| SIECUS CURRICULUM REVIEW WAIT (Why Am I Tempted?) Training Learn How to Have the BEST Sex…by waiting till marriage! A Fear-Based Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Curriculum For Middle and High School Students | |
Return to Knowing the Opposition Read the summary
|
WAIT (Why Am I Tempted) Training is a fear-based, abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum written by Joneen Krauth-Mackenzie (RN, BSN), the Executive Director of a Colorado non-profit agency of the same name. Ms. Krauth-Mackenzie also serves on the National Advisory Board for the Medical Institute (formerly the Medical Institute for Sexual Health), is the president of the Colorado Coalition for Abstinence and Relationship Education, and serves on the Title V Steering Committee at the Colorado State Health Department. Additionally, Ms. Krauth-Mackenzie is a national speaker and teacher trainer. WAIT Training produces a number of different abstinence-only-until-marriage materials, WAIT Training: Learn How to Have the BEST Sex…by waiting till marriage, for public schools, Training for Waiting: WAIT Training for the Faith Based Community ; WAIT Training: Medical Cessation for the Sexually Active Teen, a manual for medical providers seeking to aid teens in returning to an abstinent lifestyle; and WAIT Training: Rites of Passage for Latino Youth which is in English and Spanish. Other materials are scheduled to be released soon including Parent-Teen Connection Manual and WAIT Training for the African American Healthy Marriage Initiative. SIECUS reviewed the second edition of the public school curriculum, WAIT Training,, which is designed for middle and high school students and includes eight units: “Learning About Yourself and Others,” “Friendship, Love and Dating,” “Cultural Influences,” “Differences Between Men and Women,” “Consequences of Teen Sex,” “Dealing Effectively With Conflict,” “Commitment and Marriage,” and “Concluding Activities and Evaluation.” Some lesson plans also use the text The Art of Loving Well: A Character Education Curriculum for Today's Teenagers and excerpts from John Gray's Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. In order to facilitate the WAIT Training program, teachers must attend a 16 hour (2-day) training designed to ensure that the instructor understands and can impart the materials contained in the curriculum effectively. At the end of the training the teachers sign a certification statement agreeing that:
SIECUS did not attend this training session. This review is based entirely on WAIT Training's written materials for both teachers and students. SIECUS' curricula reviews are based on the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, K–12 which was developed by a task force of professionals from the fields of education, medicine, youth services, and sexuality education. The Guidelines are a framework for comprehensive sexuality education programs and represent a consensus about the necessary components of such programs. Abstinence is one of 39 topics included in the Guidelines. WAIT Training contains very little information about the majority of these topics instead devoting most of its lessons to the economic, social, and emotional benefits of marriage and abstinence before marriage. Basic information on topics such as puberty and anatomy is glossed over, for example, the following is considered an optional activity: “Give a science lecture on the process of conception, using correct anatomical language. Describe to students why women menstruate and give details about fertility and the menstruation cycle.” (WAIT Training, p. 195) Even topics that are frequently discussed in detail in other abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, such as condoms and STDs, receive very little mention in this curriculum. EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY WAIT Training was carefully designed to comply with the federal government's 8 point definition of “abstinence education” which means that it must teach “that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity,” and that “sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects,” among other messages. The author explains this strict abstinence-only-until-marriage approach by saying that many groups teach teens to wait until they are ready, until they are mature, until they are responsible, until they are self-sufficient, or until they are “in love.” (WAIT Training, p. 11) The problem with these markers, according to WAIT Training, is that they are abstract and teens are unable to think abstractly. Teens, the author insists, are concrete thinkers and as such need the concrete concept of a wedding in order to understand and comply with the abstinence message. This view of teens as only capable of concrete thought seems to guide WAIT Training's educational philosophy. The curriculum claims that “Teens say they have ‘option fatigue' (meaning too many choices). They need and want guidelines.” (WAIT Training, p. 35) As such it suggests a directive approach to sexuality education based on the Medical Institute's guidelines and does a side-by-side comparison to the “non-directive” approach based on SIECUS' guidelines. Differences include: “Teaches societal norms that guide behavior” versus “Focuses upon sexual role and ‘rights'” and “Teaches refusal and assertiveness skills” versus “Goals are to increase individual confidence to choose; to build self-esteem and self-concept.” The directive approach essentially suggests that teens cannot be trusted or left to make their own decisions, and therefore must be given clear instructions on what is “right” and what is “wrong.” (WAIT Training p. 15) There is no evidence to suggest that simply telling teens not to engage in sexual intercourse before marriage will work. In addition, it is neither appropriate nor possible for sexuality education courses or teachers to make decisions for teens. Rather, sexuality education needs to equip teens with the knowledge and skills necessary for a lifetime of making healthy decisions consistent with their beliefs and the beliefs of their families and communities. By denying young people the opportunity to explore their own values and the values of their family and community, WAIT Training misses numerous