Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey




login / register  arrows

The Answer Blog

Lessons Learned From Ten Years of TISHE

September 12, 2011

The training staff at Answer recently returned from co-hosting our annual Training Institute in Sexual Health Education (TISHE), where we spent a week training 33 professionals from across the country to be better sexuality educators. One would imagine that participants might be wary when they arrive at a remote setting to learn about sexuality education for six days and five nights with a group of strangers. But every year we have had the pleasure of working with passionate, smart and creative participants, who work in small towns, large urban centers and rural America to help young people make healthy and responsible decisions. Generally, these professionals are working with minimal budgets to try and meet the overwhelming and urgent needs of their students. These educators pour themselves into their jobs, recognizing the critical importance of sexuality education.

TISHE 2011

As a sexuality educator who has been working in the field for close to 20 years, I am always looking for new learning opportunities and have been grateful that TISHE continues to provide that for me every summer. Here are some of the valuable lessons I’ve learned from TISHE participants over the past 10 years:

Ignorance is not protection.
TISHE participants have come from states with no health (or sexuality) education requirement, school districts with no formal sex ed curriculum and supervisors who tell staff to just “keep it under the radar.” At the same time, teachers struggle with pregnant middle schoolers, sexting scandals and students who are exploited by much older partners. Yet, teachers are not even allowed to say words like “abortion,” “sexual orientation” or “masturbation.” How can students learn when adults are actively trying to keep young people—and even each other— in the dark?

Money talks.
We’ve all heard this saying—but when it comes to funding for professional development, money isn’t speaking loudly enough. Those of us who do this work every day know the importance of staff development, but the funding, staff and time rarely align with what research and experience show is truly needed. We have had people take vacation time to attend TISHE or pay for TISHE out of pocket because their school or agency wouldn’t cover the cost. Others have been expected to perform their job duties while at TISHE, even though we schedule daily sessions from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. This cannot continue. Both schools and organizations have to allocate sufficient funds and time for ongoing professional development for their staff.

Adults, not teens, are often the problem.
We constantly tell teens that they have to behave in certain ways in order to be healthy and happy, and even if they are willing to take the steps necessary to do so, it’s the adults who get in the way. It is so clear that young people want to learn about sexuality and adults want them to make healthy decisions. Yet how many adults deny young people the life-saving information and skills they need to do so? In some cases, this adult may be a teacher who is overly censored by a conservative political climate; in other cases, it is the power of one vocal parent that causes an entire sex ed program to be canceled. Yet far too many adults keep blaming teens when they don’t make the “right choices.”

TISHE has taught me that we as adults must recognize our role in that failure. This is why a key component of TISHE is building safety and comfort for the participants in order for them to receive peer feedback on ways they can be more effective with the young people with whom they work. If we are going to work with young people, we need to do the necessary work on ourselves to be able to do so comfortably, accurately and effectively.

We have a lot of work ahead of us if we hope to help young people become and stay sexually healthy. Over 350 TISHE participants and 10 years later, some of the same challenges to supporting young people remain, while new challenges have emerged. Yet over the past decade, one thing remains constant: we can always do better. In the coming years, TISHE will be here making sure youth-serving professionals are doing their best to educate young people about sexuality.

For ten years, the Training Institute for Sexual Health Education (TISHE) has been providing a transformative educational experience for school teachers, community educators, counselors, social workers, policy advocates and state department of education staff. Co-sponsored with the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) and led by some of the most experienced trainers in the country, TISHE is a week-long, residential training institute that focuses on helping youth-serving professionals be more effective at working with adolescents. Based on the ICHE (Institute of Community Health Education) model founded in the Pacific Northwest, TISHE has evolved to serve the needs of school- and community-based educators who are all working to improve the sexual health of our nation’s youth. Although TISHE is held in August, it is usually full with a wait list by the previous March.

Learn more about TISHE.

Add This
Email

No Co-Pays for Women’s Health Care: Better But Not Perfect

August 9, 2011

Birth controlIn a groundbreaking move, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that, as part of the Affordable Care Act, it would for the first time ever require new health insurance plans to include coverage for the costs of a wide range of preventive health services for women without co-pays. At Answer, we were particularly delighted to see sexually transmitted disease (STD) counseling, HIV counseling and testing, and FDA-approved contraceptive methods included on the list of preventive services. Finally, an administration that has elevated the health needs of women and their families to where it needs to be!

I truly do believe this decision is unprecedented. At the same time, however, having worked in the nonprofit sector for nearly 25 years, my social justice autopilot is permanently set on “who’s missing?” So when I read the announcement, the first question that came to my mind was, “What about all the people who do not have health insurance?”

In 2010, 39 percent of people ages 64 and younger had no health insurance, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This is the highest rate since 1997. That translates to roughly 48 million people. Hispanic and African-American individuals were, as always, disproportionately represented among those who did not have insurance. And when the CDC says “uninsured,” that means no private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, state-sponsored or other government-sponsored health plan or military plan. Unfortunately, none of these people would benefit from the Affordable Care Act’s provision.

