Friday, May 30, 1997

Preaching abstinence alone not enough

By Ellen Goodman

BOSTON - I have always had a soft spot for the folks who preach abstinence. For one thing, I like their rap lines. You know, "Pet Your Dog, Not Your Date." "Do the Right Thing, Wait for the Ring."

Then, too, they were also the ones who came up with the idea of "Secondary Virginity," which is a kind of biological annulment. This prompted a young lawyer in my family to ask, "Can you have a third or a fourth virginity? Or is it two strikes and you're out?"

In any case, I can happily agree with the rightest wing of this movement in lamenting the number of kids who start having sex far too young and far too unhappily with far too many consequences.

Do teens need help saying no when all the messages around them, from media to partners, are saying yes, yes, yes? Do they need adults to talk with them about waiting? Sure.

Why then do I find myself queasy when the government offers to pass out some $50 million a year for educational programs that will teach abstinence only? Try the word "only."

In one of those after-hours maneuvers for which Washington is famous, a provision offering money for abstinence-only programs was snuck into last year's welfare reform bill. The logic that welded abstinence to welfare was that unwed teen moms often end up on AFDC. No sex, no teen moms. Ergo no welfare. Teach kids abstinence and nothing but abstinence.

Under the guidelines, any approved government program must have "as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity." Exactly which sexual "activity" to be avoided remains undefined.

But the guidelines do clearly say kids must be taught sex is only for marriage. Despite the fact that 90 percent of Americans - including parents and members of Congress - had their first sex outside of marriage, abstinence-only teaches that married intercourse is "the expected standard of human sexual activity."

To get government money, a program must even teach unmarried sex is "likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects." If that sounds like legislated fear-mongering, a recent California study of abstinence programs bears it out.

In one "educational" video, a student asks what happens if he wants to have sex before marriage. The instructor answers, "Well, I guess you'll just have to be prepared to die."

If the idea of federally funded disinformation is troubling enough, the lack of information is worse. Under these guidelines, abstinence-only programs can't teach about contraception. Nor talk openly and frankly about those banned "sexual activities." This "education" is monosyllabic.

I agree that abstinence should have a strong role in a comprehensive program. But this is all-or-nothing money, meant to replace any other programs, not enrich them with, say, an abstinence unit. The states have to find $3 for every $4 they get from Washington. And there's no reliable evidence the current abstinence-only programs reduce sexual activity.

Today we know a fair amount about kids who have early, too early, intercourse. They're likely to be physically mature, to come from poor single-parent families. The kids who delay sex tend to have mentors, to read and write better, to have fewer stereotypes about sex roles, to be busy and connected. I still think the best abstinence program is an after-school program.

But now the states have until mid-July to decide whether to ask for this hush money. Debra Haffner of SIECUS, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States, says, "We are giving states the same advice we are giving teens. Abstain, and if you are not going to abstain, act responsibly."

So far all but half a dozen states have caved to peer group pressure. Some states like Maine want to use the money for a media campaign. Others say they'll use it to teach just the youngest kids. Still others are trying to find a creative end run around the restrictions. But even those states will have to take money from another pot.

Money, especially federal money, can be awfully seductive. It's hard to just say no to government dollars. But this is one time when states should practice abstinence - and not preach it.

The Boston Globe Newspaper Company