The Politics of Virginity: Abstinence in Sex Education
By Alesha E. Doan & Jean Calterone Williams
Reviewed by Jessica Zietz
I. INTRODUCTION
The Politics of Virginity provides a detailed examination of abstinence-only
education in American public schools. The authors argue that abstinence education is
scientifically inaccurate, out-of-step with parental preferences, and dangerous to
adolescents. They carefully trace the history of abstinence education’s “stealth”
introduction into public schools and study the content of four widely used abstinence
textbooks, noting how the curricula perpetuate misinformation and harmful gender
stereotypes. Throughout the book, both the macro and micro effects of abstinence
education are examined. Numerous studies support the authors’ arguments against this
form of sex education, while interviews with 32 teenage women provide poignant insight
into the real-life effects of these policies. The rise of abstinence education presents a
modern day example of the Galileo story. Despite overwhelming evidence that
comprehensive sex education is the most effective approach for teenagers, a small,
religious minority has succeeded in implementing abstinence policies in a third of public
schools. Parental voices are ignored, real science labeled junk. While not an explicit
focus like it was in Galileo’s time, religion is implicitly used as a justification for policy
decisions in secular schools. A population undoubtedly in need of truthful information is
lied to under the guise of protection. These recurring themes present a world not so
different from Galileo’s.
II. STEALTH MORALITY POLICY
1
The Politics of Virginity begins with an introduction of one of the book’s most
frequently used phrases: “stealth tactics in morality policy.” The authors explain that
“morality policies tend to address such issues as gay marriage, abortion, and like policy
areas where the locus of the conflict is moral, not material. Advocates of morality
policies wish to create change, largely through moral persuasion and policies regulation
behavior.” (1). While abortion and same-sex marriage opponents have been become
increasingly vocal, abstinence advocates have used a different tactic, one the authors term
“stealth morality policy.” This policy “mirrors omnibus legislative strategies used in
nonmorality policy areas. . . . and may allow an unpopular policy, or a policy supported
by a well-organized minority, to be passed legislatively without having to undergo much
legislative debate or public scrutiny.” (1). Morality policies aim to simplify a debate by
labeling the other side morally wrong; “[c]laiming that abstinence until marriage is the
only acceptable choice because it is the only moral choice leaves little room discussion or
compromise on the content of sex education. Any sexual activity outside of marriage is
considered detrimental. . . .” (11).
III. THE RISE OF ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION
In the first two chapters, the authors provide a historical context for the stealth
rise of abstinence education, tracing the introduction of sex education in schools to the
advent of the birth control pill. The arrival of the pill, combined with “liberalization of
contraception and abortion laws” in the 1960s and early ‘70s had two relevant effects: a
decline in unwanted pregnancies in adult women and a rise in pregnancies among unwed
teenage women. (25). Congress responded in part by adding Title X to the Public Health
Service Act, providing funds for family planning services and education. (26). The
2
federal government, however, did not press for sex education in public schools. Instead,
many schools implemented these programs on their own. The content was
straightforward, focusing mostly on “physical and sexual development, sexually
transmitted disease prevention, and contraceptive use.” (26). While the curricula were
competently designed to address very real problems, schools were met with fervent
opposition by the Christian right, particularly Evangelical Christians. This segment of the
population, note the authors, is “much more inclined than the general population to
believe premarital sex [is] immoral. . . . [and] leads to harmful psychological and
emotional consequences for the unwed compared to other Americans.” (26). Evangelical
groups fought against sex education, contending it violated parental rights and subverted
Christian morality. However, by the 1980s, these groups realized that their push to
eliminate sex education was futile. “Rather than concede defeat, Christian conservatives
adopted a new strategy: restructuring the content of sex education.” (27). Thus, the focus
was shifted from elimination to replacement, and abstinence-only education was born.
Abstinence education supporters tirelessly lobbied politicians, gained support for
their agenda, and claimed their first victory in 1981 when the Adolescent Family Life Act
(AFLA) replaced the Adolescent Health Services and Pregnancy Prevention Care Act.
The bill was carefully designed to attract bipartisan support; it included as a compromise
“a statute that designated the bulk of the money . . . to support services for pregnant and
parenting teens.” (28). AFLA was “quietly” included in the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981 and signed into law “without drawing hearings or floor
votes.” Id. However, over the years, Congress failed to provide broad support for the
Act. Further action was needed.