Historically, uninsured individuals could go to their local family planning organization for their health care needs, but not any more. Not when more and more state governments continue to irresponsibly eviscerate the funding budgets for those organizations, many of which are the only places women and men go to for their health needs. This remains one of the biggest oversights and tragedies of the conservative agenda to eliminate family planning services. In doing so, they are often eliminating the only health care some people will ever have access to or receive. And the fewer preventive services that are available, the higher the cost down the line for treatment and care for the illnesses that can result—for women AND men. See, according to the HHS announcement, “Women are more likely to need preventive health care services.” But according to the CDC, boys and men are more likely than girls and women to be uninsured. This issue affects everyone, regardless of gender or age.

So as we celebrate this bold move—and truly, we must—we cannot rest on our laurels for very long. We must remember that well-woman visits are invaluable for early detection, diagnosis and treatment of illnesses for which the uninsured remain disproportionately at risk simply because they do not have access to these services. We must remember that at the same time that well-woman visits are imperative, so too are preventive and well-care services for boys and men. And in the same breath with which we celebrate victories like this, we need to remember those who are habitually forgotten and neglected, and whose lives can be made or broken based on politics and reckless cuts to invaluable programs and services.

Add This
Email

Beyond a Public Health Model of Sexuality Education

August 3, 2011

In her recent blog for RH Reality Check, “A Collision of Culture and Nature: How Our Fear of Teen Sexuality Leaves Teens More Vulnerable,” former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders states, “Efforts in the United States…to address adolescent sex have been directed toward preventing teenage sex as opposed to understanding helping teens prevent adverse consequences of sexual activity.” She makes an impassioned argument for comprehensive sexuality education K-12, and I could not agree more.

Lois teaches sex ed
Family Guy

At the same time, however, Dr. Elders’ piece reinforces how much the field of sexuality education remains stagnated in an almost exclusively public health model that depersonalizes the learners we are trying to serve. We focus on reducing teen pregnancies and births, lowering STD rates and learning how to use various safer sex and contraceptive methods accurately and effectively, which are invaluable components to effective sexuality education and to helping young people grow into healthy, complete adults.

Yet these goals are nowhere near enough. We need to do a much better job of explaining to the general public what sexuality education K-12 really means, and this means not couching our goals and objectives exclusively in reducing pregnancy and STDs. Failure to communicate what sexuality education K-12 really means is a significant reason why our efforts to provide age-appropriate sexuality education in younger grades does not resonate with more adult professionals and parents. Adults tell us, “If the overall goal is preventing something that happens as a result of sexual behaviors, that means you are going to teach my kindergartener about sexual intercourse.” Opponents to the work we do have exploited that unfounded fear very effectively—and unnecessarily.

The world needs to understand that just like any other topic area, sexuality education must start early with very basic information that supports the creation of an overall healthy person. The world needs to understand the myriad topics that, on face value, seem to have nothing to do with sexuality, but are imperative in order to become a sexually health adult. For example, when we teach a kindergartener how to be a good friend or about boundaries of any kind, we are establishing the foundation that later will help them to be a good partner. When we tell a child, “hands are not for hitting,” we are setting the stage for our later lessons on healthy versus abusive relationships. When we teach them to negotiate with each other rather than just grabbing a toy from another student or running away from a frustrating situation in tears, we are helping them learn to communicate. When we teach young children how to take care of their bodies and to wash their hands to avoid infections, we have laid the cornerstone for later lessons on puberty, sexually transmitted diseases and more.

We seem to understand this in every other topic area—except for human sexuality. Consider math, for example. Young people tend to learn algebra in the 9th or 10th grade, because that’s the age at which their brains can understand algebra. Yet we do not begin teaching math in the 9th or 10th grade, because we know that students need the foundational knowledge of addition, subtraction, multiplication and so on before they can understand and apply the knowledge they received during algebra class. Why on earth should a life-enhancing, lifesaving topic like human sexuality be any different? And yet it is. In many schools nationwide, if sex ed is taught, it begins in high school and makes assumptions that by osmosis young people enter high school with the foundational knowledge and skills they need, but rarely have.

Sexuality education must start earlier, and it must be framed much more effectively as part of creating an overall healthy person—only one component of which is determining whether and when to become sexually active, and how to protect themselves and their partners from infection and/or pregnancy.

Add This
Email

Abstinence Only Until Marriage? Basta Cosi…

July 28, 2011

Back in 2008 when Bristol Palin “lost her abstinence,” her mom Sarah was a staunch supporter of abstinence-only-until-marriage “education.” So when unmarried Bristol turned up pregnant, her mother did a very effective job of denying the reality that not only do abstinence-only-until-marriage programs not work, but they also are, as Bristol herself said, “unrealistic.” Now, Palin’s son Track has a wife of two months, who is visibly pregnant, which means that she became pregnant before the wedding. (Clutch the pearls!) Yet Grandma Palin remains strongly opposed to comprehensive sexuality education. And she is not alone in her denial, her resistance or her hypocrisy.

Palin's views on sexuality education

I don’t know what is more troublesome: the idea that social conservatives continue to push for the propagation and funding of these programs that have absolutely no research demonstrating any long-term effectiveness; the fact that the federal government continues to squander hundreds of millions of dollars on these programs (over $1 billion to date); or the “holier-than-thou” attitude that empowers conservative politicians to publicly and unapologetically tell the country how we should live our lives (until they or a member of their family contradict the party line and suddenly, conveniently, the entire issue becomes “a matter of privacy”). It makes me think of a young child being told by her parent, “Do as I say, not as I do.” That doesn’t fly with young people about anything, especially something as significant to them as sex and sexuality. And by withholding life-enhancing, sometimes lifesaving, information from young people, we are setting them up for unhealthy interactions with unpredictable outcomes.

