In a landscape where “abstinence-only” sexual education programs are justly reviled as dangerously ineffective, a new study from Penn showing that one abstinence-only program successfully delayed sexual activity in teenagers will likely make waves. But partisans on both sides should note that the success of the analyzed program appears to have more to do with the program’s uniqueness than with a general failure to give abstinence-only programs credit. Specifically:
[The successful program] did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.
Emphasis mine. The two bolded distinctions effectively distinguish the successful abstinence-only program from the majority of schlocky Christian programs, with their “purity balls” and “silver rings” – the latter of which lost funding under the Bush administration for being too blatantly religious, even for them — and represent, rather, a third way between traditional abstinence-only and fully-informative sexual education.
The rational case against abstinence-only education — for reality ought know no party — has been built on a deep suspicion of the notion that programs premised on holding children to an arbitrary moral standard, and insulating them from all other information, will lead to informed, safe choices about sex. That conclusion remains undisturbed.
It’s been a long road, but supporters of equality in the armed forces will finally get, at least, a congressional hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Unfortunately, as elsewhere, the Republicans already have overly simplistic talking points lined up. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: distraction. From McCain (R-AZ) and Boehner, we’re hearing that a war is just not the time to shake up the armed forced. We can’t let what accommodations will have to be made become the driving narrative for the debate.
Rather, the issue must be staffing and readiness, issues around which there should be a fierce urgency. The middle of a war is emphatically the time to talk about expanding the voluntary corps. Expulsions based on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell were down in 2009, to around 450 from over 600, and far short of the historic annual high of nearly 1,000. But losing staff unnecessarily in a time of war, especially from in-demand positions like Arab linguists, is the equivalent of writing off friendly fire. Permitting gay soldiers to serve openly could result in a functional surge, returning much-needed soldiers to their posts, just where and when they’re needed most.
Crisis has often been an engine for accelerating social change. In World War II, General Eisenhower worked slowly towards the desegregation of the army because, owing to the exigencies of combat and training, segregation was simply impossible. Strapped for manpower, the Union Army first enlisted, then actively recruited, and finally provided equal pay for black soldiers. And the Emancipation Proclamation was initially, in some ways, a document of military necessity. Last week, Obama referred to military integration as “the right thing to do.” Historically, moving towards equality is also the smart thing to do.