opportunities to development these vital critical thinking skills.RELYING ON NEGATIVE MESSAGES While the immediate goal of many sexuality education programs may be to delay students' initiation of sexual intercourse (possibly until marriage) or to increase their use of pregnancy- and disease-prevention methods, many programs also have the long-term goal of promoting sexual health. Because abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are often the only formal setting in which young people learn about sexuality, the information and messages in the curricula can have a lifelong impact on how they view sexuality. Abstinence is an integral part of any comprehensive sexuality education program. SIECUS' Guidelines suggest that students be told that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the most effective method of preventing pregnancy and STDs, including HIV. The Guidelines include a number of age-appropriate messages about abstinence for students such as: “Young teenagers are not mature enough for a sexual relationship that includes intercourse”; “Abstinence from intercourse has benefits for teenagers”; and “Teenagers in romantic relationships can express their feelings without engaging in sexual intercourse.” Instead of presenting this kind of balanced, complete picture of abstinence and sexual activity, WAIT Training puts forth exaggerated messages about the inevitable dangers of sexual activity. The result is that students are instilled with fear and misunderstandings about sexual activity. The curriculum also uses messages of shame to create a divide between those students who have already been sexually active and those who have not. Messages of Fear— Trying to scare students Based on the assumption that sexual activity outside of marriage is inevitably harmful, WAIT Training lists as its goal: “To reduce the emotional pain often associated with early, uncommitted sexual involvement.” (WAIT Training, p. 31) The curriculum tells students that “The problem in the U.S., however, is not teen pregnancy; it's teen sex. Pregnancy and STDs (sexually transmitted disease) are both merely potential consequences of premarital sex, multiple partners, and infidelity within marriage.” (WAIT Training, p. 203) It goes on to describe one particular unit as “…designed to help teens comprehend all of the consequences—not just the physical ones—of premarital sex including the intellectual, emotional, social, spiritual, and financial ramifications.” (WAIT Training, p. 203) The idea that such consequences are inevitable is underscored in one of the early activities when teens are asked to brainstorm consequences in each of these categories. The curriculum makes an attempt to frame its message positively by discussing the “freedoms” of abstinence. These include “freedom from”: “disappointing your parents,” “ruining a good relationship,” “being hurt emotionally,” and “hurting someone,” as well as STDs and pregnancy. (WAIT Training, p. 263) The idea that these consequences are inevitable is underscored when WAIT Training asserts that “Teens are emotionally wounded due to broken hearts and emotions that result when they get involved with sexual activity. Premature, noncommitted sex is physically, emotionally, and socially detrimental to teenagers.” (WAIT Training, p. 35) WAIT Training uses the analogy of fire in a fireplace versus fire in the middle of the living room to underscore this point. “Fire in a fireplace is controlled and contained and safe. That's like sex within marriage. It's usually warm, cozy and welcoming…But sex outside of marriage, especially for a teen, is out of control. It's hot no doubt. But it can be destructive and painful.” (WAIT Training, p. 72) An even more elaborate analogy appears on page 232 with the exercise “Something Fishy,” which exaggerates the risk of death to the point of cartoon-like simplicity. The teacher is instructed to place a goldfish in a fish bowl in front of the class, and draw the attention of the class to how bored the fish must be. Claiming to want to give the fish more freedom, the teacher scoops the fish out of the bowl and allows it to gasp and flop around the desk in front of the students. The exercise concludes: “As you put the fish back, ask the class, ‘How is this fish bowl to the fish like marriage is to sex.' Use this opportunity to point out that boundaries provide freedom, safety and comfort. They're not dull, they're healthy.” (WAIT Training, p. 232) After comparing teens who have sex to a fish out of water, the curriculum goes on to compare premarital sex to gangs, violence, alcohol, and drugs when it describes all of these things as getting in the way of one's hopes and dreams. (WAIT Training, p. 109) This analogy is misleading, while many individuals and religions believe that premarital sexual behavior is wrong, this is far from a universal value. The vast majority of Americans begin having sexual relationships in their teens, fewer than seven percent of men and 20 percent of women ages 18–50 were virgins when they were married, and only 10 percent of adult men and 22 percent of adult women report their first sexual intercourse was with their spouse.1 It is likely this “standard” was never true in America; a third of all Pilgrim brides were pregnant when they were married.2 The concept of chastity until marriage for all people may be unrealistic in an age when young people are reaching puberty earlier than ever before, when 63 percent of high school seniors have engaged in sexual intercourse3, when 80 percent of college students ages 18–24 have engaged in sexual intercourse,4 and when the median age of first marriage is 27.1 for men and 25.3 for women.5 Messages of Shame— Depicting sexually active teens as dirty or damaged WAIT Training also relies on messages designed to make young people feel embarrassment and shame. For example, the curriculum lists other freedoms that are gained by abstaining including the “freedom from”: a “damaged reputation,” “ losing respect from others and for yourself,” “losing trust and support,” “gossip (having people talk about your behavior),” and “your dating partner bragging about ‘scoring' with you.” (WAIT Training, p. 263) The curriculum warns those teens who are not sexually active to “Only date those who