What if we were to acknowledge the reality that some people choose to wait to have sex until they are married, and some do not? Seems pretty simple, doesn’t it? But it isn’t, because in acknowledging that, we would need to acknowledge some concepts that alternately terrify or are irrelevant to social conservatives. For example, we’d need to acknowledge that not everyone who is in a sexual relationship is heterosexual and therefore “until marriage” is an exclusionary time frame. We would need to acknowledge that young people can and do make decisions for themselves, including decisions about sexuality. We would need to acknowledge that, as parents, one of our most important jobs is to talk with our children about sexuality from the very youngest ages and keep talking about it with them through their lives—and that means talking about much more than telling our kids to “just say no.” And we would need to acknowledge that, since far too many parents feel uncomfortable with or unprepared to discuss sexuality, they need the support of educational professionals to teach comprehensive sexuality education at school. That means teaching not only about abstinence, but also about contraception, safer sex and much more.

Enough excuses. Enough faux moralism. As my late grandmother would say, “Basta cosi.” Enough is enough.

Add This
Email

Summer’s Eve “Hail to the V” Ad Campaign: It Stinks

July 22, 2011

Last Sunday, I took my almost-9-year-old to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. As the pre-movie advertisements and coming attractions began, we saw one clip that really caught my eye, and that I assumed was a preview for another movie.

The voice-over began with a woman’s deep, British-accented voice:

“It’s the cradle of life,” she told us, as we watched a woman from prehistoric times lift her newborn up to the night sky. “It’s the center of civilization,” the voice continued, as an ancient Egyptian queen looked out over and greeted her people, who cheered passionately for her. “Over the ages and throughout the world, men have fought for it,” the voice said, as two Samurai swordsmen fought and a woman walked by sultrily. We then saw a jousting tournament from Arthurian legend. “Battled for it,” the voice asserted. “And died for it,” she explained. “One might say,” the voice posited, “it’s the most powerful thing on Earth.”

You’ll see that the “it” she is referring to is… the vagina. And in that moment, an entire theater full of children were given a handful of ridiculously sexist (women only have power because they have a vagina), inaccurate (the only reason a girl or woman would care about her vagina is because men want to fight over it) and age-inappropriate information. Judging from the reactions of the adults in the room, most of whom were laughing and responding to the children’s chorus of “What did that mean?” with “You wouldn’t understand” or “Nothing,” this was far from a teachable moment we sexuality educators usually hope for.

Now, I do have a sense of humor, and were there not a lot of children in the room, I’d probably have found it pretty clever, too. So I decided to give Summer’s Eve the benefit of the doubt and went to their Web site, where they purport to be all about the vagina. Voila, the root of the problem: This company tries to make it look like they care about women and female empowerment, when in reality, they are still simply a company that only cares about selling its products. Their “Vaglossary” includes terms that have nothing to do with vaginal care or health, as well as incorrect information. The site is heterosexist, as seen in the ad and most of the other Vaglossary definitions (such as a “spotter” who is “a guy who knows how to stimulate the G-Spot.”) The site is racist, as demonstrated by the abhorrent videos demonstrating how an African-American vagina would speak, as opposed to a Caucasian or Latina vagina. And for all their attempts at progressive attitudes and language, they don’t seem to want to use the word “orgasm,” it appears simply as ******. These are only a few examples of the problematic content on the site.

But above all, if Summer’s Eve is all about the power of the vagina, why do they continue to market products to girls and women that are unnecessary? How can they perpetuate the lie that having a vagina makes women powerful, while simultaneously giving the message that their powerful vaginas are dirty?

At Answer, we have to spend an enormous amount of time reassuring young people that they are normal-and that their bodies are healthy and beautiful just the way they are. We spend a lot of time correcting misinformation about sexuality, like the myth that douching after unprotected vaginal intercourse will help prevent pregnancy and/or disease, which is just not true. Unless prescribed by a health professional, douching is not needed. The vagina has its own cleaning system built in, and douching can actually upset the natural balance in the vagina, increasing a girl’s or woman’s risk for developing an infection.

With this ad campaign, Summer’s Eve has spent millions of dollars supporting a culture of misinformation and poor body image for countless girls and women. And if you ask me, that really stinks.

Add This
Email

How Do We Solve a Problem Like the P-Word? Should School-Based Sex Education Address Pleasure?

July 20, 2011

No, not that p-word. These days, that one is-forgive me-no big thing. The p-word to which I am referring is “pleasure.” And, its role in school-based sexuality education is among the hottest topics being debated among sexuality educators today.

For some who read this, the idea of including pleasure within sexuality education is a no-brainer. For others, it is the forbidden subject-the Voldemort of sex ed that should not be named under any circumstance. But is the inclusion of pleasure necessarily an “all or nothing” issue?

