Sloppy Seconds Sex Ed


Last week, the conservative circles of the internet were abuzz in disapproval over Elizabeth Smart’s recent criticism of abstinence-only sexual education. Speaking at a forum on human trafficking at Johns Hopkins University, Elizabeth said that the abstinence-only education she received left her feeling “so dirty” and “so filthy” after being repeatedly raped.

The reactions to this were infuriatingly predictable. Good people, people who have proven to be thoughtful and compassionate, immediately shut down in the face of any criticism of abstinence-only sex ed. Their responses to Elizabeth Smart were irrational, ignorant, and stunningly condescending. From accusing her of “casting blame” to snarkily suggesting that we teach “bestiality (oral, anal, etc…) as an alternative to those worthless, dirty, filthy feelings”, there was a mob-like mentality on display. People stubbornly defended her religious parents and reminded each other how she had held on through her captivity so she could get back to them, without bothering to explain what that had to do with the point she was making. People insisted that the shame and unworthiness she felt was solely the result of the abuse she suffered, and by making her emotional trauma about abstinence-only education she was doing a disservice to other forms of abuse. People claimed that she was using her platform irresponsibly, and should have thought through the impact her words would have on the abstinence-only sex ed movement.

What almost no one did was hear what she said. No one was horrified at what she had been taught in her abstinence-only sexual education. No one acknowledged that the direct, logical result of such an education is a sense of shame and unworthiness after having been “used.” No one showed even a hint of sympathy for how she had suffered, not only at the hands of her captors, but at the hands of a degrading philosophy of human sexuality. Such a callous indifference to human suffering is appalling. It shows that too many Christians, too many proponents of abstinence-only education, have put their concern for the welfare of a quasi-political movement above their concern for the welfare of a human being, of human dignity itself.

For some time, I have thought that the reason more people aren’t speaking out against this “purity culture” is that they are unaware of it. After last week, I’m not so sure. The mainstream message of abstinence-only education got press far and wide with Elizabeth Smart’s denunciation of it, yet I saw no shock, horror, or disgust.

Let me be clear about the particular type of abstinence-only education Elizabeth Smart is referring to. I’m not entirely convinced that there is another type, but just in case, this is the abstinence-only message that Elizabeth Smart received as an adolescent:

“Smart said she grew up in a Mormon family and was taught through abstinence-only education that a person whose virginity was lost before marriage was considered worthless. She spoke to the crowd about a school teacher who urged students against premarital sex and compared women who had sex before their wedding nights to chewing gum.

‘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’.”

(Read the rest here)

Perhaps there are some people out there who think this mindset is an abberration, who are not responding to this because they genuinely believe this is a rare exception to typical abstinence-only curricula.

It isn’t.

It is absolutely crucial that Catholics, Christians, and all proponents of abstinence-only education get their heads out of the sand on this. This is not some sort of freaky Mormon glitch in the abstinence-only train. This IS the abstinence-only train.

When I heard it, it was glasses of water. Women (and only women, mind you; the boys got a separate talk about cherishing each woman as if she were the prized treasure of another man) were like glasses of crystal-clear spring water. If you “fooled around” before marriage, it was like someone spit in your glass of water. If you had sex before marriage, it was like someone took a huge drink of your water, swished it around in their mouths, and then spat it back into the glass. The more sex you had, the dirtier your glass of water got. “So think of that before you have premarital sex,” we were admonished. “Think of the gift you’re going to give your husband on your wedding night. Do you want to give him a pure, untouched glass of delicious water, or a dirty cup of everyone else’s backwash?”

For one of my friends, it was an Oreo cookie that had been chewed up and spat back out. For another friend, it was a pair of custom-made shoes that had been stretched and warped from being worn by people they weren’t made to fit. Cups of spit. Plucked roses. It goes on and on. I’ve heard a million variations of it, but always the message is the same.

This does not teach anyone chastity or purity. “Abstinence-only” sex ed is a fundamentally flawed concept, beginning with its very name. It teaches children to negate an act, to deny a fundamental part of human nature until such a time as it’s permissible to indulge. It doesn’t teach children what sex is, what their sexuality means, how to understand it, or how to properly integrate it into a life of chastity both without and within a marriage. It doesn’t teach a boy that sex is primarily about the giving of himself, and that he can’t fully give himself to his wife unless he learns how to master himself first, how to wait, how to have patience, how to love her instead of using her as a vehicle for pleasure. Actually it teaches boys the exact opposite of that; that a woman is a trophy, a prize, that a good one (one worth keeping forever) will be untouched, but that there are plenty of dirty water-glasses walking around that have been ruined for any decent man anyway, and they might as well be used up since they’re not worth saving.