share your values—If someone has earned a reputation, avoid dating them!” (WAIT Training, p. 140) To emphasize the power of such bad influences, WAIT Training has students take turns trying to pull each other either up onto a chair or down off of one. The teacher is instructed to “Make the point that it's much easier to pull behavior down than to pull behavior up. Remind the class that people—even really strong people—can be pulled down by people making unhealthy, risky choices.” (WAIT Training p. 177) With statements such as these, the curriculum seems to be creating a division between students who have remained abstinent who embody the positive character traits that the curriculum espouses-and teens who have had sexual intercourse who are portrayed as damaged or dirty. It is important to remember that 46% of all high school students and 63% of high school seniors have had sexual intercourse6; it is never appropriate for a curriculum to suggest that these teens are less worthy of love, trust, and respect than their abstinent peers. WAIT Training attempts to address sexually active students with statements such as: “You did what you knew, and now you know better; and when you know better, you do better. This is your opportunity to start over and commit to a healthier lifestyle.” (WAIT Training, p. 147) The message that these students should be ashamed of their past actions is repeated throughout the program. One exercise, in particular, creates a visual representation of this idea. (WAIT Training, pp. 151-152) After asking for a male volunteer, the teacher is to hold up a clear piece of packing tape that will be his “girlfriend.” The teacher points out that they were both virgins before this and then places the tape on the volunteers arm. The teacher then instructs the male volunteer to go ahead and “break up” with her by ripping the tape off his arm. Once this is done, the teacher holds up the tape and shows that it is no longer clear but clouded with debris: “He left some very special things on this tape. Skin, hair, cologne, DNA.” The teacher then attaches the tape to another male volunteer and is told to “Point out that the bonding strength of the tape has diminished. Then ask, ‘If this process gets repeated too many times, do you think it will affect this person's (hold up the tape) marriage?'” (WAIT Training p. 152) The curriculum goes on to explain that “nearly every bonding agent works best when used on a surface that is clean, dry, and free of debris.” The message is clear: young people who have had sex are no longer clean and are therefore less valuable. It is worth noting that the debris is left on the “girl” in the relationship, while the breakup hurts the male partner for a moment, this exercise clearly suggests that it is the female who ends up dirty. The curriculum, which maintains many well-reasoned and important lessons on tolerance and acceptance of others, contradicts itself when it creates this divide between students and suggests that sexually active students should be ashamed of themselves. Virginity Pledges— Asking teens to promise chastity Like many abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula, WAIT Training includes a virginity pledge for its students. WAIT Training' s pledge states:
I __________ pledge to myself and my friend __________ to not get involved in drug and alcohol use, and in premarital sexual activity. Many of the negative messages already included in the WAIT Training curriculum about premarital sexual activity are also prominent in this virginity pledge. The text of the pledge implies that students who don't vow to remain abstinent are damaging future relationships, compromising their values, and disappointing their parents and themselves. It is also worth noting that research has found virginity pledges such as the one included in WAIT Training to be ineffective and potentially harmful. Recent studies have found that under certain conditions these pledges may help some adolescents delay sexual intercourse. When they work, pledges help this select group of adolescents delay the onset of sexual intercourse for an average of 18 months—far short of marriage. Researchers found that pledges only worked when taken by a small group of students. Pledges taken by a whole class were ineffective. More importantly, the studies also found that those young people who took a pledge were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged. These teens are therefore more vulnerable to the risks of unprotected sexual activity such as unintended pregnancy and STDs, including HIV/AIDS. Further research has confirmed that although some students who take pledges delay intercourse, ultimately they are equally as likely to contract an STD as their non-pledging peers. The study also found that the STD rates were higher in communities where a significant proportion (over 20%) of the young people had taken virginity pledges.7 WITHOLDING AND DISTORTING INFORMATION The curriculum provides almost no information on such basic sexuality-related topics as puberty and anatomy. These two topics are covered briefly in two worksheets. The first asks students to label body parts such as the urethra, epididymis, and testes in a man and the vagina, cervix, and uterus in a woman. While this is a first step in educating young people about their bodies, it is clearly insufficient. In addition, the female diagram is quite confusing as it shows a side view of internal genitalia but asks students to label parts of external female genitalia such as the mons pubis and the clitoris which are not pictured. A second worksheet with multiple choice questions attempts to further explain some body parts and functions but may result in more questions than answers. Egg cells and sperm cells are defined as cells produced by the ovaries and testes but a more detailed explanation as to their function is not offered. Similarly puberty is merely described as beginning at about age 12 or 13 – what it is or the changes that it entails are never mentioned. WAIT Training lists as one of its goals “to help teens understand how their bodies work,” yet it completely fails in this regard. (WAIT Training, p. 30) Unfortunately, many schools may use this curriculum in place of a more complete sexuality education