3
Legislatively, the most significant development for abstinence education came
with the passage of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The Christian Right strongly opposed welfare, arguing
that it “undermined the traditional family by contributing to the rise in female, singleheaded households.” (29). If young women could be depend on government support,
they reasoned, a husband was no longer a necessity. President Clinton promised welfare
reform through a focus on job training and assistance with necessities such as child care;
conservatives, on the other hand, aimed to “reduce federal spending through a variety of
radical measures,” including “prohibiting the allocation of welfare checks to children
born to unwed teenage mothers. . . .” (30). When Republicans retook the House of
Representatives in 1996, they “cast welfare as the root cause of dysfunctional families”
and sought to “compassionately” eliminate the path to this destruction. (31). The GOP’s
bill was debated extensively; however, “abstinence-only education was never presented
to Congress, or the general public, as a solution to illegitimacy, poverty, or welfare
abuse.” Id. Instead, conservatives used stealth tactics to include funding for an
abstinence education program, labeled Title V, in the miscellaneous provisions of the
final bill. Id. President Clinton signed the bill into law, while noting that “serious
problems remain[ed] in the non-welfare provisions of the bill.” (33). As a result, from
1997-2006, Title V received $875 million in funding. (40).
Abstinence-only advocates used another stealth tactic to implement their policies.
Recognizing that the content of many sex education programs is decided at the local
level, religious conservatives ran for school board positions. However, they normally did
4
not disclose their status as Christian conservatives or their abstinence agenda until after
their elections. (29-30).
Abstinence-only education joins two other primary forms of sex education in the
United States. Comprehensive sex education, the least common method, teaches “a
broad curriculum that incorporates sexual development and physiology, reproductive
health,” pregnancy, STD prevention, and birth control methods that include abstinence.
(45-46). Abstinence-based education also discusses reproductive health issues, and
provides a limited discussion on birth control methods and condom usage. Id.
Abstinence-only education, on the other hand, “either bans communication about
contraception or allows it only in the framework of contraceptive failure rates.” Id.1
IV. ABSTINENCE CURRICULA’S DEFINITIONS OF YOUNG WOMEN
The authors devote the book’s third chapter to competing cultural definitions of
young women’s sexuality. The chapter’s title, “Good Girls” or “Dirty Whores”?, sums
up the religious right’s two extreme views of women—views on each end of a spectrum
that leave little room for anything in the middle. Adolescent girls are pure and innocent,
and must be protected from information that would corrupt them. Their virginity is a
treasure that must be carefully guarded, and then given as a gift to a worthy husband. If
women fail in this noble mission, they are deviant and shameful. Simultaneously,
however, women are innate temptresses who must avoid enticing men. A skimpy outfit
or goodnight kiss will provoke an uncontrollable urge in a young man; if he acts on it, the
woman is at least partially responsible. Abstinence education reinforces these harmful
views in a myriad of ways. A later chapter provides excerpts from four widely used
1
For the purposes of this review, the phrase abstinence education will refer to the stricter
abstinence-only education.
5
abstinence textbooks. One text warns that “[d]eep down, you know that your friend’s
plunging neckline and short skirts are getting the guys to talk about her. Is that what you
want? To see girls who drive guys’ hormones when a guy is trying to see her as a
friend?” (109 (quoting Sex Respect)).
V. SCIENTIFIC PROOF, AND LACK THEREOF
The book’s fourth chapter provides an assessment of abstinence-only curricula.
Statistics and studies, however, are found throughout the entire book. Numbers and
charts make the book feel dry and clinical at times; however, they are arguably the book’s
most crucial component. They provide indisputable scientific support to the authors’
cause, something of which Galileo was in dire need. Langford criticized Galileo for
expecting the Church to believe his conclusions when he simply did not have enough
proof. Here, however, there is no logical, provable counter to the myriad of scientific
evidence that disproves abstinence education’s efficacy. (There are, however, plenty of
illogical responses. For example, a Harvard University study concluded that over half of
adolescents who made virginity pledges “denied taking the pledges when asked about it a
year later. Many of the teens that denied ever taking pledges had become sexually
active.” The study, which was published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of
Public Health, was dismissed by abstinence supporters as “junk science.” (13).)
A sampling of the many studies cited is sufficient to summarize the authors’
points. First, while “[m]any adults may not approve of adolescent sexual activity. . . .