And what does abstinence-only sex ed teach girls? It doesn’t teach girls anything. It conditions girls into conforming with a sick, “religious-ized” chauvinism that masquerades as concern for moral purity but is really just plain old abhorrence of sloppy seconds. It says nothing to a girl about her inherent value as a human being, about her precious and vital role as life-giver, about her unique feminine genius that is inextricably linked to her sexuality. Like Pavlov’s dog, girls are told over and over in abstinence-only education that sex before marriage will make them dirty and worthless. The conditioning definitely works as intended on us pieces of chewed-up gum; our sexual relationships within marriage are usually fraught with psychological blocks, feelings of worthlessness, and fears of abandonment. It also does a number on girls who have been raped, like Elizabeth Smart. But here’s the thing: it totally screws up the “good” girls, too, the one who wait until their wedding night. You can’t tell a girl that having sex is like being a chewed and regurgitated Oreo and then expect her to be totally excited when it comes time for her husband to chew her up and spit her back out. You can’t teach a girl that her sexuality is a prize for a man, that the whole purpose of her existence as a sexual being is to be used by someone else at the “right” time and in the “right” way, and then wonder where these silly girls get their “objectification” martyr complexes.

It’s time to have a serious conversation about abstinence-only sex ed, and how it is not only failing but damaging our youth. It is screwing up our cultural understanding of human sexuality just as thoroughly as the hedonistic effects of the sexual revolution are. There very well may be some good abstinence-only sex ed courses out there, but they are certainly not the norm. We need to create a new way of teaching children about human sexuality, a way that emphasizes their essential dignity as rational, spiritual, and sexual human beings. We should strive to teach them to grow in virtue, to gain temperance, to master their passions, and to love for love of the other, not out of desire for pleasure, power, or possession. We should be teaching human sexuality as a series of positive moral developments that boys and girls must attain before sex can be truly enjoyed. We shouldn’t be teaching our kids to white-knuckle it through puberty and then glut themselves as soon as they say “I do.”

The question is not whether or not abstinence-only education is working. I’m not even sure what proponents of it mean by “working.” In the incarnation I’m familiar with, it certainly doesn’t seem intended to do much beyond shaming kids into not having sex using the crudest, most psychologically destructive means available. Research is pretty clear that it’s not even managing to accomplish that. The only thing abstinence-only education is accomplishing is entrenching misogynistic, licentious attitudes toward sex in a whole new generation of kids.

There is no excuse for Christians to close their eyes and pretend that abstinence-only sex ed is even a tolerable thing, much less a good thing. This dehumanizing approach to sexuality is not an acceptable alternative to the Planned Parenthood-driven over-sexualization of our kids. I will not settle for my kids learning anything less than the full theology of the body, and neither should you. You don’t need to defend abstinence-only sex ed from attacks by girls like Elizabeth Smart; you need to defend girls like Elizabeth Smart from the psychological effects of abstinence-only sex ed. It is not “education” in any sense of the word. It is shallow, sickening cultural conditioning, and we owe our kids enough to admit it. There are two whole generations of young adults who have been psychologically and emotionally damaged by the widespread and complacent acceptance of abstinence-only sex ed. Let’s not make it three.


*I am still getting used to our new comment system, which requires a great deal more moderation than I usually do. If you post a comment and it disappears, it got caught in my spam filter, and I will release it when I check in periodically. I don’t delete comments.


Christos Anesti!
Streams of milk or tears to offer
Charming Charlie and Her Bad Daddy
The Still Point of the Turning World
  • tedseeber

    Until you have experienced commitment and a love that is so deep that nine months later you have to give it a name; and then the 25-35 years after that it takes to turn that love into a real functioning citizen, you have not even fully experienced sex done right.

  • Felicia Dale

    “…not an acceptable alternative to the Planned Parenthood-driven over-sexualization of our kids.” What the hell is with this line??? Planned Parenthood is NOT to blame for the over-sexualization of children in the US or anywhere else for that matter! Planned Parenthood is a tremendous resource for people of all ages and sexes for science-based sex education, prevention of diseases (including cancer) and wide choices for all aspects of sexual health. PP gives people correct information so they can make rational, fact-based decisions about their health, sexual or otherwise. How in the world is this driving the over-sexualization of children?

  • missdk

    “Why wouldn’t you want to charish your own chasity and save it for your spouse?”

    Because sex is enjoyable and our spouses do not own our bodies or our life experiences. My husband nor myself were virgins when we met. We did not “wait” for each other because our lives are our own to live. We did not wait to have careers or buy a houses or invest or travel. So when we did meet, we chose each other with open eyes and full lives as the person we will love and join our lives forever with. My husband is not a vessel waiting for me to fill him. He is my partner.

  • Ed Hooper

    Brilliant piece!
    One of the most thoroughly thought out discussions on abstinence only sex ed I’ve ever read. I blame the entire education of sex ed by my mom, the church, and school on why I’m so messed up with my sexual information today. I’ve only been able, in my 40s, to understand just what it means to be a sexually human being and have spiritual grounding. I hope in my latter years I can help other young people (and people my age) to get a better understanding of just what being human sexual beings is all about.

  • Melissa

    I think you should have (or should write another post?) gone into more detail about the psychological effects on the “good” girls. Great article!!!

  • Tyson Wardleigh

    You religious people are beyond slow. It is really quite amusing you hold onto your desert dwelling belief system. No one gives a crap about your judgmental pedo religion. Get a clue you morons, and stop forcing your knuckle dragging ideals on the rest of SANE population.