Those who advocate proactively teaching about pleasure will ask, “How can one teach about sexuality and not acknowledge the pleasurable aspects?” After all, sexuality education is about providing medically-accurate information, and the medically-accurate fact is that sexual behaviors can (and should) produce pleasure. But we also know that far too many people’s introduction to sexual behaviors is negative. If one’s baseline experience is coercive, assaultive or negative in other ways, the expectations for future sexual relationships will reflect that baseline. Including pleasure in teaching sex ed can provide a more positive baseline and help to correct misinformation learned through negative life experience.

Unfortunately, sexuality education has always focused on the prevention of, rather than the promotion of, something-STD and HIV prevention, pregnancy prevention and so on. This, along with the decades of failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, has hammered into young people’s heads that “shared sexual behaviors only result in bad things, and therefore sex is bad.” It is confusing for a young person to receive a barrage of negative messages about sex accompanied by the reassurance that, miraculously, when one is in an adult, long-term, committed relationship sex will morph into something positive.

The age-old concern has been that if young people know that sexual behaviors are pleasurable, they will want to engage in those behaviors. But guess what? Most young people already know that sex is pleasurable, whether shared sexual behaviors or masturbation. Failure to acknowledge that sexual behaviors can produce pleasure can significantly reduce our validity with young people, which in turn can reduce the effectiveness of our work with them. In addition, research has shown that the more young people know about sex and sexuality, the more likely they are to wait to be in a sexual relationship until they feel ready, and to practice safer sex with their partner. Further, health behavior theories reinforce that people engage in particular behaviors for a reason. Without addressing the benefits a person gets from engaging in particular behaviors, sexual or otherwise-including unhealthy behaviors-it will be impossible to support healthy practices relating to those behaviors.

Having read that, it would appear that I am pushing for including pleasure in the school curriculum-but I actually am not; or, at least, not necessarily. What I am advocating for is that we think about the rationale behind what we propose teaching at particular age levels. I am also advocating for us all to acknowledge the reality in which schools operate today and realize that this often does not match the ideal for which we strive. And while it is only by pushing the proverbial envelope that we can make social progress and change, if we press that ideal without acknowledging reality, we are only setting ourselves-and the young people we serve-up to fail.

The latest School Health Policies and Programs Study is a good example of this. This data showed that, on average, the amount of time devoted to sex ed in high school is 8.1 hours per year. How likely is it, therefore, that the concept of pleasure, beyond acknowledging that people do sexual things because they feel good, will be a part of any school curriculum?

Ideally, schools should both offer sex ed classes and integrate healthy sexuality messages throughout the entire school curriculum. Ideally, sexuality education should be about physical, emotional and psychological health promotion, rather than about the prevention of pregnancy and disease alone. But if all the time we have to teach young people is 8.1 hours, is pleasure among the most important topics to include? In a culture that is conflicted about adult sexuality and that would prefer to ignore (or that blatantly fears) young people’s sexuality, is it realistic to think that most parents would get behind a curriculum that taught about sexual pleasure? I imagine that some would say yes, some no and some remain in between. Thus, the debate continues.

For those of us who call ourselves “sexuality educators” and who address sexuality-related issues every day, we understand how vitally important it is for this topic to be addressed with young people at the earliest ages and throughout the lifespan. But we also have to remember that the vast majority of professionals teaching sex ed in schools do not self-identify as “sexuality educators.” They are health teachers, school nurses, school social workers, counselors and others who have been charged with teaching about sexuality. Their school and community climates vary across a wide spectrum of politics and levels of support. Their personal comfort varies across a wide spectrum as well. In some school districts, where teaching about reproduction is considered controversial, proposing that sex ed include pleasure could make the difference between whether the program continues or is cut.

We must pick our battles wisely. And any efforts to support curricular change and improvement in school-based sex ed must acknowledge the reality of that school community, and recognize whatever efforts they have made as potential building blocks for future progress.

Add This
Email

Mary Ware Dennett: Radical Sex Educator?

April 14, 2011

MWD

Who was Mary Ware Dennett, and why does Lynn Lederer, Ph.D., director of professional and community programs at Middlesex County College, call her “a radical sex educator”?

Late last month, while we were still technically celebrating Women’s History Month, Dr. Lederer defended the dissertation she wrote for a doctoral degree in the social and philosophical foundations of education at Rutgers University. Its title: “The Dynamic Side of Life: The Emergence of Mary Coffin Ware Dennett as a Radical Sex Educator.”

I interviewed Dr. Lederer about Dennett, and it convinced me that Dennett deserves more recognition for her contributions to the sex education field. Her beliefs were certainly radical for her time and worthy of the word today.

Mary Ware Dennett (April 4, 1872–July 25, 1947) was raised in Boston and lived most of her life in New York City. Her ancestors included numerous social reformers, and Dennett learned the importance of social equality from them. One of her relatives was Lucretia Coffin Mott, an American Quaker abolitionist, social reformer, and proponent of women’s suffrage.

As a young adult, Dennett became involved in the “arts and crafts movement.” The movement had an anti-modern sentiment, concerned with the economic inequalities that industrialization exaggerated. It advocated “a return to the land” and the simpler things of life. Dennett’s accomplishments included founding the design school at Drexel University in Philadelphia and becoming a founder of the American Civil Liberties Union. According to Dr. Lederer, she was “principled and pragmatic and didn’t care whose feathers she ruffled,” as she became an advocate for sex education, birth control, women’s suffrage, and other causes.