program. Condoms and Contraception— Failing to provide health information to teens In the teacher training segment, WAIT Training declares that “The WAIT Training Workshop is a teen pregnancy prevention program utilizing primary prevention strategies.” (WAIT Training, p. 33) Yet the curriculum fails to discuss any prevention strategy other than abstinence, choosing instead to either ignore or disparage contraception as a form of protection against pregnancy and STDs. Students are also told about condoms in a handout that is part of an activity on HIV/AIDS designed to help young people determine whether activities are “high risk,” “at risk,” or “no risk.” The high risk category correctly includes “anal sex without a condom,” “penile/vaginal sex without a condom,” “anal sex with an improperly used condom,” and “penile/vaginal sex with an improperly used condom.” The category also includes “anal sex with a properly used condom that leaks or breaks,” and “penile/vaginal sex with a properly used condom that leaks or breaks.” (WAIT Training, p. 219) Properly used condoms that do not leak or break, however, are never mentioned as a possibility despite the fact that method failure of male condoms (failure of the device despite being used correctly) is estimated to occur only about 2% of the time. This exercise will undoubtedly leave students with the impression that condom use will not reduce their risk. Research has shown, however, that this is untrue and that condoms can greatly reduce the risk of HIV transmission. In fact, the authors of WAIT Training acknowledge this in a roundabout way when they tell teachers that there is “no clinical proof of effectiveness” for condoms in the prevention of any STD other than HIV. It is true that definitive data are lacking on the degree of risk reduction that latex condoms provide for some STDs; for others, the evidence is considered inconclusive. However, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explains that “It is important to note that the lack of data about the level of condom effectiveness indicates that more research is needed—not that latex condoms do not work...”8 In addition, the CDC provides the following prevention messages:
Despite these messages from the CDC, WAIT Training tells teachers that “[Students] need to know that, when used every time, condoms at best only provide a 50% reduction in the transmission rates of syphilis, gonorrhea and Chlamydia. They should be told that condoms do not appear to provide any protection from HPV, (which causes 99% of all cervical cancer).” (WAIT Training, p. 21) This information is incomplete and misleading. In fact, the latest research suggests that consistent use of condoms can greatly reduce HPV infection, the cause of genital warts and cervical cancer.10 Ironically, WAIT Training seems to be suggesting that teachers should deliberately mislead teens into believing that condoms will not work. The curriculum explains its philosophy about condom use by saying that “While in ‘theory' teen use of contraception every time sounds good, it isn't realistic to expect. Thus, a condom is actually setting a teen up for failure when we realize, as adults, that condoms won't be used ‘consistently and correctly' every single time.” While it is unfortunately true that some teens will not use condoms consistently and correctly, this does not mean that teachers should withhold accurate information from students in an attempt to control their behavior. This teaching method seems to be based on the assumption that if adolescents believe that condoms and other contraceptive methods are ineffective, they will abstain from sexual activity. There is no reason to think that this is true. Such inaccurate information may instead discourage teens from using this important prevention method when they do become sexually active, thereby putting them at increased risk for unintended pregnancy and STDs, including HIV. STDS— Providing incomplete and confusing information WAIT Training provides limited information on sexually transmitted diseases, instead, it includes reprinted fact sheets from the Medical Institute. While these fact sheets provide some important information about the transmission, symptoms, and treatment of various STDs, they are often confusing, incomplete, and potentially biased. For example in answer to the question “How does someone find out s(he) has Chlamydia?” the fact sheets states “Patients with symptoms are usually diagnosed when the clinician finds characteristic physical findings and identifies evidence of the Chlamydia organism in genital fluids or urine.” (WAIT Training, p. 211) A simpler sentence explaining that anyone who has symptoms should see a health care provider who will test them by swabbing their genitals or cervix or by taking a urine sample is probably more appropriate for the intended audience which includes students as young as seventh grade. The language used to describe treatment may be similarly confusing to students. While some STDs such as Herpes and HPV are referred to as incurable, no STDs are ever referred to as curable. The fact sheets discuss treatment of such infections as Chlamydia and gonorrhea but never explain that these can, in fact, be cured. Instead, students are told that Chlamydia “may remain in the area of the cervix for some time, or may spread to the uterus (endometritis) or fallopian tubes (salpingitis). When this spread occurs, the condition is called pelvic inflammatory disease.” (WAIT Training, p. 211) The fact sheet does not make it clear, however, that this only occurs when Chlamydia goes untreated. The best way to avoid genital herpes is to abstain from sexual activity before marriage, marry an uninfected partner and remain faithful during marriage. Unmarried individuals who have never had sexual intercourse should avoid becoming sexually active until marriage. Unmarried individuals, who are or have previously been sexually active, should be tested for STDs and return to a lifestyle of sexual abstinence. (WAIT Training, p. 216) While WAIT Training should be applauded for encouraging STD testing for everyone who is or has been sexually active, the prescription to “return to a lifestyle of sexual abstinence” is overly simplistic and unrealistic. WAIT Training would better