  • N G

    two generations?? lol! It’s been a lot longer than that.

  • JohnDCockefeller

    The only problem with Elizabeth Smart is that she’s a Mormon. She is, otherwise, a perfectly fine human being.

  • Jane

    I’m so grateful for the pastors who spoke into my life personally, with strong, loving father voices and told me that all of me – including my body – was deeply valuable and that sex was something deeply beautiful meant as an expression of a fully committed relationship that would involve all of me.

    I’m sure I heard some of the illustrations given along the way. But I don’t really remember them. What I remember was what those men told me – that I was cherished and worth being cherished, no matter what. And that’s what’s given me the courage to embrace chastity through far too many years of singleness.

  • Anony-mouse

    Sex in the Church needs to be handled better. The teaching about it has become divisive, implicitly (or explicitly, in some cases) inoculating young Christians to believe that shameful, dirty, or taboo while everyone else tells them that it isn’t a big deal and thus idolizes the pursuit of pleasure. The question is, how did we get here?

    In an effort to become a counter culture to reverse the effects of licentiousness the Church became legalists, comprising a list of dos and don’ts of sex without addressing the underlying issue; the effect? Young Christians who are told their whole lives to “wait for marriage” and are disappointed and frustrated on their wedding night (if not completely terrified), and others who broke the Church’s cardinal rule (either voluntarily or involuntarily) and are now sentenced to a life of guilt, shame, and chastisement from their well-meaning, “purer” Christian friends.

    I want to say something provocative here: SEX IS NOT THE ISSUE. Sex is not the issue in sex education? That’s right. This issue is bigger, deeper, and far more insidious. The root of the Church’s problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Father, His love, and our identity in Him.

    Why do people have sex outside of marriage? The same underlying reasons why a mother misplaces her hope and love in her children, why a man climbs the corporate ladder at the expense of other things, or why a child pursues friendships that could be detrimental to his or her development as a person. If God is some cosmic-genie/belligerent father whose only job is to love you unconditionally, grant your requests, and/or bring the hammer down when you screw up, then my brother or sister, you’ve misunderstood who He is. And if you don’t know your Creator, you don’t know you either–not your purpose or the object of desire that your heart truly longs for.

    It seems rudimentary, but necessary to tell the story of the Gospel over and over again to Christians because once we have it, we tend to forget immediately that we are in need of His presence, love, and grace just as much as our unsaved counterparts. Sometimes more, because in our pursuit of righteousness, we idolize our own ability to “be good/holy/CHASTE,” thinking that it’s for our own benefit and that we can do it ourselves. Challenge: use your willpower not to sin for a day and get back to me on how disciplined you are in pursuing righteousness. It isn’t possible because we’re bent on our own destruction in an effort to prove that we don’t need God. None of us are exempt, we just manifest our pride, idolatry, and rebellion in different ways. For some it’s pride that comes from checking off a list of dos and don’ts; for some, it’s familial relationships that validate us as loved and accepted; and for some, it’s sex. But pursue any one of these intrinsically good things (because there isn’t anything wrong with keeping the Biblical law, family, or sex–all come from God and were declared “good” in the beginning) as your ultimate end and the result will end the same.

    Bottom line? Saving the “one-flesh” bond for marriage is a good thing, not because it gets you more Jesus points, or because you’ll have a better marriage, or your conscience will be clear, or because “Pastor told me to.” That’s shallow and self-serving (end result=good, motivation=wrong). Saving the one-flesh bond for marriage is good because it is a theological allegory of how we’re loved by Christ. Satisfying our desire for His love by any means, not limited to sex, is heartbreaking to the One who gave it all to be with us and remains faithful (fidelity!) to the end.

    What if the Church treated people as more than just their uncontrollable sex drives? What if (gasp) the Church treated the Beloved of Christ as embodied, fallen image-bearers and treated the issue of sex as something bigger than friction? Isn’t a holistic, whole-person treatment how Jesus ministered? It must be so with us! We must stop fragmenting ourselves and each other and embrace our sexuality as the gift it is, and use it in a holy way to honor God. This means that SINGLES are no longer isolated (because, as a single, sex is only for married people and therefore my sexuality is what–worthless??). Singles can glorify God with their sexuality by choosing to ABSTAIN from sexual activity, but acknowledging their God-given sexuality as good, and more fully and un-distractedly pursue a relationship with their Bridegroom.

    And married couples? You can enjoy the one-flesh relationship, knowing that the joy of sex is but a mere glimmer of the joy that the Creator of sex has in store when He redeems all things. You can mirror Christ’s selfless, sacrificial love for the Bride by serving one another in your marriage, which in God’s economy happens to include the bedroom! Yay for you, being able to glorify God with your bodies and being an allegory to the world! What a much more beautiful, complete picture of holistic sex than the alternative: “Sex is dirty, unless you’re married. Then do it as much as possible.” What an inhumane way to treat ourselves and each other.