Personal events, family history, and the social and political context of the early twentieth century fostered Dennett’s interest in birth control and sex education. Married to Hartley Dennett, an architect, she suffered “three horrible pregnancies, one of which resulted in the death of the baby.”

Her doctor ordered her not to have any more children, yet he prescribed no method of prevention other than abstinence. Eventually, Dennett divorced her husband, who was having a romantic relationship right under her nose. In the early twentieth century, seeking a divorce was itself somewhat of “a scandal” and required a courageous spirit. Dennett became a single mother, raising two young sons in New York, where she worked for the National American Women’s Suffrage Association (NAWSA).

Questions about sex from her 14-year-old son, Carleton, away at a small New England boarding school, started Dennett down the sex education road. She did not shy away from the questions and began to seek age-appropriate materials for him and her younger, 10-year-old son, Devon. She found most of the materials unsatisfactory and lacking in candor: They did not mention or describe the sex act itself.

Since Dennett believed that “sex is the very greatest physical and emotional pleasure there is in the world,” she confidently undertook the challenge of answering her son’s questions using her own research and discussions with doctors.

The result of her dedication to “truth-telling” was a 16-page manual that she wrote in 1915, The Sex Side of Life, an Explanation for Young People. It covered many topics forthrightly, including the “physiological, scientific, moral, and emotional aspects of sexuality.” Dennett used anatomically accurate words for male and female body parts and included pictures with the parts clearly labeled. She described the actual sex act and encouraged her sons to understand that sex should be for pleasure as well as reproduction. This was radical indeed when placed beside views of the Victorian era, which influenced sexual behavior when Dennett was growing up.

Dennett told her sons that she believed sex was part of a “special relationship” and counseled “against sex without love.” (Critics today might complain that Dennett’s manual did not mention gay and lesbian relationships.) To her credit, she discussed masturbation, although she hinted that her sons should not “do it too much.”

Ironically, given her own personal experience using abstinence as the only form of birth control, there is no mention at all of methods, which must have existed, crude as they might have been. Venereal diseases get only a brief mention.

What makes this manual truly radical is not only the scope of its information for young people, but also its tone. There is hardly a hint of adult or parental control or repression about young people’s sexuality and no emphasis on fear or shame as ways to control behavior. Rather, Dennett emphasizes a humanist, civil libertarian approach that engenders respect for young people’s rights to all the information they need to make a personal decision about sexuality, whether good or bad.

Although some might think these next lines from the manual quaint—even naïve, in today’s sexually saturated culture—they convey its spirit and tone. Dennett wrote to her sons: “When boys and girls get into their ‘teens,’ a side of them begins to wake up which has been asleep, or only partly developed ever since they were born, that is the sex side of them. It is the most wonderful and interesting part of growing up. This waking up is partly of the mind, partly of the body, and partly of the feelings or emotions.”

But her sons, their friends, other parents, and the medical profession itself did not find Dennett’s information and counsel quaint. Her manual created quite a buzz and was copied and passed along from family to family, colleague to colleague, and clergy to clergy. After it was published in its entirety—and received a glowing introduction in the highly regarded The Medical Review of Reviews in 1918—thousands of copies were distributed and sold (at $.25 a copy) to institutions and individuals worldwide. This demand revealed the intense need at the time for honest, medically accurate information about sexuality for young people.

But when sex education is involved, controversy is often not far behind. In 1928, Dennett was arrested for distributing copies of The Sex Side of Life through the U.S. mail and charged with promoting “obscenity” under the repressive Comstock laws. Her arrest became a “cause célèbre.” (The New York Times covered her trial.)

Dennett fought the charges, saying, “Talking about sex is not obscene.” She argued against the prevailing wisdom that talking about sex with young people encourages them to engage in it—an argument some still make today when arguing against comprehensive sex education. Rather, she maintained that sex education “empowers” young people, and every person “must have access to all the knowledge that is available to them” to make their own decisions.

Lederer’s dissertation details that a jury of 12 white men heard the case “and Mrs. Dennett was quickly convicted and fined $300, with a possible jail sentence of one year.” Dennett refused to pay the fine, explaining: “If I have corrupted the youth of America, a year in jail is not enough for me, and I will not pay the fine!” On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals set aside the conviction, finding that The Sex Side of Life hardly measured up to the definition of obscenity in the repressive statute.

There is no record that Mary Ware Dennett ever became more involved in sex education after scoring a victory for her manual. However, she was involved in the birth control movement, where she and the far more famous Margaret Sanger chose different paths in their attempts to gain access for women to these lifesaving devices.

Sanger convinced legislators to introduce “The Doctors-Only Bill,” to permit women to obtain birth control devices only from a member of the medical profession. Dennett—believing that women should be free to get birth control devices from multiple sources and that there should not be “a medical monopoly of knowledge and information”— searched for backers of the more liberal, far-seeing legislation known as the “Clean Bill.” Of the two women, Dennett’s approach was far more radical than Sanger’s, although it was the latter’s political effort that prevailed.

I asked Dr. Lederer what Dennett might think of the progress we’ve made to date with sex education in the U.S.

“The issues Dennett fought for 100 years ago are still being fought today, a century later. She would be saddened that we still have not attained her goal that every person has the right to knowledge and information about sexuality,” she said.

