At the gym a last week, I picked up an aging copy of Newsweek. The cover featured two attractive middle-America teenagers, Chris Nicoletti and Amanda Wing, standing side by side, just barely holding hands. The supertitle: "The New Virginity."
The story detailed Chris and Amanda's relationship, which follows terms dictated by their parents ("no touching where a soccer uniform covers") and "their" choice to remain abstinent until marriage. There were other case studies - Alice Kunce, a consciously chaste Wellesley student and a feminist, but not, as she quickly tells the reporter, "the army-boot wearing, shaved-head, I-hate-all-men kind"; Latoya Huggins, Newsweek's example of virtue from the relatively, or at least stereotypically, non-virginal population of Paterson, N.J.; Daniela Aranda, a Miss Hawaiian Tropic finalist with a look-no-touch bikini policy. The only single male in the article, Lucian Schulte, had already had sex, but is waiting until marriage to do it again.
Does the fact that five out of the seven surveyed were female, and that only one of the males had never had sex, seem telling to anyone else? Why couldn't the "renewed" virgin be female? I'm sure Newsweek would write it off as a coincidence or matter of convenience, but the underlying message is that preserving virginity is and should be a female issue. I don't believe that no one on Newsweek's staff, which includes several relatively recent Duke grads, caught that. And although the teens surveyed are racially and geographically diverse, they're all straight, religious and, in the grand tradition of magazine photography, attractive. These case studies seem poised to tell us that no, they don't have sex, and, yes, that makes them better than you.
A disclaimer: I don't disagree with what these teens are doing. Several, although not all, of them mention preventing STDs and pregnancy as a factor in their decision, and on that count their actions are intelligent and informed. Although pregnancy and a host of STDs are generally preventable with condoms, some, such as HPV, aren't: abstinence is the only sure protection. I remember a high school health class that showed a slide show of herpes sores, genital warts and the results of untreated chlamydia; we left the room swearing never to touch the opposite sex without a wall of latex, or maybe concrete, in between. My problem with Newsweek's article is that it champions virginity as a virtue, rather than a choice.
This year, President George W. Bush aims to up spending on abstinence education to $135 million, from $60 million in 1998. To receive this money, groups must follow strict criteria that seems more or less like Bible-driven propaganda with the Jesus fish carefully removed, for instance, "sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects."
Says who? Look around your dorm: I guess, and I daresay I guess accurately, that a large chunk of its residents engage, if not in sex, in some kind of sexual activity outside the conjugal bed. Do they seem to suffer psychological damage? Do they display harmful physical effects? I don't have enough space to get started on the antiquated and often temporary institution of marriage that this movement deifies.
Of course, Duke doesn't preach abstinence. Unless you ask it to, it doesn't really preach anything. But Duke is a college, and as its students we're trusted to make our own decisions about our bodies. I can understand not putting that same trust in high-schoolers, but dictating their morals and encouraging the Christian nuclear family as an ideal isn't the way to do it.
Under Bush's plan, groups eligible for funding may not endorse or even encourage condom use. This isn't just silly; it's dangerous. Condoms and contraception may not be infallible, but if used correctly, they do usually work, and there's also the novel idea of having potential partners get tested. Look at Duke's low pregnancy rate as an example - it's not because no one's having sex. Teens under abstinence tutelage are less likely to protect themselves if they decide to have sex, which the majority do, and to ignore that is a betrayal to America's youth. Sexual choices are personal choices that Bush has no right to manipulate. I'll end with a rant about Wonderful Days, an abstinence program used in Texas. From their promotional materials:
"What brings out the very best in a young woman more than that most special day in her life - her wedding? Her wedding is the day when she will be the most beautiful person of all those in attendance - not even a movie star can upstage her. What greater glory for a young woman than when she brings her first child into this world - a true miracle of life unprecedented by anything in this world. She helps train the men of our nation to use self-control, and to not, after their marriage, run off after the first flirt that comes along.
"When does she train him? During their courtship days. How does she train him? By letting him know that she is a pure virgin, will remain such until her wedding night. The young girls in our nation have an essential role. If they fail, then future families and our nation will fall. They are a nation's last line of defense!"
Right. I feel it goes without saying, but apparently, it doesn't. Abstinence programs like this one, based on value judgements and sexual "purity," are offensive to those who choose or are a product of different lifestyles. It ignores the fact that love and commitment can exist without an afternoon in church or a visit to Vegas. They place an undue burden on young women and have little to no respect or expectations for men. There are also the simply false notions that weddings bring out the best in their brides and that everyone can and will have children.
And for being the nation's last line of defense - well, personally, I'd rather trust the Marines.
Meghan Valerio is a Trinity junior and arts editor of Recess. Her column appears every third Tuesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.