# Abstinence from Sexual Activity Until Marriage: Now U.S. Government Policy **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 17, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042 "2006-04-17T18:57:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/1 "2006-04-17T18:57:12Z")
[Exactly what business do they have, saying that consensual sexual activities between adults are bad?](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2006-ACF-ACYF-AE-0099.html) And we’re not talking just about sex, but about any “sexual stimulation between two persons”: > [@](#): > > Department of Health & Human Services > Administration for Children and Families > > \ > > Abstinence curricula must have a clear definition of sexual abstinence which must be consistent with the following: “Abstinence means voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage. Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse.” Not only is it bad; it’s bad _for_ you: > [@](#): > > For purposes of this program, the term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program that - > > \ > > (E) teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; And of course, for you gays, no touchy-feely ever: > [@](#): > > Throughout the entire curriculum, the term “marriage” must be defined as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” There’s at least an argument for encouraging abstaining from sexual intercourse until adulthood. But this goes well beyond that, in multiple directions. It says that not only should intercourse be abstained from, but any sexual stimulation between two persons. And such mutual stimulation is bad, they say, not just for teens, but even for unmarried adult couples of any age. What we used to call “making out” when I was a teen would certainly qualify as sexual stimulation between two people. They gonna say even grownups shouldn’t do that?? Ain’t enough rolleyes. Yet this is official government policy. Wouldn’t it be fun if a reporter at the morning press gaggle started asking questions of Scott McClellan about exactly what this meant, and why the government is telling, say, a middle-aged dating couple that their kisses shouldn’t be too passionate? ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/2 "2006-04-17T19:01:57Z")
> [@](#): > > (D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity; Who made that rule? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/3 "2006-04-17T19:16:16Z")
Ayup. When talking with kids, you can’t explain that homosexual preferences occur in a certain percentage of the human population and the populations of other species. You can’t point out that many people remain lifelong unmarried partners. You can’t point out that fidelity is more important than marriage for sexual health (i.e., an unfaithful spouse exposes you to more risk than a faithful unmarried partner). There’s all kinds of stuff you can’t point out. It’s sickening, literally. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/4 "2006-04-17T19:16:25Z")
The article quoted in by the OP is about the criteria for to qualify for funding under the Community-Based Abstinence Education Program. As has been noted many times in threads like this, if you don’t want to follow the rules, don’t take the money. While I agree with **RTFirefly** as to the stupidity of abstinence-based sex education, nobody is forcing anybody to teach anything here. The rules come attached to the strings of the funding program, which isn’t mandatory, as far as I could see. Now, whether or not abstinence-based sex education is something the government should be promoting is another debate, one which doesn’t have to involve the complications of funding criteria. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/5 "2006-04-17T19:19:48Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Who made that rule? It’s right there [in the law](http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title05/0510.htm), so the answer is: our wonderful GOP Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/6 "2006-04-17T19:22:43Z")
Teaching community values is, within limits, fine. I may object to those values, but it’s within the pale. Requiring incorrect information to be taught, or forbidding the teaching of correct information, is beyond the pale. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/7 "2006-04-17T19:25:38Z")
Hmmmm, look at who’s nitpicking on what the definition of “sexual relations” is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/8 "2006-04-17T19:26:34Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > [Exactly what business do they have, saying that consensual sexual activities between adults are bad?](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2006-ACF-ACYF-AE-0099.html) > > . > . > . > Ain’t enough rolleyes. Yet this is official government policy. Not just policy. It’s the law. 42 USC § 710(a) _et seq_ sets aside funding that can only be used for abstinence education. So the “business” HHS has in offering a grant with these terms is “complying with the law of the land.” Now, if your question is, “What business is it of the federal government to promote, by law, abstinence education?” then I certainly agree with you. But I would also say the federal government promotes, and has promoted in the past, a number of policies _I_ find highly questionable, and that fit into the category of “none of their business.” So my question to you is: are you condeming this exercise of federal power because it’s inappropriate for the federal government to exert influence in this manner, or because the stance taken on the particular subject matter is something you disagree with? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/9 "2006-04-17T19:31:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now, if your question is, “What business is it of the federal government to promote, by law, abstinence education?” then I certainly agree with you. > [@](#): > > Exactly what business do they have, saying that consensual sexual activities between adults are bad? Nope, that’s obviously not the question :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/10 "2006-04-17T19:39:43Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > It’s right there [in the law](http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title05/0510.htm), so the answer is: our wonderful GOP Congress. And apparently before 1998. > [@](#): > > SEC. 510. [42 U.S.C. 710] (a) For the purpose described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall, for fiscal year 1998… ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/11 "2006-04-17T19:39:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I would also say the federal government promotes, and has promoted in the past, a number of policies _I_ find highly questionable, and that fit into the category of “none of their business.” But there’s someone out there who finds highly objectionable just about anything the federal government does. That doesn’t mean all of those things are the same. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/12 "2006-04-17T19:42:40Z")
There’s a difference between promoting a highly questionable activity–say, invading another country–and promoting values using incorrect information–say, invading another country based on false evidence, or promoting abstinence using false information. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/13 "2006-04-17T19:58:53Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > The article quoted in by the OP is about the criteria for to qualify for funding under the Community-Based Abstinence Education Program. As has been noted many times in threads like this, if you don’t want to follow the rules, don’t take the money. I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re saying here. The Community-Based Abstinence Education Program is publicly funded, right? Why shouldn’t the public then be able to bitch and moan about its rules? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/14 "2006-04-17T20:09:07Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Requiring incorrect information to be taught, or forbidding the teaching of correct information, is beyond the pale. You’re obviously a member of that anti-American reality-based community. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/15 "2006-04-17T20:12:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation \*\*between two persons \*\* Ye serpents, ye generation of **wankers** , how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Oh wait, you already have! But will the Feds fund new, **non** -sex-ed classes to teach the slow amongst us how to gratify themselves? ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/16 "2006-04-17T20:23:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse. Apart from one-person sexual stimulation, does this mean that threesomes and orgies don’t count as sexual activity? Given the other claims, does this mean you can’t get pregnancy, STDs or psychological harm as long as you have more than one partner at the same time? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/17 "2006-04-17T20:42:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not just policy. It’s the law. I agree: Federal law _is_ U.S. government policy. > [@](#): > > 42 USC § 710(a) _et seq_ sets aside funding that can only be used for abstinence education. So the “business” HHS has in offering a grant with these terms is “complying with the law of the land.” > > Now, if your question is, “What business is it of the federal government to promote, by law, abstinence education?” then I certainly agree with you. Actually, it doesn’t bother me that they’re promoting abstinence among minors. But I find it kind of astounding that they’re saying the adult population should not only abstain from sexual intercourse if we’re not married, but should abstain from seemingly any other mutually stimulative contact. > [@](#): > > But I would also say the federal government promotes, and has promoted in the past, a number of policies _I_ find highly questionable, and that fit into the category of “none of their business.” So my question to you is: are you condeming this exercise of federal power because it’s inappropriate for the federal government to exert influence in this manner, or because the stance taken on the particular subject matter is something you disagree with? I’m Pitting this policy _because it is not just something I personally disagree with, but because it’s so far out of line from what the vast majority of Americans believe and practice as to seem a relic from a distant past_. **Daniel** talks about “teaching community values” but this is beyond even what most evangelical churches expect from their unmarried believers. Exactly what ‘community’ do these values reflect? **jayjay** : what bothers me isn’t that anybody “is forcing anybody to teach anything here,” since they’re not, but that, as I said to **Bricker** , the official U.S. government stance on sexual morality is not remotely in the same universe as most Americans are. To me, that seems Pit-worthy. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/18 "2006-04-17T20:45:00Z")
Hmmm . . . > [@](#): > > A curriculum must not promote or encourage the use of any type of contraceptives outside of marriage or refer to abstinence as a form of contraception. Why can’t they say that abstinence is a form of contraception? I thought that was the whole POINT. > [@](#): > > Information on contraceptives, if included, must be age-appropriate and presented only as it supports the abstinence message being presented. Curriculum must not promote or endorse, distribute or demonstrate the use of contraception or instruct students in contraceptive usage. So, the only context in which you could mention condoms is saying that they break, right? > [@](#): > > Teaches that non-marital sex can undermine the capacity for healthy marriage, love and commitment. “I’m sorry, Bill, but I just can’t commit to you. You see, I once had sex out of wedlock. It destroyed my capacity for love.” > [@](#): > > Teaches the potential psychological effects (e.g., depression and suicide) associated with adolescent sexual activity. You know, I’ve known three people who comitted suicide, and not one of them did it because they had sex when they were teens. > [@](#): > > Teaches the multi-faceted benefits of healthy marriage to our society (e.g., increased life span; higher standards of living; higher levels of sexual satisfaction) Uhm, don’t men joke a lot that their sex lives plummeted the moment they said “I do”? > [@](#): > > Teaches how to avoid settings that involve potential interaction with pornography (e.g., explicit movies, TV, magazines, Internet). No porn, either? Sheesh! > [@](#): > > ACF requires applicants to prepare, sign and submit with their applications a document of assurance that provides the proper assurance that Community-Based Abstinence Education grant applicants will not provide to an adolescent and/or adolescents any other education regarding sexual conduct, except, in the case of any entity expressly required by law to provide health information or services. You will not learn about birth control in this course, or any other, if we can help it. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/19 "2006-04-17T20:54:10Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > While I agree with **RTFirefly** as to the stupidity of abstinence-based sex education, nobody is forcing anybody to teach anything here. The rules come attached to the strings of the funding program, which isn’t mandatory, as far as I could see. Unless, of course, you need the money. Haven’t you ever heard of economic coercion ? > [@Bricker](#): > > So my question to you is: are you condeming this exercise of federal power because it’s inappropriate for the federal government to exert influence in this manner, or because the stance taken on the particular subject matter is something you disagree with? Well, _I_ oppose it because it promotes lies and ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![OneCentStamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/13edae/32.png) [@OneCentStamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OneCentStamp)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2006, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042/20 "2006-04-17T20:55:30Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > The article quoted in by the OP is about the criteria for to qualify for funding under the Community-Based Abstinence Education Program. As has been noted many times in threads like this, **if you don’t want to follow the rules, don’t take the money**. (bolding mine) Um…there’s more to this than the simple question of who’s taking the money. There’s the question of who’s **GIVING** the money, and that’s me. I don’t especially want my tax dollars used to bribe/extort educators into teaching “abstinence only,” let alone “heterocentric abstinence only.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abstinence-from-sexual-activity-until-marriage-now-u-s-government-policy/353042.md?page=2)