For Dr. Lederer, Dennett’s “unequivocal conviction that all members of a truly democratic society have the right to know is still radical today because [it implies that] with knowledge, ordinary people have the ability and the responsibility to chart their own course in life without control from those at the top of the social hierarchy.”

“Dennett was a true humanist, trusting in the ability of ordinary people,” Dr. Lederer added.

Surely, radical Mary Ware Dennett deserves a prominent place in the pantheon of sex education heroines and in women’s history.

Add This
Email

Sexting Teens and the New Jersey Legislature

April 1, 2011
texting032811_opt

I get nervous when state legislators or Congress members get involved in the specifics of sex education, particularly in mandating its content. My nervousness stems from the various struggles over sex ed I’ve had with New Jersey legislators over the years as a New Jersey State Board of Education member and executive coordinator (now senior advisor) of Answer. I’ve won and lost battles, and I know that adolescents’ needs are often sacrificed to the political process, which can be about survival and ideology—not education and health.

After I failed to convince a state senator to vote against a sex ed bill that required teachers to “stress abstinence” but withheld equal instruction about contraception, he told me, “I’m not going to sacrifice my career for this issue.” He knew perfectly well that young people need balanced, complete sex education, but he wouldn’t vote for their interests in case his constituents wouldn’t return him to office.

I’ve tried to persuade politicians to be more open-minded and been struck by the fact that many base their decisions about sex ed on fear and what they learned (or didn’t learn) during their own past sex ed classes. They don’t base their decisions on what teens need to know to be safe today.

So I got concerned when I read this recent Times of Trenton headline: “Assembly OKs bill 78-0 to let sexting teens avoid prosecution.” Sexting is the slang term for using a cell phone or similar device to distribute sexually explicit pictures or video. It also refers to sexually explicit text messages.

It is a punishable offence in the United States for teens or adults to send sexually explicit pictures of children or teens under 18 through electronic devices. Teens who send sexually explicit photographs of themselves, or other teens via cell phone can be charged with distribution of child pornography. Twenty percent of teens acknowledge sharing explicit photos, and 44% of high school boys say they’ve viewed a nude or semi-nude photo on a cell phone during school.

I was relieved when I read that N.J. Assembly members showed leniency to teens caught sexting and sending or receiving explicit [nude or semi-nude] photos on a computer or cell phone to other teens. The Assembly passed a law offering teens an educational program as an alternative to prosecution, serving time, and possibly having to register as sex offenders. Instead, first-time sexting offenders would be required to write an essay or attend “a responsibility management course” as part of the educational program.

Assemblywoman Pamela Lampitt (D. Camden), a sponsor of the bill, said that “juveniles do stupid things, and with the click of a switch, they could send [a sexually explicit picture] to somebody, and that particular picture could be sent off to many other people with an additional click.”

Lampitt’s comment plays into the stereotype that all teens do stupid things, but at least she’s more understanding and protective of them than the politicians who’d rather they face child pornography charges. She added that the law assures teens that the educational program penalty won’t be on their record when they apply to college or a job.

This moderate approach received praise. Bill Albert, chief program officer of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy, said that New Jersey should be congratulated, because “helping young people understand the possible consequences of their actions is better than providing them with a record.”

While the proposed law shows empathy for teens, I don’t think it goes far enough, because educators’ roles are not mentioned at all. Perhaps senators, who will next consider the bill, need to seek information about what is actually taught about sexting in New Jersey’s middle- and high-school sex education courses and correct any omissions.

One New Jersey sex educator told me that sexting is not specifically mentioned in the 2009 version of the Core Curriculum Standards, which guides the development of sex and family life education programs for all districts. She thinks a savvy teacher could find a rationale for teaching about it within the relationship strand, but that little is done to ensure that a topic like sexting is actually covered in classrooms anyway.

If the Senate passes this bill and Governor Christie signs it, then students will be penalized for sexting when they’ve been ignorant of its consequences since they haven’t learned about it in sex ed class. This doesn’t seem fair to me.

The bill passed by the Assembly needs additional language requiring that the department of education amend the Core Curriculum Standards to specifically say that sexting should be taught and that money should be allotted to train teachers about this and other aspects of technology that are such a part of teens’ lives.

Perhaps more students should be involved with adults in the development of sex education content, too. I recently read a couple of articles about sexting in Sex, Etc., our magazine and website written by teens for teens. The teen writers understood that sexting had legal pitfalls, but they saw texting in general as a generational step forward from their parents’ telephonic era. Properly used, they say, the new technology brings accurate information to them in a second, and it does not involve a difficult or embarrassing talk with a parent or waiting until next year, when the only sex education course is offered in school. I can’t argue against this point.

One teen writer made a point that I’d never considered: talking about sexual desires over a computer or phone eliminates the risks of contracting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) or becoming pregnant. (The writer understood it was not responsible to send nude or semi-nude photographs.) These articles made me realize that a debate about the pros and cons of sexting would lead to a valuable classroom discussion.

If legislators let educators and teens focus on preventing sexting, then perhaps teens will make smarter decisions, and we won’t have new laws to implement.

Education, after all, is an alliance between students, parents, educators, and policymakers. Teens are not always wrong. Teachers and legislators need to meet them more than halfway and offer as much assistance as possible—not just punishment.

Let a deeper discussion about sexting begin.

