Category Archives: Sex Education

Who Is SIECUS?

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

May 2, 2005

SIECUS has been at the forefront of attacks on abstinence education this past year.  Precious inches in mainstream newspapers have granted special privileges to claims by SIECUS that abstinence education is harming children.

Abstinence educators have used this as a positive opportunity to direct people to medically accurate information supporting their curricula as well as to research proving the successes of abstinence programs.  Yet an obvious question remains.  Who is SIECUS?

The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had its official beginning in 1964.  But its history is best understood by going back to the 50s when two influential people were stirring the beginnings of the American sexual revolution.

In 1948, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was published by Alfred Kinsey.  It spent 43 weeks, just short of one year, on The New York Times bestseller’s list.  Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, followed in 1953.

At the publication of his books, Alfred Kinsey became a cultural icon validating virtually uninhibited sexual behaviors of all kinds.  Only decades after his ideas had made their way into mainstream media and college courses did the truth about his so-called research come to light.

Fully documented today by reputable researchers, Kinsey has been shown to be a man driven by his own extreme sexual urges to rewrite definitions of healthy human sexual behavior by manipulating data and violating basic tenets of sound research. For a starter, to “prove” “open minded” acceptance of data, members of Kinsey’s staff were expected to engage in homosexual, adulterous and promiscuous sex.  Things got worse.

Under Kinsey’s firm guidance, pedophiles were coached on how to record molestation of children, data from prostitutes was generalized to represent sexual behaviors of married women, and male data relied heavily upon prisoners including sex offenders.  Still locked  behind closed doors at Indiana University, this data was “analyzed” by a Kinsey team lacking any experience in statistics and has ever since been unavailable for independent analysis by outside experts.

As Americans were eagerly reading Kinsey, a New Yorker was building an enterprise that would change the face of America and sex forever.  In 1953, Mary Calderone began work as medical director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Politically a libertarian, she pushed for non-judgmental attitudes about sex.  In her preface to Sexuality and Human Values, a Siecus book she edited, Calderon had little good to say about religion, characterizing it as a “mythology” or “shibboleth” set “to hem sex in with attitudes and restrictions that prevent its full flowering.”  She exhorted scientists and religionists to “make it possible for human beings to realize their erotic potential in full and responsible conscience.”

Given an emphasis on eroticism, it is not surprising that Calderone was also a strong advocate for abortion.  Editor of Abortion in the United States (1958), she pleaded for years with the American Medical Association (AMA) to establish a Task Force Report and Resolution dealing with the responsibility of physicians to be a source of population control.

Kinsey and Calderone, each working to unlock “erotic potential” as the goal of normal sexual behavior absent the “repressive” norms of traditional morality and accommodated by legal abortion, needed only one thing to break the bonds of sexual restraint. It arrived in 1960.

Frank B. Colton, a biochemist with G.D. Searle and Company, directed research leading to the discovery of Enovid, the first oral contraceptive.  In 1960, a drug supposedly designed to help married couples plan their families, leapt across this artificial barrier and exploded full force into the American culture.

Only four years after arrival of the birth control pill, SIECUS was born.  Mary Calderone left her position with Planned Parenthood to become both the executive director and secretary of SIECUS.  Wardell Pomeroy, co-author of the Kinsey books on sexual behavior, joined the group of founders on the SIECUS Board.

Given the history of the founders of SIECUS, it is no surprise to learn where their seed money came from.  Years later Christie Hefner wrote, “Through the Playboy Foundation, Hefner put his money where his mouth was.  It made the initial grant to establish an Office of Research Services” for SIECUS in the late 60s.

At its initial press conference on January 9, 1965, Mary Calderone stated SIECUS would “perhaps take positions on problems of sexuality in America.”   Indeed, it did back then.  And it does today.

If you want to understand the positions SIECUS takes today on abstinence education, there is no better way to illuminate their statements than with the light of Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy and Mary Calderone.  Like dominoes, in a predictable chain-reaction, one push toward “erotic potential” in 1964 has led today to an automatic reaction against abstinence.

