A Little Anal Retentive How the Far Right Tried to Rebrand a Conversation about Sex Education

By Bill Taverner

In November 2010, The Center for Family Life Education held a national sexuality education conference – open to professionals with students and patients of all ages – with a program that encompassed the lifespan, from teaching about puberty to helping couples regain intimacy after a cancer diagnosis.  There were workshops on sexual assault, prevention of sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancy, healthy and unhealthy relationships, gender and sexual orientation, and so much more of what would fall into the various circles of Dr. Dennis Daily’s model of holistic sexuality.

 

Click here for a clip of the Anal Retentive
Chef from Saturday Night Live

The conference received a good share of media coverage, including the New York Times, Psychology Today, and other reputable journalistic sources.  Susie Wilson, a pioneer in advocacy for sexuality education in New Jersey blogged about the scope and depth of the conference in her Thanksgiving blog for the New Jersey Newsroom.  But there were only two conference elements that caught the attention of the folks in Far Right news circles, who reported on our conference as one about “butt plugs” and “sex toys”.  I hope you will excuse my pun in the title of this article.  Like our detractors, I recognize that taboo references to the anus can draw a huge readership.  I have some experience with society’s preoccupation with the anus.  A few years ago, I gave a television interview where I discussed the importance of teaching young people about the choice of abstinence, and I mentioned anal sex as a behavior that a person might decide to avoid.  While this comment constituted less than 10 seconds of a 15 minute interview, it was the one phrase that was repeated over-and-over in the promos for the evening news.  So if the clever title is what brought you here, I hope this essay doesn’t disappoint too much as I discuss what the conference was really about.

It was one workshop in particular that really caught the attention of our detractors, so much so that they made sure to attend that workshop – from among 40 course offerings – to get all the juicy details.  The workshop was appropriately titled “Healthy Endings:  A Workshop on Anal Health and Sexual Safety.”  Why a workshop about the anus?  As the workshop description notes, about 40% of adults report having engaged in anal intercourse.  (As comedians have noted, the other 60% have a "friend"...)  Public policy professionals have long been aware of the association between unprotected anal intercourse and HIV, as well as other sexually transmitted infections.  So the question isn’t so much why we would have a workshop teaching about the anus and sexual safety – but why wouldn’t we?  The course reviewed physiology and recommendations for health and risk prevention.  It also included a fact sheet that provided comprehensive information about the anus.  One fact on this fact sheet cited research and commentary from scholars in the field on sexual safety in the context of butt plugs and other toys, being responsive to the common usage of such toys among adults.  It is important to know that almost half of the sex educators who attended the conference identified their primary audiences as adults.  However, those heckling our conference were trying to paint the picture that we were training middle school teachers to teach their students how to more effectively use their butt plugs.

There may well have been some high school teachers in attendance who wanted to better understand information about the anus.  This is understandable because students are always asking questions about the anus, often along the lines of “Can you get something stuck up there?”  They also ask about anal sex, the rectum and colon, and more.  Teachers – who typically focus exclusively on reproductive anatomy – are often ill equipped to answer these many questions, leaving their students to find their answers about the anus through myth and conjecture, or on the Internet, where one can easily find videos of fisting, urban legends of gerbils and Richard Gere, and the American Nihilist Underground Society (A.N.U.S).

Despite intentionally misleading characterizations, and the juvenile preoccupations of our critics, the conference was not about butt plugs and sex toys.  Why did they fail to mention the program on intimacy after cancer, which would have clearly illustrated that the audience did not only work with teens?  Why did they mention the film we showed, “Orgasm Inc.,” without any explanation of what it was about?  The answer is simple.  Saying that we showed a film titled “Orgasm Inc.” conjures an orgy of hedonistic sex educators, rather than a serious academic program.  Explaining that it was a documentary about pharmaceutical companies trying to develop a female equivalent to Viagra does not carry out their primary objective of misleading their readers.

The Far Right commentaries about our conference are replete with such fabrications.  Yes, in receiving her award, Dr. Eva Goldfarb of Montclair State University did sing an excerpt from the Broadway musical Hair.  (And she sang beautifully, I might add.)  But to conclude that her singing the antiquated word “pederasty” – means we are supportive of adult-child sex is logic that leaves one’s head spinning.  (And is logic that I would hope even the most ardent critics of sex ed would reject.)