Add This
Email

A Brutal Crime Against an 11-Year-Old Girl in Texas

March 18, 2011

TEXAS-1-popup

An 11-year-old girl was brutally raped in November 2010 in Cleveland, Texas, a small community of 9,000 that lies about 50 miles northeast of Houston. There, according the New York Times article “Vicious Assault Shakes Texas Town,” the girl was gang raped by 18 young men and teenage boys, all of whom have been charged with the crime.

The suspects range in age from middle school students to a 27-year-old. Five are Cleveland High School students, including two basketball players. Another is the son of a school board member. A few men have criminal backgrounds. (The attack occurred around Thanksgiving, but the story didn’t appear in the Times until March 8.)

It is hard for me to write about this rape, because I have a granddaughter who is almost 10 years old. The girl, who survived the rape, attended Cleveland Middle School. School authorities interviewed her and her mother, and when it was determined that the gang rape had occurred, they turned the matter over to the police, because the attack hadn’t occurred “on school property.”

Some town residents’ reactions, as reported in the Times story, are shockingly unsympathetic. Although one resident said that the rape was “really tearing our community apart,” others blamed the victim, because she “dressed older than her age, [wore] makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s, and [hung] out with teenage boys at the playground.”

One of the few residents willing to speak on the record went so far as to say, “Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?”

In a letter to the Times, reader Jinnie Spiegler, of Brooklyn, NY, expressed some of my outrage about this last comment. She pointed to the residents’ willingness to “subtly blame the victim” and her mother, forgetting that the victim as well as the suspects “are innocent until proved guilty.”

An 11-year-old girl’s or any woman’s dress or behavior should never be an issue in rape and sexual assault cases. This approach falls into the “she asked for it” type of wrongheaded thinking.

The girl now lives in a foster home after having been removed from her home by Child Protective Services, according to The Houston Chronicle. I hope she is receiving the appropriate counseling and care that she needs. But I am deeply concerned that she will have to relive the brutality of her experience, if or when she has to face the accused who raped her in court, testify to their cruelty, and undergo cross-examination and possible humiliation from their lawyers, who’ll be eager to keep their clients out of jail.

What’s happening in northeastern Texas to address the aftermath of this brutal crime? Are schools administrators, teachers, and community leaders using the gang rape as the “teachable moment” that it surely is? Are other middle- and high-school students learning that rape and sexual assault are illegal, unacceptable behaviors? Are all teachers receiving training, so they can effectively discuss these issues? Are they explaining that even if a girl or woman wears what might be called age-inappropriate clothing and makeup that makes them look far older than they really are, that never means they are “asking” to be raped? I wish I were confident that the town is abuzz with this type of education.

Special attention needs to be directed to young and adult men in Cleveland. I’ve always favored sex education for boys and girls in both separate and mixed-gender groups. When boys and girls are alone, they often feel freer to ask questions that they might feel embarrassed to ask in a heterogeneous group, which is good. But it is essential to have both genders discuss issues like rape together, so they can understand each other’s points of view. If sex education is started early, in elementary school, boys and girls can address subjects like rape much more comfortably as they grow into adolescence and adulthood. Silence on this topic never helps.

Males need to know that if they rape and are found guilty of the crime that they forever will be listed as “sexual predators” and be required to check in with authorities in any town in which they live. This seems to me a punishment that fits the crime, along with jail time. I wonder if the teen and adult men who raped the little girl in Cleveland knew about or understood the lifelong consequences of their actions for themselves and the victim.

Schools need to discuss consequences of sexual actions much more comprehensively than many presently do. We need to ensure that discussions of real subjects like rape are included in sex education/health courses, starting in grade school.

As for the parents in Cleveland, Texas, and elsewhere for that matter, they too need a course on rape and sexual assault prevention. They need to know how to better protect their own kids and how to counsel them about how to avoid dangerous situations.

Mothers and fathers – and if there are no males in the home, then male relatives and friends – must talk to teens and young men about the horrors and illegalities of rape.

I also hope that the community addresses the matter of blaming the girl’s mother. I would ask, “Where were the mothers of the 18 young men charged with the crime? Where were all the fathers?”

Cleveland, Texas, isn’t the only place in America that needs a re-education in how to prevent rape and treat its survivors. Schools and communities all over the country need to talk more forthrightly with young people and adults about rape and sexual assault. The President and First Lady were masterful in calling the nation’s attention to the problem of bullying, with a conference at The White House and a video in which they spoke movingly about the seriousness of the problem. Now they need to consider using the brutal crime against this 11-year-old girl in Texas to call the nation’s attention to the epidemic of rape and other sexual violence against girls and women.

To the young girl in Texas who had to experience such degradation, my concern and deepest sympathy. I hope she will never be ashamed about being repeatedly raped by those men in that house and abandoned trailer filled with trash. I am not a therapist who might counsel her to “put this awful event behind you, and go on and live your life.” I can see the sense in this point of view. But, as an educator, a parent, and a grandparent, I hope that as she grows older – and after the physical and emotional pain have healed – she will find the courage to speak out about what happened.

If she finds the courage, she will be doing other young girls like my granddaughter a real service and perhaps lessening the incidence of rape in our country.

Image from The New York Times.