[d]epending on the specific issue, 84 to 98 percent of parents want their children to be
taught about contraception, pregnancy,” STDs, and abortion. (7). Second, teens possess
worrisome misconceptions: “around 20 percent of teens do not think condoms are
6
effective in preventing HIV/AIDS and STI transmission, and one in five teens
erroneously believe birth control pills provide protection against sexually transmitted
diseases.” (117). Most significantly, abstinence-only education has not reached its goals
of eliminating or even reducing sexual activity in teenagers. Statewide evaluations of 11
abstinence-only programs found that, while abstinence-only education programs were
“most successful at improving participants’ attitudes towards abstinence,” they were
“least likely to positively affect participants’ sexual behaviors.” (47). Put simply,
changes in attitudes have not led to changes in behavior. Another study found that, after
completing abstinence-only programs, “there were no differences among the students
who had received abstinence-only instruction and those who had not on important
measures of sexual behavior.” (48). The authors describe the reliable methodology used
in each study, such as use of control groups, surveying both groups over a four to six year
period, and following up with both groups years later. These methods are then contrasted
with the inaccurate “research” cited by abstinence advocates. For instance, one
abstinence texts states that “only 5 to 21 percent of couples use condoms consistently and
correctly, and . . . even with correct usage, condoms do little protect against disease.”
(117). The authors retort that “[d]ownplaying the efficacy of condoms runs contrary to
vast scientific research indicating the opposite: Consistent condom use is an effective
method for reducing the risk of infection contraction and transmission.” Id. Questionable
research methods are highlighted most clearly in a section on one textbook’s discussion
of abortion. The book, Sexuality, Commitment, and Family (SCF), states that pregnant
women who choose abortion experience chronic grief, suicidal thoughts and attempts,
heavy drinking, and nightmares. (118). Shockingly, it claims that women who terminate
7
a pregnancy are more likely to abuse subsequent children. These claims have no
scientific support. They are traced to a book on abortion written not by a scholar, doctor,
or academic, but by a pro-life advocate. He came up with his “findings” by actively
seeking out a small number of women who regretted their abortions. The women were
“not representative of the general population of women who have had abortions, so basis
a study on their perspectives does not yield unbiased information that can be used to
make general claims about women who have had abortions.” (119). Yet the information
is treated as scientific and unbiased, both in the original book and the textbook repeating
the findings. Readers of SCF have no way of knowing where the information comes
from or that it is misleading and unreliable. This is precisely the type of “research” used
to support abstinence-only programs.
VI. STEALTH INCLUSION OF RELIGION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Christianity formed the basis of opposition to Galileo’s heliocentric findings.
Similarly, opposition to sex education has its root in religion. Religious conservatives are
aware that they can’t successfully push for Bible passages in public school abstinence
texts. But, in yet another example of stealth tactics, Christianity is used implicitly in
abstinence curricula. For example, one text, Sex Respect, refers to men as heroes and
women as helpmates. “The biblical notion of woman as helper,” note Doan and
Williams, is “taken from the introduction of Adam and Eve in Genesis. . . .” SCF,
meanwhile, states that life begins at conception and abortion kills the unborn—religious
concepts firmly supported by Evangelical Christians. These statements are misleadingly
treated as scientific fact, rather than religious doctrine.
VII. ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION IN PRACTICE
8
The book tempers its dry statistics with stories of young women navigating sexual
activity and peer pressure with little to no guidance from schools and parents. The focus
is on minority women from low-income families—precisely the group conservatives
sought to “compassionately assist” through welfare reform and abstinence education.
The women’s experiences are often heartbreaking; many were pressured into sex at
young ages and, due to lack of education, did not protect themselves against pregnancy
and STDs. Some had been sexually assaulted. Most felt they lacked the confidence or
capability to firmly resist pressure from men; if they didn’t loudly yell “no,” they
reasoned, they hadn’t really been raped. Women who ended up pregnant felt they
deserved it, even though they had often (unsuccessfully) asked their partners to use
condoms or their parents to help them obtain birth control. The stories highlight the
complexity of adolescent female sexuality, concluding that black-and-white, oversimplified abstinence education does little to address the many struggles of, and
influences on, these women. The focus is on young women, because the authors believe
that abstinence texts are geared most toward women; it is women who are given the
responsibility for controlling themselves so they don’t tempt men.
VII. CONCLUSION
The Politics of Virginity provides a damning assessment of abstinence-only
education in America. At the same time, however, one wonders if 200 pages of facts and
stories and public opinion polls and studies do any good when the opposition can brush
off any study as junk science, any story as deviancy. Langford seemed firm in his belief
that, with enough proof, the Church would have accepted Galileo’s findings; hundreds of
years later, though, proof hasn’t stopped religious conservatives from avidly supporting a
9
policy shown to be wrong in so many facets. Whether abstinence education receives
funding and support appears to depend on which political party controls Congress, rather
than on the truth and efficacy, or lack thereof, of these programs. Recognizing this
dilemma, the authors note that, even though support for abstinence education has waned
in recent years, “it is unlikely to disappear in the near future.” (170). This pessimistic
outlook acknowledges the reality that, even in the 21st century, science can still be
contested in the name of religion.
10