serve the health needs of its students if it provided information in this section about condoms as a prevention strategy for those who will remain or will become sexually active. Like in many other sections, WAIT Training uses an experiential exercise to dramatize the risk of STDs. The teacher is told to line up seven volunteers and hand each a sign. The signs read: HPV, Chlamydia, Herpes, HIV/AIDS, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, and Virgin. The first volunteer is given a plastic cup and told to spit in it and pass it to the next. This is continued until everyone but the “virgin” has spit in the cup. The teacher then tells the virgin that she wants him to drink it (teachers are instructed to stop students who actually agree to do so). When the virgin says “no thanks” to the cup, the teacher says “Now isn't he smart?” The purpose is to draw attention to the nature of mixed body fluids. This dramatization, however, seems to suggest that every act of sexual intercourse will inevitably result in the transmission of one (or all) STDs. (WAIT Training, p. 226) HIV/AIDS—Spreading misinformation The curriculum provides very little information about HIV/AIDS, however, the disease is the topic of one activity supposedly designed to help young people understand the risk of transmission. The hand out for this activity has three columns labeled “high risk,” “at risk,” or “no risk.” Each column has a bulleted list. For example, “Sharing needles for injecting drugs, steroids/vitamins/etc.” is correctly listed in the “high risk” column. The “at risk” column, however, contains many seemingly inaccurate assertions. (WAIT Training, p. 219) The column lists “mutual masturbation” and “French kissing” as “at risk.” If mutual masturbation, which is typically defined as partners masturbating in front of each other, does not involve the exchange of bodily fluids, it is does not pose any risk of HIV transmission. And, although, open mouth kissing could involve the transmission of blood, the risk in this behavior is considered “very low.” In fact, in the over 25-year history of the HIV epidemic, “the CDC has investigated only one case of HIV infection that may be attributed to contact with blood during open-mouth kissing.”11 The column also includes the words “tears,” “sweat,” and “saliva.” Although the curriculum offers no explanation as to why these appear here, it seems to be suggesting that coming in contact with these fluids puts an individual “at risk.” This is simply untrue; the CDC states clearly “Contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV.”12 It is never acceptable for an education program to provide inaccurate information. This activity, which provides at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate information, is particularly disturbing given how little information about HIV/AIDS is included in the rest of the curriculum. The handout also list “has hemophilia” and “receiving a blood transfusion in America” as “at risk” activities. Although this may have been true years ago when the HIV/AIDS epidemic first began in this country, today the blood supply in the United States is quite safe. Routine testing of donated blood began in 1985 and, according to the CDC, “the risk of infection with HIV in the United States through receiving a blood transfusion or blood products is extremely low and has become progressively lower, even in geographic areas with high HIV prevalence rates.” 13 There is a lot of outdated and inaccurate information about HIV/AIDS that still exits and it is vital that education programs help young people sort out fact from fiction and develop a thorough understanding of how HIV is and is not transmitted. Unfortunately, WAIT Training’s incomplete and inaccurate approach to this topic raises more questions than it answers. Pregnancy— Refusing to discuss options WAIT Training refers to itself as a teen pregnancy prevention curriculum and frequently mentions teen pregnancy as one of the many consequences of premarital sexual activity. For example, one exercise asks teens to brainstorm who they belong to; possible answers included “me,” “my parents,” “God,” and “my friends.” Students are then asked “If you or your girlfriend received a positive pregnancy test today, who would the pregnancy affect most?” Teachers are told to write the response in the center of a bull's eye and ask the class how that person would be affected physically, intellectually, emotionally, socially, spiritually, and financially. Teachers then ask “Who would be affected most next, and how?” This is repeated until the class has discussed the ways in which each person that a teen “belongs to” is affected. At no point in this exercise, or in the curriculum for that matter, are students given the opportunity to realistically discuss their options should they or their partner become pregnant. The closest the curriculum comes to discussing pregnancy options is in a list of freedoms associated with abstinence when it states that abstinent teens will have freedom from “making hard choices (adoption, keeping a baby).” Abortion is never mentioned. WAIT Training misses an important opportunity to help teens understand their options and develop the skills to make critical health decisions. PROMOTING BIASES In addition to relying on fear, shame, and inaccurate information, WAIT Training is based on a number of underlying biases and assumptions about gender, marriage, family structure, and sexual orientation. Presenting these biases as universal truths does little to inform students and instead fosters myths and misunderstandings. Gender Stereotypes— Teaching restrictive gender roles WAIT Training contains an entire unit devoted to “The Differences Between Men and Women,” which begins with the explanation “Let's face it, men and women are different. Not just in terms of anatomy, but even in the ways they typically think and act in various situations.” (WAIT Training, p. 183) The section then includes physical differences such as the fact that women have larger kidneys, liver, stomach and appendix than men, but smaller lungs; that women's blood contains more water and 20% fewer red blood cells; and that a woman's heart beats more rapidly. (WAIT Training, p. 198) The lesson follows this factual