Return next week to get a closer look at the ideas that formed SIECUS and defined the “erotic potential” at the core of its existence:  SIECUS Redefines Humanity.

 November 19, 2004:   KINSEY: Brave New World?

Why I Teach Abstinence

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

April 11, 2005

Years ago, reading endless attacks on abstinence education in the newspapers, I decided to see for myself.  I called up abstinence programs and asked if I could sit in on their classes.

From the beginning, abstinence educators were open and willing to share their message.  “Yes,” they invited me.  “Come, and sit in a class.  Talk with the students.  We would love to have you.”

It was a good thing I went.  Because I was shocked.  In less than five minutes of entering a middle-class, racially diverse high school classroom, I was struck dumb by what I learned.

Sitting discreetly in the back of the outside row, I read the student book as kids gradually finished chatting and took their seats.  Looking up to check for the teacher, I caught the eye of a pretty young girl.  We smiled at each other, and I decided to break the ice.  “What do you think of this class?”

“I like it,” she answered.  “I’ve never heard this before.”

“Really?”  I asked.  “What do you mean?”

“Well, like being abstinent and not having sex,” she clarified.

I blinked.  I tried to think of something to say.  “Really?” I commented, not expecting her to answer back.  It was just impossible to know what to say as I sat and contemplated a beautiful high school junior who was hearing someone for the first time in her life encourage sexual abstinence until marriage.

That class, and every abstinence class I have visited since, was a friendly honest room filled with open dialogue.  Medically accurate information reinforced possible consequences of having sex even as one or two highly charged boys made it clear they favored sex, even if there were consequences.  Even as talk focused on serious decisions, students and the teacher knew how to joke and tease.  It was a safe place where students could be challenged with the truth and encouraged to choose abstinence.

The young girl’s comment has stayed with me ever since I first heard it over six years ago.  “I’ve never heard this before.”  At first, I couldn’t believe her.  Then I started to attend to the movies, the music, the magazines, the news…and I understood how easy it is in the American teen culture to never hear abstinence validated and advanced as the healthy life choice.

When one considers American insistence on portraying sex as a recreational activity, it is amazing that abstinence education is able to impress students with its “new message.”  But it is.  Just this week, a series of student comments came to me from an educator friend.  Her students let her know their hearts.

“Before, I was practicing risky business. After this class I now realize how my behaviors affect my goals, so I am going to make a 180!  Thank you so much for showing me how to respect myself and my values.  I can definitely wait until I get married.”  A young girl, 16, heard…and changed.

“Realizing that having sex before marriage can be a major risk in my life, and that’s not what I want in my life, I want to enjoy my life and be risk free.  I enjoyed your class and learned a lot of things I did not know.  I will choose to live a risk-free life.”  Is this another student who heard abstinence affirmed as a positive choice for the first time?

“I think secondary virginity wouldn’t be a bad idea for me.  I haven’t had sex a lot.  I am going to stop.  I know now that I am worth waiting for.”  A male, 16, has been validated as a man for having the courage and intelligence to save sex until marriage.

Kids are learning…one by one…thanks to tireless teachers who care enough to affirm students and their ability to use self-restraint to make healthy choices.  And that’s enough to keep my friend going.  Her own comment says it all, “I love this soooo much!!!!!!!!!!”

Whether it’s the first time they hear it, or the tenth…abstinence from sex outside of a loving and healthy marriage is a message that empowers kids.  And like all truth, when students hear this message, they know it makes sense.

That’s enough to charge the batteries of at least one teacher.  It’s why she teaches abstinence.

April 30, 2004:   Condoms: A Failure to Protect

I remember the challenge from one female teen on my radio program who demanded to know, ‘Why can’t I have sex in a casual way with a number of people if it feels good?  My mother couldn’t give me any good reason.’  But, I asked, can you feel really good if you know that ultimately nobody cares about you, nor you about them, much at all?  Isn’t that a lonely thought–a lonely feeling?  She quietly said, ‘Yes.’