Add This
Email

Prize-winning Novel ‘Almost Perfect’ Puts You Inside the Life of a Transgender Teen

February 16, 2011

almost_perfect
The American Library Association’s John Newbery Medal is to young adult fiction what the Oscar is to the motion picture industry: the highest award the industry can bestow.

Clare Vanderpool’s Moon Over Manifest won this year’s Newbery award, and while reading about it, I found another prize-winning book for teens: Almost Perfect, by Brian Katcher. The book received the ALA’s 2011 Stonewall Children’s and Young Adult Literature Award, given to “English language books of exceptional merit relating to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender experience.”

Since I’d never read a book about a transgender teen, I decided to take the plunge. Almost Perfect is set in “the American heartland”: a small Missouri town. (The author lives and works as a school librarian in the state.) Its narrator, 18-year-old Logan Witherspoon, is a junior at the town’s only high school and lives in a trailer with his mom, a single parent who works as a waitress. Logan’s sister goes to the state university, and Logan’s mother hopes he will follow in her footsteps.

But Logan isn’t feeling good about anything, because he’s just broken up with his girlfriend, Brenda, and is sad and disillusioned about life. He is sure that Brenda was the only girl for him. While patiently trying to rationalize why she didn’t want to have sex with him, he learns that she cheated on him with another guy.

Into Logan’s vulnerability, confusion, and sadness strides Sage Hendricks, a new girl in town who, for reasons Logan can’t fathom, appeals to him. Her résumé is somewhat odd: She has been home schooled until high school and has an overly strict father who won’t let her date. (Her younger sister is allowed to date.)

Their friendship grows. But Logan wonders if he can confine it to just that when he feels attracted to Sage when he sees her in a bikini at the local pool. Sage also begins to push beyond the self-imposed boundary. Logan kisses Sage when they are together, and she returns it. Pulling apart, Sage says, “Logan … the reason I can’t date … the reason we can’t kiss … the reason I was home schooled, I … I’m a boy.”

While Logan recoils from this information, Sage explains that she wanted to be a girl ever since watching her mother dress her older sister in frilly pink dresses. Disgusted with himself for being attracted to Sage — and worrying that if anyone ever found out, he would be called “a fag” — Logan ends the relationship. But not before Sage tells him that she has taken hormones, brought in illegally from Mexico, to create her breasts, and that she can’t have the operation to complete the sex change, because it costs $30,000 and her father refuses to pay for it, since he’s furious about her decision to become a girl.

Logan beats himself up for abruptly leaving the relationship. Like magnets, they come together for a night of lovemaking in his sister’s dorm room at the university. As Logan remembers: “Sage. Me. Naked. Well, I was naked. Sage had never removed her shorts.

Things had started slowly. Touching. Kissing. More touching. Then … the sweat, the touch of her mouth, the prick of her nails, the noise of the bed as it scooted across the floor.”

Later, reminiscing, both agree that they had lost their virginity.

If anything, Almost Perfect gets more intense with Logan’s decision to break up with Sage again. We learn about his lies to his sister about the relationship and his pangs of remorse; the vicious beating Sage endures from a guy she hooked up with after the breakup; Sage’s father’s attack on Logan; and Sage’s decision to return to being a male, which Logan begs her not to do. We also learn of Sage’s threat to commit suicide, which she had tried once before.

Logan thinks he has learned a lesson and can resume the relationship: “Sage just wanted to be herself. To be something that half the people on the planet become when they’re born. She just wanted a little acceptance, a little understanding. And because she had the gall to look in a mirror and say, ‘I am a woman,’ she had been rejected by her father, denied a normal childhood, abandoned by a boy she thought cared for her and had her bones broken and her face smashed…”

Sage has had enough of Logan’s changes of heart and, sadly, although she cares for him, sends him away after he visits her in a psychiatric hospital. Sage does not commit suicide or return to her former gender — but the relationship ends, Logan graduates and goes off to the local university, and Sage to another out of state.

I had to keep reminding myself that Almost Perfect is a novel, not nonfiction. Yet in his acknowledgments, Katcher says that he used the online stories of many “real-life Sages” to form the core of his book.

Recently, I learned about the study “Injustice at Every Turn,” compiled by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which reports that over half of transgender teens try to commit suicide. Many of these teens undoubtedly face the same struggles as Sage.

A good first step toward improving relationships between transgender and non-transgender youth is for parents and educators to read and discuss a book like Almost Perfect with teens. Small steps like this one might reduce the loneliness that many transgender youth feel before they think of suicide as a way out of their misery.

I guess it would have been too much for the ALA to award the Newberry medal to Almost Perfect. That’s too bad, since school libraries would be more likely to purchase it, parents more likely to give it to their teens, and sex educators more likely to use it in their classes. (Of course, some school administrators and parents may have problems with a book that has a transgender heroine and a mildly explicit sex scene, even if it had won the Newbery award.)

Many might believe that Almost Perfect is only for gay, lesbian, bisexual, questioning, and transgendered teens. But it is a book for all teens. It also would help all of us know what it’s like to be a transgendered teen and feel his or her fear, pain, and desire for acceptance. There are many human lessons in Almost Perfect — lessons about dignity and acceptance, respect and understanding, fear and courage, empathy and compassion, and friendship and love.

Perhaps someday a book about a transgender teen may win the Newbery medal. In the meantime, there is Almost Perfect.

Add This
Email