information with numerous generalizations about how men and women think and feel based on the best selling book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, by John Gray. Women, the curriculum tells students, need care, understanding, devotion, and validation while men need appreciation, admiration, and trust. Critics of John Gray's work have suggested that he simply capitalized on existing gender stereotypes that the portray men as the strong, silent providers and women as dependent, over-emotional, and irrational subjects. WAIT Training perpetuates this when it describes the five major needs of men and women as distinctly different. Women need affection while men need sexual fulfillment; women need conversation while men need recreational companionship; women need honesty and openness while men need physical attractiveness; women need financial support while men need admiration, and women need family commitment while men need domestic support. (WAIT Training, p. 199) This suggests a very narrow view in which women stay home and clean the house while their husbands go out and earn a living, a view which does not accurately reflect the wide variety in today's relationships. Nonetheless, WAIT Training teaches that these behaviors as “innate” or instinctual. The curriculum uses common playground tricks as teaching tools, asking students to look at their fingernails or the bottoms of their shoes and declaring that one way of behaving is masculine and the other is feminine. WAIT Training connects these behaviors to the physical differences between men and women: “How do guys carry their books without a backpack? (Show books tucked under arm.) Now, when you went off to school, did your mother say, Honey, carry your books like this so people won't think you're a weenie. No, it's innate behavior. Nobody had to teach you to do this. Now girls, how do you carry your books without a backpack? You nurture your books to your breast like with a baby.” (WAIT Training p. 61) Such suggestions even further restrict the range of gender expression to the traditional male and female roles and place students who may not comply with these strict ideals in a position where they are likely to be alienated and ridiculed. The curriculum's detailed discussions of the innate physical and emotional differences between men and women appear to serve primarily to underscore the differences between genders when it comes to sexuality. The curriculum consistently presents the idea that men are more sexual and sexually aggressive than women, and that men are more interested in sex while women are more interested in love: “It has been said that women will give sex to get love while men will give love to get sex.” (WAIT Training, p. 199) WAIT Training uses yet another analogy to describe the sexual difference between men and women: “Sexually speaking, it has been said that men are like microwaves and women are like crock pots. What does that mean? Generally, men get stimulated more easily than women and women take longer to get stimulated. Men are visual responders and women respond when they feel connected and close to someone.” (WAIT Training p. 62, repeated on p. 194) The curriculum goes on to say “A woman is stimulated more by touch and romantic words. She is far more attracted by a man's personality, while a man is stimulated by sight. A male is usually less discriminating about those to whom he is physically attracted.” (WAIT Training, p. 194) This lesson overtly reinforces a societal double-standard that suggests that men want casual sex from any and all women and that women do not desire sex as much as they feel the overwhelming need to be loved. Young women are taught that they are not sexual beings and young men are taught that their sexual urges are frequently out of their control. In so doing, the curriculum places all of the responsibility for refusing sexual activity on the shoulders of young women. Ironically after telling young women that they have no innate sexual desire, the curriculum seems to then criticize them for this with statements like: “While a man needs little or no preparation for sex, a woman often needs hours of emotional and mental preparation,” and “Harsh or abusive treatment can easily remove a woman's desire for sexual intimacy.” (WAIT Training, p. 199) Such statements seem to imply that women (at least within marriages) have an obligation to satisfy the sexual needs of men despite harsh or abusive treatment. WAIT Training justifies this discussion on gender differences by repeatedly stating that these differences have been documented in research studies and by admitting that there are individual exceptions to these rules. Nonetheless, students are not challenged to question the nature, validity, or origin of these gender stereotypes, or to explore how such stereotypes may affect sexual relationships. Instead, these outdated messages portray an alarming view in which gender inequality in relationships is not just acceptable but expected. Such a presentation is detrimental to all young people by limiting their options, influencing their behavior, and coloring their expectations for future relationships. Instead, students need to learn that both men and women are sexual beings and are equally responsible for making decisions regarding sexual activity and relationships. Marriage— Mandating future relationships WAIT Training refers to itself as “a character-based, anti-impulse, relationship and marriage preparation curriculum….” (WAIT Training, p. 27) The curriculum explains that “th e prominence of divorce, out of wedlock births and casual cohabitation have so steadily devalued marriage that many question its true value, purpose, and practicality. Some have even relegated it to nothing more than a religious ideal.” (WAIT Training, p. 273) It goes on to say that “Marriage has been unfairly given a bad rap, and if we hope to effectively tackle the challenges of poverty, drug and alcohol abuse and crime, we can't afford to ignore the significance of marriage.” (WAIT Training, p. 273) As such WAIT Training spends a lot of time discussing the benefits of marriage. Students are told that married people are happier, healthier, and have better sex, and that married individuals live longer, work harder, and