Indefinite Abstinence? | Letters | Chicago Reader

Indefinite Abstinence? 

Sign up for our newsletters Subscribe

It's a given that abstinence-only "sex education" proponents like the Pure Love Alliance are nothing but fronts for religious political extremists intent on injecting their brand of Christian conservative sex negativism into the public schools.

But what Linda Lutton fails to mention in her otherwise excellent profile of these and other fear-based organizations [July 14] is their reluctance to explain how their wait-until-marriage scare tactics would apply to gay students, who, unless they commute to Vermont, currently are locked out of marriage laws.

Do they tell gay youths to wait until they're domestically partnered to have sex? Do they encourage "reparative therapy" so queer kids can one day get married and then begin having sex? Or do they just elect to ignore the issue and hope gay students keep it in their pants for the rest of their lives?

Assuming all students are heterosexual and marriage-bound is a dangerous par for the course for these abstinence-only pseudoeducators. Why their message is easily incorporated into the public schools' curriculum and pro-gay, abstinence-based materials such as "It's Elementary" have to come through the back door, so to speak, is equally troubling.

If PLA and their ilk truly believe in the cause of keeping kids safe from the alleged dangers of premarital sex, I hope their message includes the same prescriptions for gay youths, often the population most in need of a sex-positive message. But I doubt it.

Erik Piepenburg

N. Pine Grove

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Erik Piepenburg

Agenda Teaser

Performing Arts
Duck and Cover Classroom The Time Gallery
August 10
Music
J@K@L Experimental Sound Studio
July 16

Tabbed Event Search

Popular Stories