- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
WETZSTEIN: Tell teenagers sex is for adults
Question of the Day
In its 2010 budget proposal, the Obama administration defunds two major abstinence-education programs and replaces them with teen-pregnancy prevention programs.
This is not unexpected.
In fact, stamping out the foolish, wasteful, dangerous, "abstinence-only" programs, as they have been described by their opponents, is a political must-do for congressional Democrats.
I have reported on abstinence education since it appeared in the 1996 welfare reform law. I have a proposal to make but first a little history.
When abstinence education was set in law 12 years ago, liberals gasped at its eight-point definition. They were incredulous that any federally funded program would require people to teach school-age children, including those in high school, that sexual abstinence was "the expected standard" for them.
Another foul ball was the abstinence law's claim that "sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical side effects." (How anti-sex can you get? critics said.)
But the biggest sin in the law was its terrible, horrible, outrageous, evil, wrong, no-good assertion that a "mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity."
In other words, all Americans were supposed to save sex for marriage.
You can't imagine the apoplexy this stirred in the sex-positive groups, feminist groups, civil rights groups, academics and, of course, the young and the restless. Gay-rights groups were particularly offended because, back in 1996, when none could marry, they interpreted the law to say, "No sex for you, ever."
For 12 years, scorn has been heaped on abstinence education for these and other reasons. Sadly, some abstinence grantees helped fuel the hatred when they crossed the line and injected religion into their programs.
Now that the White House has zeroed out abstinence funding, there will be a grass-roots fight to save it.
But in all candor, it's likely that abstinence education as we've known it is kaput. Most of its Republican champions have retired or moved to other issues, and any Democrat who stands up for abstinence will undoubtedly face withering attack. I am guessing that includes now-Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter, who has poured about $10 million in earmarked abstinence funds into Pennsylvania over the years.
My two-cents proposal? Make "abstinence until 20" the public-health message for unmarried youth. With one stroke, we would send the message that sex is for adults.
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.
I am guessing this abstinence-until-20 idea won't please any advocates in this polarized debate, but I think it lines up with what mainstream America wants. "Sex is for adults" is a sound social message that got discarded a few decades ago. I think it's time to bring it back.
Cheryl Wetzstein can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
About the Author
Cheryl Wetzstein covers family and social issues as a national reporter for The Washington Times. She has been a reporter for three decades, working in New York City and Washington, D.C. Since joining The Washington Times in 1985, she has been a features writer, environmental and consumer affairs reporter, and assistant business editor.
Beginning in 1994, Mrs. Wetzstein worked exclusively ...
- '50 Shades' movie trailer outrages anti-porn groups
- Tougher clinic rules lead to drop in Texas abortions
- David Tyree hired by Giants in a move bashed by gay-rights groups
- U.S. social and economic trends on worrisome track, survey finds
- JAMA opinion piece calls for ending lifetime ban on blood donation by gay men
Latest Blog Entries
- Gay therapy ban author seeks Calif. House seat
- Transgender 'bathroom law' gets 5,000 more signatures
- Pro-life, stem-cell bill signed into law by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback
- N. Dakota lawmakers approve tough abortion bill
- Pope Benedict XVI's successor should allow priests to get a new title: Husband, poll finds
By Steve King
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- U.S. evacuates embassy in Libya amid violent clashes between militias
- Rahm Emanuel: Send illegal immigrant shelter kids to Chicago
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama: U.S. should 'embrace an economic patriotism that says we rise or fall together'
- Ted Nugent loses second casino gig for 'racist remarks'
- Ohio university quiz implies atheists are naturally smarter than Christians
- EDITORIAL: Obama's 'economic patriotism' means higher taxes
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq