From a purely objective standpoint, one might think that abstinence-only sex education for high school students would be the most effective way to prevent teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease (STD) transmission. After all, the claim at the core of the curriculum isn’t wrong; if the curriculum truly did encourage all students to be abstinent, the rates of pregnancy and STDs would plummet. Section 510 of the Social Security Act of 1996 defines abstinence-only sex education:

Social Security Administration, Social Security Act of 1996, Section 510.

What this means is, essentially, that $50 million are up for grabs in funding for any state or locality that wishes to pursue “abstinence-only” education. According to the Guttmacher Institute, only 24 states and the District of Columbia actually mandate comprehensive sex education (education that includes information about safe sex, and not just abstaining from it completely), and only 13 states require that when provided, the information be medically accurate. In total, out of 37 states, the law mandates that abstinence be stressed as the only suitable option regarding teen sexuality. Still, though, it makes sense. Right? These states that discourage all sexual activity must have lower teen pregnancy rates and STD prevalence!

Except... they don’t. In fact, research has shown that restricting students’ access to comprehensive sexuality education and not providing information about alternatives to abstinence (like condoms and contraception) actually increases the unplanned pregnancy rates and STD transmission. It turns out that when students are not provided with the proper tools to have safe sex, they skip the safety measures, but not the sex. Regardless of the effectiveness (or perhaps more appropriately, the ineffectiveness) of abstinence-only education, however, another consequence to the curriculum lurks in the background:

Rape.

Katie Gustainis Vela, 6 November 2013, Canyon, TX

Students who are taught abstinence-only curriculum have taken to the internet to share horror stories of the lessons they were taught in school.The teaching of premarital sex as an act that devalues an individual is inherently harmful to victims of sexual abuse or rape. Similes that liken those who have premarital sex to “used toothbrushes” or “chewed gum” imply that these students are already ruined, regardless of whether the sexual activity they experienced was consensual or not. Besides telling impressionable children that they are worth nothing more than household objects like toothbrushes or sticks of gum, this type of instruction sends a strong message to rape survivors that may be sitting in a classroom: you are ruined, now and forever, and because of this, you will never truly be loved or valued. Now, consider this: The Centers for Disease Control estimates that roughly one in four girls and one in six boys are sexually assaulted before the age of 18. That’s a whole lot of kids that this message is being imparted to. The psychological effects of this kind of education are profound; victims are shamed into silence, believing that if they tell anybody about the abuse they’ve experienced, someone will know that they are now as worthless and as devalued as the proverbial piece of gum or used toothbrush.

There is evidence of this silencing effect among victims. Elizabeth Smart began high school in Utah, where she was taught under an abstinence-only curriculum. She was kidnapped at the age of 14 and repeatedly raped over a period of nine months. Smart credits the curriculum when asked why she didn’t try to escape, even though she had the opportunity to do so while in her kidnapper’s captivity:

"I thought, “Oh my gosh, I’m that chewed up piece of gum, nobody re-chews a piece of gum. You throw it away,'...And that’s how easy it is to feel like you no longer have worth, you no longer have value. Why would it even be worth screaming out? Why would it even make a difference if you are rescued? Your life still has no value.”

The problem doesn’t just end with shaming students who have already experienced sexual violence, however. The abstinence-only curriculum is inherently sexist and neglects critical information regarding consent and healthy relationships. Abstinence-only education is notorious for its incorporation of victim-blaming into the presentation of information. (Item G of the SSA of 1996 even defines abstinence-only education as that which includes information that “teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances.”) A major theme in the curriculum is how alcohol and drugs “increase vulnerability to sexual advances," which emphasizes the responsibility (namely of women and girls) to fend off unwanted sexual contact rather than highlighting the importance of mutual consent and discouraging students from committing assaults. Furthermore, it presents a dangerous dichotomy of gender norms, which has been linked to a cultivation of unhealthy attitudes towards women and which fosters violent tendencies. The supposition is that boys are sexual conquistadors who aim to “steal the purity” of young women while girls are either “good” (pure virgins who will remain chaste and unsullied until marriage) or “bad” (sexual temptresses who want to corrupt young men). Besides the fact that this negates the ability of young women to embrace their own sexuality and take charge of their own pleasure, it also does not include a contemporary discussion of sex as a facet of healthy, loving relationships, which experts view as a critical component of comprehensive sex ed in establishing respect and preventing sexual violence.

Several European countries have adopted comprehensive sexuality education that includes a discussion of consent and healthy, lifelong relationships. France, Germany and the Netherlands, all of which require these programs, all have lower rates of pregnancy, HIV transmission and even abortion. Women in these countries are also equipped with information about their own sexual pleasure, which gives them the power to become subjects of sexual enjoyment rather than just objects. This makes it possible for young women to combat the pornographic and mass-media representation of women as disposable objects to be used by males for male satisfaction. This is critical in the liberation of women as it allows them to take charge of their own sexuality.

The reality of abstinence-only education is grave. The information not provided to students is dangerous in its omission, but the information that is provided is dangerous in its inclusion. An effective campaign to combat sexual assault and protect victims cannot be effective until and unless it includes sex-positive education that values healthy relationships and eliminates the idea that virginity is synonymous with morality and that victims of sexual assault are at fault in what happened to them, whether explicitly or implicitly.

So let’s talk about sex. Because if we don’t, we contribute to the rape culture that we have the ability to empower the next generation of adolescents to reject.