjusted adulthood. A 27-year-old whose sexual development is still frozen at a 13-year-old level, and awaiting an "instant thaw" may be in for a rude awakening in regard to human sexuality and the power of habit.

What it all boils down to is that there are always two solutions offered for every human problem or dilemma. (1) a perfect, complete, simple, morally benign solution which merely requires a fundamental and unprecedented change in human nature to work, and (2) an imperfect, partial, complex, and morally controversial solution which makes measured progress based on the idea that people in the present and future will behave in pretty much the same way as those in every past generation. "Abstinence only" clearly falls into the former category, comprehensive sex education into the latter. As easy as it might seem to "solve" the teen pregnancy and STD problems by endorsing "Just say no," then moving on to the next crisis, that's like "solving" the problem of poverty by suggesting that every poor American buy a winning lottery ticket and live off the jackpot for life. A simple solution if it would work, but it clearly can't. No more than a pseudo-solution which requires tens of millions of 25, 30 and even 40-year-old virgins, who if true to their abstinence program, have never even been "passionately kissed."

To the clearly believed, but never-spoken- aloud ideal of the erotophobes, that they look forward to living in a nation where people are so successful at suppressing their sexuality that the average 27-year-old man and 25-year- old woman will have not yet experienced even a single moment of erotic pleasure, and will take great pride in their accomplishment, an alternative ideal is needed. What I look forward to is living in a nation where people, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, or marital status, will take as much pride in having an exuberant sex life as they do in having never taken part in a single sexual act in which full, free consent was not explicitly given, or any deception was involved, or where they failed to take total responsibility for reducing any risks involved to the absolute minimum.

That's a tough goal - and one that many talented, dedicated people have been working toward since the days of Margaret Sanger. But it's a goal that celebrates sexuality, not tries to suppress it. It doesn't treat adults like children, or presume that the only way to avoid sexuality's risks is by avoiding it entirely. (A philosophy which, if applied to obesity, would prescribe anorexia as "the only sure cure.")

Though there's no shortage of risks involved with sex, there are none which can be addressed only by the kind of Draconian measures suggested by our opponents. Let's keep being honest about those real risks. It would be just as wrong for us to underplay them as it is for our opponents to exaggerate them. But then let's be equally explicit about how to reduce, or in some cases, eliminate those dangers. Expecting human beings to become non-sexual for extended periods is neither realistic nor desirable. Encouraging them to celebrate their sexuality, and do so by expressing it in only the most positive and responsible ways is both a worthy and totally achievable goal, and one each of us should promote every day in our private lives, as well as in lively public forums such as this one.

AFeminist@aol.com
May 17, 2006

As easy as it might seem to "solve" the teen pregnancy and STD problems by endorsing "Just say no," .... that's like "solving" the problem of poverty by suggesting that every poor American buy a winning lottery ticket and live off the jackpot for life. A simple solution if it would work, but it clearly can't.

...a goal that celebrates sexuality, not tries to suppress it. It doesn't treat adults like children, or presume that the only way to avoid sexuality's risks is by avoiding it entirely.

(A philosophy which, if applied to obesity, would prescribe anorexia as "the only sure cure.")