–Dr. Laura Schlessinger

 

Does Abstinence Work?

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

March 14, 2005

“We’ve seen it sneaking up on us, we’ve known it’s a problem, and now it’s reaching epidemic proportions,” Anne Loudenslager told CNN.  She heads the Tioga County Partnership for Community Health. “We are using a good portion of our limited resources to stop this.”

Dr. Ellsworth, a director of research on the problem, said he hopes to have several hundred children in a new health program this year. He calls himself an optimist.  One has to wonder why.  Everything in the CNN health report proves that things are going from bad to worse.

In northeast Pennsylvania, one in 10 kindergartners were found to be obese in 2001-2002. That number doubled for eighth-graders.

These high numbers of obesity are predictors of future health problems.  During a recent health fair, Ellsworth found that 60 percent of adults tested had metabolic syndrome, a collection of unhealthy conditions that raise the risk for diabetes and heart disease.

Nevertheless, Ms. Loudenslager and Dr. Ellsworth talk tough.  The community is galvanized to solve this health crisis.  At the largest high school in the county, they plan to alter physical education next year.  Students will have more choices:  sports teams, wellness classes, and traditional gym classes.  The goal is to get kids involved, get them moving, and get them healthy.

Maybe they want to help the kids, but shouldn’t we be asking a few questions about their plan first?  After all, the community resources are limited.  And here they are devoting a good portion of those resources to unproven programs with no statistical evidence that new gym classes will make kids loose weight.

If this were a story on the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, reporters would be all over the health officials demanding proof positive that taxpayer money was not going to be wasted on failed programs.

If this were a story on teen sex, reporters would not give the good Dr. Ellsworth a pass at being an optimist.  They would feed him the statistics to prove how hopeless the future is for fat teens.

After all, Dr. Ellsworth said it himself.  “The numbers for obesity in children were nowhere near what they are today and you can just imagine what we’re going to be looking at 10 to 20 years from now if nothing is done,” he told reporters. “That 60 percent … that’s going to seem like a pretty low figure.”

If this were a story on abstinence, reporters would help him prove the hopelessness of the future.  They would pick a teen and show how impossible Dr. Ellsworth’s job will be.

“I’ve started trying to take it easy on the junk food,” sophomore Ray Crawford says.  At 240 pounds and 5 ft. 9 inches tall, he is already a promising lineman for the school’s football team.  And if he’s overweight, he’s not alone.  So are many of his classmates.

Sure Ray hopes to change his eating habits and exercise.  But a good reporter would go after such baseless optimism.  After all, Ray’s father died of heart disease at 45.  And, according to Dr. Jeff Holm of North Dakota, “…Habits are passed vertically from Grandma on down.”

If this were a story on abstinence, the reporter would search high and low for experts to quote on the inevitability of fat habits.  After all, eating is natural.  All kids are going to eat.  Do we want kids to feel bad about themselves, hurting their self-esteem by telling them they are fat?

If this were a story on abstinence, the reporter would serve up a research study to prove that nobody can really lose weight and keep it off.  We would read about yo-yo diets where kids lose weight one week, and put it back on the next.

If this were a story on abstinence, the reporter would find a student who had failed.  We would hear all about how temptation was just too hard to pass up.  Photos would trace the weight gain of the student from kindergarten to high school, and quotes would be plied from the student:  “I’ve tried, but I just can’t seem to control myself.”

And armed with data, quotes, and examples, the reporter would stick it to the good doctor.  “Aren’t you just wasting your time?  Wouldn’t taxpayer money be better spent on finding ways to make Styrofoam into tasty and nutritious food substitutes?”

Where are the tough journalists when you need them?  Where is the skepticism, the doubt, the challenge and resistance?

You can talk about exercise all day long.  You can have your fancy schmancy gyms, and you can serve vegetables in the school cafeteria.  But before we give you one thin dime of our precious limited resources, tell us what we want to know.