make more money. A worksheet called the “Good Stuff of Marriage” explains that married people have a lower incidence of suicide, require less health care, have increased levels of nutrition, report fewer feelings of loneliness and boredom, are more likely to recover from illness, and have a lower incidence of mental disorders. Students are encouraged to add to this list by brainstorming the benefits of marriage to a man, a woman, a child, a family, a community, society, one's health or well-being, and one's economic status. Although all of these assertions are cited to research, much of it seems to rely on misinterpretation of statistical data. Correlation, the connection of statistics, does not imply causation; statistical trends are often affected by factors outside the consideration of the study. For example, statements like “Research indicates that couples who live together prior to marriage have a greater chance of getting a divorce than those who don't” (WAIT Training p. 132) don't take into account the fact that couples who don't believe in cohabitation before marriage are also less likely to find divorce a socially acceptable solution to an unhappy marriage. The worksheet goes on to suggest that “marriage helps make a person more stable and able to leave home and create a self-sufficient, self-reliant household” and that “marriage increases the demonstration of character traits necessary for successful living, such as sacrifices, humility, flexibility, empathy and ability to delay gratification.” (WAIT Training, p. 281) Implied in such statements is the idea that unmarried individuals lack these positive character traits. Forty three percent of the U.S. population over 15 (95.7 million people) are classified as unmarried or single by the U.S. census.14 It is inaccurate and unfair to suggest these individuals are of weaker character than their married counterparts. To help students become excited about marriage, WAIT Training stages a mock wedding ceremony in which students are cast as the bride, groom, bridesmaids, groomsmen, mother of the bride, father of the bride, mother of the groom, father of the groom, ushers, pianists, soloists, guest book attendants, and greeters. The curriculum suggests that teachers make it more fun by using hand-me-down wedding gowns, tuxedos, and bridesmaid's dresses and bringing real flowers, rings, and cakes. The curriculum also recommends reserving the school's auditorium and inviting the school newspaper or yearbook staff to photograph the wedding. After participating in this mock wedding students are encouraged to imagine their own wedding including what they will wear, who they will invite, what songs they will play, what flowers they will have, and who will be their special soloist. (WAIT Training, p. 291) Such exercises assume that all students will marry and do not allow students to consider the possibility of an alternate future. It is likely particularly troubling for gay and lesbian students who must approach this exercise knowing that they cannot legally marry. WAIT Training also spends a great deal of time telling young people why cohabitation is a bad idea. It suggests that “In a number of communities, cohabitation has replaced marriage as an acceptable—sometimes even preferable—alternative. There are tragic implications of this.” The curriculum's focus seems misplaced as few middle school and high school students must decide whether to move in with a partner. More importantly, however, opposition to cohabitation is clearly not a universally held value as 11 million Americans reported living with a partner outside of matrimony in 2000.15 Once again, the curriculum is presenting one opinion as truth rather than allowing students to explore their values and the values of their parents and communities. WAIT Training should, however, be applauded for acknowledging that the benefits of marriage can only be achieved when “the marriage relationship is healthy and…both partners are mentally and emotionally stable.” (WAIT Training p. 33) Unfortunately, the curriculum seems to suggest that if students do not find such a relationship they are out of luck: “If you date and marry the wrong person, you will live with significant, negative, and lasting consequences of that decision for the rest of your life.” (WAIT Training p. 132) Family Structure— Depicting non-traditional families as troubled WAIT Training' s emphasis on the importance of marriage often focuses on the impact of divorce and single-parenting on children. Such homes are consistently referred to as “broken” and compared to “in-tact, loving families.” WAIT Training explains that “Most poor children reside in single-parent families;” that “Children in intact families are less likely to have problems in school;” that “Drug and alcohol use is more likely in broken or never-married families,” and that “70% of people in prison are without dads.” (WAIT Training, p. 273) In one of its “real-life” narratives, WAIT Training paints this picture of a single-parent household:
In the story, Pam goes on to have a baby, drop out of high school, move out of her mother's house, and go on welfare, all of which the story implies wouldn't have happened had she been raised in a stable, loving family. WAIT Training underscores this point with this quote from an anonymous teen: “I never knew how to have healthy relationships. Living with a single mom, all I ever heard was how bad men were and I should never trust them. Thank you for giving me a new way to think about guys.” (WAIT Training, Introduction) While this discussion is aimed at directing the future life choices of young people, many of the students will likely see the implications towards their own family structures. There are many reasons—including divorce, death, desertion, cohabitation, and gay and lesbian partnerships, amongst others—that a student may live in a family that does not match the ideal model espoused by WAIT Training. Suggesting that these families bear the responsibility for poverty, drug abuse, and more will undoubtedly distress and alienate many students. In addition, WAIT Training implies that these students have a lesser capacity to love using the images of a bank and a “love tank.” Both the bank and the tank need “deposits” of love in order