Pop quiz. No looking at your
notes. In which organization’s educational materials did the following
sentence appear? 

"Almost everyone can agree
that abstinence is the only way to 100 percent protect against unintended
pregnancy and STDs." 

1. The Abstinence Clearinghouse
2. The National Abstinence
   Education Association
3. The Heritage Foundation
4. None of the above

If you answered "none of
the above," go to the head of the class. The sentence appeared in
advocacy materials that we here at the ACLU developed for the purpose
of ending government funding of ineffective, ideologically driven abstinence-only-until-marriage
programming.  

The above exercise should give
you pause; it stopped us in our tracks. What is the likelihood we’re
going to win this battle to get real information about sexual health
into teenagers’ hands if we continue to mimic our opponents’ language?  

I’d like to say that we got
to this epiphany on our own, but we didn’t. It took the team of cognitive
linguists at Real
Reason to help
us see that those of us who advocate for better sex education may unwittingly
be undermining our mission by the very language we use. 

To help us become better sex
ed advocates, Real Reason took a close look at how Americans understand
sex and sexuality; the images of sex and sexuality that proponents of
abstinence-only programming use to push their agenda; and the language
used by advocates for comprehensive approaches that provide accurate
information and skills to help teens live healthy lives now and in the
future. 

Real Reason considered several
key concepts operating in the debate over sexuality education, including
sexuality, education, government, and development.
For brevity’s sake, let’s look at the most dominant in this context:
sexuality. After combing through mountains of material on sexuality
education- from fact sheets and speeches made by advocates on both
sides of the debate to legal briefs, blogs, television transcripts,
and special linguistic databases – Real Reason identified two prominent
cultural models of sexuality influencing the debate:  

1)
sexuality as an undesirable, contaminating substance, and

2)
sexuality as EXTERNAL FORCE, specifically, an OPPONENT.   

In the first, sexuality is
something you suddenly and unfortunately "come into contact" with,
not something that has always been a natural part of who you are. It’s
seen through the lenses of pure and impure, good and bad: think "dirty"
jokes, "filthy" language, "polluted" young minds, and even the
virgin/whore dichotomy. 

As for the second pairing,
think of all of those stereotypes of lust-driven adolescents, the victims
of their raging hormones. In this frame, sexuality is a threat to our
self-control that needs to be reined in; there’s always the risk of
being "overcome" by desire or "giving in" to temptation. 

These models not only operate
in our opponents’ materials, but in ours as well. Sometimes we evoke
them in a defensive manner. Other times we adopt them uncritically –
for example, when we use the term "abstinence" to show that we too
think teens should wait to have sex. Because of its connection to the
EXTERNAL FORCE model of sexuality, we do ourselves and the young people
we care about no favors by using the term abstinence. 

While we believe that it’s
important to talk about how, why and when to decide not
to have sex, using the term "abstinence" concedes too much. It invokes
a belief system that casts sex as fundamentally negative (along with
the other harmful things from which one commonly abstains, like drugs,
excessive alcohol, and overeating). It implies that refraining from
sex is about danger, not giving in, and teeth-gritting, painful self-denial.  

Instead of saying, "Abstinence
is a healthy choice for young people," a more productive way of getting
our message across might be to use the phrase "waiting to have sex
is…" Instead of saying, "Abstaining from sex is the only 100
percent effective method," we could say, "Deciding not to have sex
is…" By rephrasing these sentences, we not only refuse to frame
the debate in our opponents’ terms, we also begin to recognize teenagers
as thoughtful and capable decision makers, laying the groundwork for
them to make healthy choices.  

Turning our messaging around
may be challenging. Still, the tide is with us: parents support comprehensive
sex education and research shows that it’s effective. So stay tuned. 
In the coming months, we will continue working with Real Reason to more
fully develop our vision of sexuality education and to bring forward
an alternate cultural model that we hope will help secure the world
we want — not one where sex is a dirty substance or an aggressive outside
force, but one in which we accept sex and sexuality as part of life,
something that makes us human, and allows us to experience deep connections
with other people. Our ultimate goal is to link this vision with policies
that support and enhance human sexuality and human relationships.