Do exercise and good eating habits work?

April 30, 2004:  Condoms: A Failure to Protect

September 10, 2004:  Duh

See Archives for past editorials.

Sex Without Value

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

February 21, 2005

The large card still stands on my dresser, a sweet remembrance from the man who has shared over thirty years of life with me.  As February winds down, my mind is filled with the many pictures of love

renewed on this past Valentine’s Day.

At one luncheon, going around the table for introductions, we shared special thoughts about the husbands and wives who completed our lives.  From newlyweds to those married over forty years, it was refreshing to see the tenderness used to describe the object of each person’s affection.

Last Sunday, Andrew thanked those who organized this month’s Sweetheart Dinner.  As he talked, sounds of babies surrounded us, until one coo and babble turned more insistent.  Mom bundled up her hungry babe, and headed to the private room in the back.

Sex is at the center of so much loveliness.  It is the intensity of passion, the bond of reconciliation, the playful encounter and…the creator of life…building and sustaining relationships of love, promise and honor.

And then…we turn on the television and see sex purchased with a hundred dollar bill on prime time television during what used to be family hour.  Wives are traded, singles prowl the city in search of sex, and nearly naked ladies sell everything from potato chips to beer.

Computer filters must fight the ever-mutating attacks on family life by XXX fare.  Even public librarians defend the right to provide porn, resisting filters to protect the minds and hearts of children.

Cheap sex is not new.  Modern culture simply puts a new shine on the “world’s oldest profession” and magnifies the ways to profit from sex.  Yet, one sad result of our ability to reproduce sex on stage, television, music and film is the complete disconnect of sex from its greatest purpose and its best expression.

Promiscuity is a concept undone by American marketers and impotent judges.  Still defined by a dusty dictionary… aimless, designless, desultory, haphazard, hit-or-miss, indiscriminate, irregular, purposeless, unplanned…the word promiscuity carries no meaning today because all sex is permissible.

The director of a major metropolitan agency worked to explain the finer points of their sex education program to me.  They taught it all, she said.  They empowered kids to embrace their sexuality.  They reinforced that sex was just a normal part of life, complete with deprovera, cherry-flavored condoms, and “confidentiality,” the promise they will help kids evade the loving supervision of parents who know that sex is not meant for teens.

What about abstinence? I asked.

Sure, she said.

Sure, what?  I asked.

For some kids, abstinence is a choice…until they are ready for sex.  Responsible sex.

Responsible sex?  What would you tell a thirteen-year-old girl in your sex ed class who came to you for your advice about having “responsible sex” with her sixteen-year-old boyfriend?  Could you tell her, since she asked, that you advised her not to have sex of any kind with him…that sex at her age was unhealthy and out-of-order…and even just a teensy weensy irresponsible?

Without a pause big enough to blink, she fired back at me.  No.

No?

No.  We are values-neutral.  We don’t teach values.

Sex without values?

What kind of educator is reluctant to teach our children the immovable healthy boundaries of sex?  This means more than mentioning boundaries…saying that abstinence is a choice…something that some kids will choose…until they don’t choose abstinence.

Sex education is a matter of connecting sex with a nobler, finer purpose than recreating in the backseat of a car with a kid you just met.  And it is a matter of believing in that purpose with enough conviction to commit to it and promote it and counsel for it.

Everyone teaches the value of sex.  It’s just a matter of focus.  Either you link sex to the values that sustain healthy relationships and support the care of our next generation with mothers and fathers who love each other…or you don’t.

Our children learn what we teach.  If they are having sex that is aimless, designless, desultory, haphazard, hit-or-miss, indiscriminate, irregular, purposeless, unplanned…need we wonder why?  Aren’t they doing exactly what we are teaching them?

Sex without value IS a value.

May 14, 2004  Order in the Courtroom!

 See Archives for past editorials.

All the Condoms in the World

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

February 14, 2005

How many condoms would it take to end the AIDS crisis?