In the interest of fair play, I will note some of the conference content that our detractors failed to mention, as it did not fit their pre-conceived agenda.  These included workshops on cyber-bullying and sexting, drug and alcohol abuse, ethics, healthy and unhealthy relationships, male responsibility, media literacy, myths and urban legend, puberty, sexual assault, and understanding and answering difficult questions.

See the program for yourself.  Hopefully you’ll notice the very supportive letter from United States Senator Frank Lautenberg, a staunch advocate for sexuality education.  Hopefully you’ll see ads for prominent health-promoting organizations, not just the ads for lubricants and other sexual aids.  Hopefully you’ll see program content that has depth and scope that warranted the praise we received from leading experts in the field who attended.  Hopefully you’ll see more than just butt plugs.

Trading My Contraceptive Kit for the Real Thing

by Ashley Generallo

In 2005 I graduated college. I didn’t have anything really impressive to say when people asked me about my future plans. No, I didn’t have a job lined up. No, my psychology/women studies degree didn’t make me qualified for any particular job in any particular field. But I did know one thing for sure: I wanted to work for Planned Parenthood.

After a summer of phone calls, letters, and emails to the local Planned Parenthood human resources departments, I got a job working the front desk in a nearby clinic. My goal of getting my foot in the door was officially reached. The clinic pulled my attention between the busy phone, the patients coming in for appointments, and answering questions about STI testing and birth control methods. I tried my hardest to make a trip to Planned Parenthood as pleasant as possible, whether it was to pick up a pack of pills or have a colposcopy.

Within two years, I found myself working for PPGNNJ’s education department, The Center for Family Life Education. I became “Miss Ashley: The Sex Lady” to many local adolescents (my mom is so proud!). In this position, I took what I learned from the clinic and used it to better educate my students, helping them make healthy decisions about their bodies and lives, in and out of the exam room. I felt more empowered working in the education department. I was reaching young people before they needed to visit the clinic making them more prepared and educated on what to expect when it was time to make a visit.

Fast forward another 3 years and I’m back to the clinic. Only this time, I’m the manager. Am I nervous? A little. Am I afraid I won’t love this job as much as my previous? Sure. Do I feel like I don’t know anything? Often. But in this situation I must rely on the lessons I have learned from The CFLE to ease me into this new role.

I learned that:

• If I can manage a classroom of 12 year olds, I should have no problem managing a bustling clinic.
• When talking to a patient at the clinic, you don’t have to compete with dismissal bells, classroom gossip, or science homework.
• Icebreakers and energizers work in both a classroom and a staff meeting.
• Everyone enjoys snacks.
• There is an opportunity every day to learn something new and share it.
• I am still not expected to know all the answers.
• It is always important to explain things in the simplest way possible, without leaving information out or making a person feel stupid or judged.
• Schools and clinics carry the same amount of germs and I will have a cold all year round.
• Having a smile on your face goes a long way.
• Though our approaches may be different, everyone working for Planned Parenthood makes a difference and is working toward the same goal: healthier, more informed people.

Maybe I do know something after all…

Lies My Abstinence Teacher Told Me

By Bill Taverner

One in 10 "abstinent" teens has a sexually transmitted infection. Yes, one in 10 teens that says he or she is abstinent has a sexually transmitted infection. This statistical anomaly comes from a news story reported in the Washington Times.  It sounds strange, but it really shouldn't be surprising to know that teens who say they are "abstaining" really aren't. Prior research found that almost 90% of teens who make virginity pledges fail to keep them, and they are one-third less likely than their peers to use condoms at first intercourse, and are much more likely to engage in unprotected oral and anal sex, behaviors that they might feel "don't count". So I wasn't very surprised to learn that "abstinent" teens are getting STIs. I was, however, surprised to read about it in the Washington Times. This newspaper is notorious for its conservative, anti-sex ed bias. Why would they report on a study that so clearly illustrates the problems with abstinence-only-until-marriage (AOUM) programs? The study demonstrates why you can't tell kids to "Just say no!" without also having a serious discussion about the actual sexual behaviors that need to be avoided. So why was the Washington Times reporting on the negative impact of AOUM programs?

The next day, I got my answer. The report was a perfect set-up for the analysis that followed in Far Right news circles the next day, where the director of the National Abstinence Education Association used the study to blame Planned Parenthood for the way abstinence has been taught in America. Huh? Planned Parenthood has never received a dime of the billions of dollars funneled for abstinence-only education over the past fifteen years! Surely Planned Parenthood cannot be blamed for teens' poor understanding of abstinence! The education Planned Parenthood provides is medically accurate. In fact, for years, Planned Parenthood has petitioned Congress to require medical accuracy in abstinence and sexuality education, while AOUM advocates have opposed such legislation!