for the teen to be capable of loving others in turn. “Your heart is like a bank account. If you don't get enough deposits to fill it up, it's very hard to give it out.” (WAIT Training p. 65) Similarly, “If your love tank is full, it will overflow with love to others. If it's empty, it will be hard for you to give what you've seldom received.” (WAIT Training p. 111) These images imply that children are damaged if their family doesn't match the ideal espoused by WAIT Training. It is unconscionable for a health curriculum to burden students with this sort of doubt about their future capacity to love. Sexual Orientation— Refusing to acknowledge diversity The WAIT Training curriculum should be praised for its efforts to create a tolerant and non-judgmental environment in which to teach sexuality education. The teacher training section recommends the first guideline the teacher should provide for the class be “No Putdowns—being respectful to people of all genders, races, religions, cultures, ethnicities, sexual orientations, etc.” (WAIT Training, p. 45) WAIT Training also highlights for students the value of tolerance, instructing teachers to “Praise students when they show tolerance for each other, especially when you observe two very different people communicating and relating to each other. Discuss how we can learn a lot from those who are different than us when we make room within our minds to truly listen and seek to understand another's opinions and experiences. We often find a tremendous amount of common ground is shared between two very different people.” (WAIT Training, p. 195) On the Frequently Asked Questions section of its website, WAIT Training insists that this curriculum is appropriate for use with gay and lesbian students stating “they need to be abstinent, learn about healthy relationships and how to love well.” WAIT Training's focus on marriage as the only appropriate context for sexual behavior, however, essentially tells lesbian and gay students—who cannot legally marry in this country16 —that they can never have a sexual relationship. The organization attempts to address this criticism on its website when it answers the questions “But gays and lesbians don't marry” by saying “Who says they don't? The marriages that are performed for gays and lesbians are not legal. That is a political issue and is not our issue.”17 Despite this apparent attempt at tolerance, the curriculum maintains an emphasis on heterosexuality by using male and female pairs in every scenario and example, and by discussing sexuality only in terms of heterosexual individuals and relationships. While visitors to the organization's website may learn that gay and lesbian individuals marry, albeit not legally, students in the WAIT Training course will never hear the terms gay and lesbian or discuss the possibility that some people may have same sex relationships. Such a program is not, in fact, appropriate for gay and lesbian students who are essentially ignored, nor is it appropriate for heterosexual students who also need to learn honest and complete information about sexual orientation. While the language of tolerance is an important first step towards sexual equality, WAIT Training fails to take the necessary next steps towards providing fair and unbiased health information to all students, regardless of orientation. Rather than teaching a narrow view of sexuality confined to heterosexual marriage, sexuality education should teach students that sexuality is a natural and healthy part of everybody's life regardless of their sexual orientation. Gay and lesbian students, especially young men who have sex with men, are at increased risk for STDs, including HIV, yet by leaving them out of all discussions WAIT Training fails to provide these students with any realistic strategies for protecting themselves from such risks. CURRICULUM STRONG POINTS Despite its reliance on fear, shame, and biases, WAIT Training should be applauded for a number of strong points including utilizing a variety of interactive teaching methods, involving parents, and addressing the important issue of media influence. Most importantly, the curriculum should be applauded for dealing explicitly and sensitively with the topics of rape and sexual abuse. While many abstinence-only-until-marriage programs fail to acknowledge that a significant number of students may have been the victim of sexual assault or abuse, WAIT Training consistently reminds teachers of this probability and attempts to help them help students. Specifically, in its lesson on bonding, the curriculum attempts to make a distinction between voluntary sexual experience and abuse: “Virginity is something you give away freely; it cannot be taken from you. If you have been raped (or date raped), it is not your fault. Please, if you need to tell someone about something in your past, talk to me or find a trusted adult and get the help you need.” (WAIT Training, p. 153). While it is unlikely that such a simple caveat can undo the curriculum's messages of fear and shame, this is an important first step in an attempt to help, rather than further hurt, survivors of abuse. In addition, the curriculum clearly lays out young people's rights and responsibilities on a date which include the right to “refuse sex any time for any reason.” Such discussions are often left out of abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula. CONCLUSION Many of the goals of WAIT Training are admirable and are, in fact, goals that SIECUS shares such as “to teach teens how to set limits and boundaries,” “to help teens say ‘no' without hurting the other person's feelings,” and “to help teens identify and overcome barriers to conflict resolution.” Unfortunately, the curriculum's strict focus on abstinence until marriage, its biased and incomplete information, and its reliance on messages of fear and shame make it inappropriate for schools. Effective sexuality education programs provide accurate information in an unbiased manner and encourage students to think critically in order to define their own values and beliefs regarding sexuality. Ultimately, WAIT Training falls far short of helping young people develop the skills and knowledge they need to become sexually healthy adults.
References
|
copyright © 2006, SIECUS