In 1998, Sharon Stone urged parents worldwide to set out a basket of condoms for their children…as many as 200…encourage your children to play with them, take them, give them to their friends…condoms and more condoms for our children, she pleaded, because we love them.

You can’t really blame Ms. Stone.  After all, condoms had been the centerpiece of our response to AIDS since news stories in 1982 first announced the arrival of HIV in America.

Immediately, the deadly virus sent us into a panic.  School children wanted to know if they could get HIV from mosquitoes.  Mothers wanted to know if public pools were safe for their children.  Grown men quit going to the gym and bought weight machines for the garage.

Worst of all, liberated sex, once a promise of unrestrained pleasure born on the wings of the birth control pill and coed college dorms, became a risky adventure.  Scientists scrambled in their labs to put definition to the virus while health officials struggled to suggest ways to avoid contracting it.

Americans needed answers in a crisis where precious few answers were available.  And so we grasped at the closest thing we could find…the condom.

We could have ended coed dorms on college campuses.  Instead we enlightened students with the ten-step method of putting on a condom.

The Centers for Disease Control could have closed the gay bath houses so prominent in San Francisco and New York.  Instead, the CDC preached condoms.

We could have come together as a society to reject sexual promiscuity.  Instead we set out baskets of condoms in high school guidance offices.

A wake-up call arrived this week.  The New York Times reports, “A rare strain of HIV that is highly resistant to virtually all anti-retroviral drugs and appears to lead to the rapid onset of AIDS was detected in a New York City man last week.”  Health officials are said to be alarmed.  But they shouldn’t be surprised.

Four years earlier, The Arizona Republic reported, “People who catch HIV are increasingly likely to encounter mutant forms of the virus that are able to resist some of the drugs commonly used to treat the infection.  Drug-resistant strains have been a major problem since the start of treatment in the early years of the AIDS epidemic.”

Drug resistant strains of virus have long been known to scientists.  The CDC could have predicted this would happen.  Instead, they plowed ahead, with the help of science superstars like Sharon Stone, to put a basket of condoms in every home.

America didn’t stop with handing out condoms to our own kids.  From 1989 to 2000, over 232,000,000 condoms were sent annually to eleven African nations.  While that’s not even close to all the condoms in the world, that’s a heck of a lot of condoms.

In Zambabwe, their allowance provided the highest number of condoms per male for this group of nations.  Zimbabwe also had the highest HIV prevalence rate.  More condoms…and more AIDS.

It takes a courageous leader to set aside the popular mantra and evaluate the AIDS epidemic with a clear mind.  Ugandan President and Mrs. Museveni are just such leaders.  They were able to look past the mountains of condoms and see the obvious.  Lack of condoms doesn’t cause AIDS.  Sex with infected people causes AIDS.

Uganda chose a different path.  One of its governmental booklets published in 1989 stated with assurance, “The government does not recommend using condoms as a way to fight AIDS.”  Condoms gave users “a false impression that they were safe from AIDS.”

Choosing to support a return to their traditional cultural values, Ugandans educated and supported one another in saving sex for marriage and in honoring their marriage with fidelity.  Because they believed it could be done, they did it.  And today, experts from the world are traveling to Uganda to study their great sexual experiment…self-control.

Meanwhile, in the United States, as we contemplate how to face this latest AIDS scare, the old condom battle heats up once again.  This time, however, “a radical idea, born of desperation,” is taking hold in some quarters.  AIDS workers dismayed over a new battle against a stronger virus are considering a novel idea…novel that is, for Americans.  They are calling for an end to promiscuous sex.

How many condoms will it take to end the AIDS epidemic?  Zero.

Yes, that’s right.  Zero.

Confronting people with their personal responsibility for curbing sexual behavior is beginning to sound more reasonable all the time.  Even the CDC has turned the corner on its website, “The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.”

And what do you know…that doesn’t take a single condom.  Not one.

April 30, 2004:  Condoms: A Failure to Protect

June 4, 2004:   AIDS: Importing the Cure

 See Archives for past editorials.