The article pointed to a teaching manual I coauthored with Sue Montfort a few years ago. We wrote Making Sense of Abstinence as an alternative to the fear and shame-based AOUM programs that prevailed. While our teaching resource has become quite popular and is widely used throughout the United States, its usage has never even approached the prevalence of curricula funded with federal dollars. Still, I have presented a number of workshops and keynotes throughout the country, introducing this new pedagogical model, which says that abstinence education needs to:

 1.  Help teens understand and apply the meaning of abstinence in their own lives and decisions, including understanding their reasons and motivations.

2.  Build skills for successful abstinence.

3.  Discuss not only the behaviors a person decides to avoid, but also the behaviors that "abstinence" permits, whether that be masturbation, kissing, touching, etc.

4.  Help teens protect themselves from the unwanted consequences of sexual activity if and when they change their decisions.

I know this model of sophisticated, meaningful abstinence education is despised by those who favor a simple, "Just say no!" approach. The Far Right article attacked the first key principle of our manual – that teens need to understand and apply the meaning of abstinence in their own lives. I will explain.

Making Sense of Abstinence acknowledges that the language of "sex" and "abstinence" is very confusing – not just among teens but also among public health professionals. Even among presidents! I often start off my workshops and keynotes by asking people to take out their cell phones and asking them to call or text three friends and ask them what the words "abstinence" and "sex" mean. I could fill up (and I have filled up) a wall of easel sheets with the varied and contradictory definitions about these words. The activity also reveals astounding differences in motivations for the decisions to abstain, or not to abstain. The manual seeks to help teens who make the choice to "abstain" understand what abstinence means to them, so that they can plan and communicate their decisions accordingly. Many of us might think that "abstinence" means no oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse. But what we think is irrelevant to the teen who is convinced that they don't have "real" sex – they just have oral sex. I could stand on my head trying to convince them that oral sex does indeed "count" and must be avoided. But if they are determined not to abstain from this particular behavior, despite Mr. Taverner's opinion, then some protective knowledge is needed.

It's Orwellian doublespeak to claim that Planned Parenthood – or Making Sense of Abstinence – is convoluting the meaning of abstinence, when both are actually seeking to help teens clarify the meaning for themselves. Fifteen years of federal funding for programs that "Just say no!" without further clarity have produced a generation of young people that is in the dark, thinking that they are abstaining by finding the loopholes to their abstinence preacher's admonitions.

The above referenced article also includes the completely false statement that new federal teen pregnancy prevention money is supporting the teaching of Making Sense of Abstinence. Oh, I wish it were true. We could surely use the money in these tough times when our governor has stripped my local Planned Parenthood affiliate of $1.2 million in family planning funds. And nothing would please me more than to see our sex-positive philosophy implemented in the nation's classrooms. But the notion is a bald-faced lie. It is true that some of the new federal funding is supporting the implementation of teen pregnancy prevention programs administered by other Planned Parenthood affiliates. Unlike the requirements for AOUM programs, these programs must utilize teen pregnancy prevention programs that have been rigorously evaluated for success. None of them include Making Sense of Abstinence, which is relatively new on the scene, and has certainly not been subjected to that level of evaluation.

Clearly there are different philosophies on teaching about abstinence, and a need to carve some middle ground. Sue Montfort and I tried to do this. We recognized that some agencies will never allow our lessons on masturbation and outercourse to be taught, nor the lesson called “Some Day,” which helps for future planning after one’s abstinence decision changes, as it almost always does, whether it’s after a walk to the altar or in college, or this weekend. But there are plenty of lessons that find common ground and could be used without hesitation or regret by AOUM advocates. Take the lesson on talking with one’s parents and learning their values about abstinence. Or several lessons focused on developing the planning and communication skills needed for successful abstinence. Students learn the difference between passive, aggressive, and assertive communication so that they can stand up for their decisions. Students learn strategies to support their abstinence decisions in the heat of sexual arousal. Some might disapprove of the lesson titles (e.g., “Handling Horny”) but these are lessons that benefit all students, regardless of the ideologies of the teachers.

If we are to continue to seek middle ground, there must be an honest exchange of intellectual ideas. And that means that the lies need to stop.