Sex, Politics and Religion in America

When the American colonies announced their independence from Great Britain in 1776, founding father Thomas Jefferson gave voice to the idea of the separation of church and state. This idea has been a theoretical part of the American government since its conception, and many Americans would like to believe that there is a definable space between religion and politics. However, there has definitely been a lot of bleed-over between the two realms, and in no place is this clearer than the space where Christianity and sex education meet. Religion has permeated the political realm in the U.S., which is made obvious by a widespread acceptance of premarital abstinence discourses (which shape subjects views of sexuality in relation to speech, thought and behavior), and the promotion of abstinence-only sex education programs.

“There has been a growing awareness of the power of religion and how it influences politics” (Bernstein 2013: 33), and scholars involved in the discipline of political theology study this complex relationship. Both politics and religion are based on similar foundational beliefs. The first component of political theology, which is political theory, posits that humans are evil by nature and need to be controlled by laws. The second component comes from a religious background, which argues that humans are born evil and become good through faith. At their foundations, religion and politics both see humans as inherently evil, with a need to be controlled and improved. Therefore, it is easy to see why it is such a struggle for citizens and politicians to keep them separate.

The need to establish some form of power to regulate human behavior has been filled in the past by sovereign sources of power such as kings and queens. This fading form of power rested in individuals and specific institutions. In contrast, today the more dominant form of power is what Foucault called “biopower” (Foucault 1978), which uses discursive formations, or institutionalized bodies of knowledge, and their subsequent discourses to educate subjects on the proper behaviors for members of society. In regards to managing sexuality, the discursive formation of sex education is circulating two competing discourses: abstinence-only sex education, and comprehensive sex education. Based on a politician’s political party, religious background and voter base, they are more likely to choose a specific type of sex education, which is a process I will elaborate on further shortly.

Sex education is a hot button issue for many people. Moreover, because of the intersection of religion and politics a whole new category of politics has emerged, which is commonly known as morality politics. This is a combination of religion and politics that focuses on creating policy to handle “moral issues,” such as youth engaging in sexual activity. Moral issues is in quotations, because as I mentioned in class one person’s moral issue is not necessarily another’s. Americans have very diverse ethnic, educational and religious backgrounds, and as heterogeneous members of the population they possess varying sets of morals. However there are some issues such as abortion, and sex education that are widely accepted as a part of morality politics.

In contemporary society sex education is a controversial issue because many Americans still place a lot of value on virginity. Virginity is gendered, which means that there is a differing focus in regards to men and women. Premarital abstinence discourses, which are institutionalized ways of thinking, speaking and acting in relation to premarital sex, advocate for abstinence for both genders; however women are more heavily targeted by sexual purity messages. Women’s moral character is negatively attributed to a variety of factors, such as whether they are virgins or not, how many sexual partners they have had, and the types of sexual behaviors they have exhibited. Consequently, for women virginity still holds social capital (something that provides access to beneficial relationship networks), and they are often shamed for being sexually active. In contrast, for men virginity is not emphasized as much and their morality is not as connected to their sexual activities. The focus on morality for men is directed towards their intelligence, personality and character.

The concept of virginity is also focused on heterosexual individuals. Premarital abstinence discourses that have been dispersed by sources such as Christian institutions, politicians and abstinence-only sex education programs, focus on sexual activity between men and women, not on LGBTQIA members of the population. Because a natural pregnancy (excluding artificial insemination and surrogacy) can only occur as a result of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, ancient state-based societies were invested in managing the sexuality of heterosexual individuals, to ensure correct inheritance of private property (Blank 2007). Christianity emerged in the 1st century and adopted this social norm in relation to a focus on shunning the physical body, and developing spirituality. Thousands of years later in contemporary society, virginity and premarital abstinence discourses are still more focused on the sexual statuses of heterosexual individuals, than on the statuses of LGBTQIA individuals. In addition, the Christian standpoint still advocates for the preservation of virginity until marriage, with a shift in focus towards the moral aspect of sexual purity.

The social concept of virginity has permeated the political sphere through morality politics. As sex education has become an increasingly pertinent issue in recent years, politicians are likely to support either abstinence-only programs or comprehensive sex education for a number of reasons. First, the conservative party values personal responsibility and the liberal party values equality achieved through government action (Student News Daily 2005: 1). Consequently, conservatives support abstinence-only sex education because it is more focused on personal will power and the individual’s moral character. Liberals support comprehensive sex education because they value governmental responsibility to ensure equality for everyone and attribute success or failure to the quality of education. Second, conservative politicians support abstinence-only sex education because many are Christians and their religious beliefs align with the educational goals. There are many liberals who identify as Christian as well, however only 38% say their faith is increasingly important as a moral guide for non-religious (i.e. political) life decisions, in contrast to 70% of conservatives (Barna Group 2009: 1). Third, many politicians support a specific type of sex education because they want to gain or keep the support of their voters. Some may actually be Christians, or value the idea of premarital abstinence in general, however many include a certain stance on sex education in their platforms because they want to appease their voter base and get elected/re-elected.

As a result, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs (AUOM) were supported by some politicians during their Presidency. The Clinton administration passed the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families act (TANF) that included $50 million dollars in funding for abstinence programs under Title V (FoSE 2006:1). Following in his footsteps, George Bush supported abstinence education as well during his two terms (On The Issues 1999-2012). Thus the years of support from two back-to-back Presidential administrations spread abstinence-only sex education across the U.S. and it is still the most prominent form of sex education today.

There is an 8-point list of criteria for abstinence-only programs that must be followed. First, programs must teach students about the “social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity” (Schleifer 2002: 13). Teachers have to emphasize the benefits of remaining sexually abstinent in general. Next, educators are required to promote the idea that “abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage is the expected standard” (Schleifer 2002: 13). This particular stipulation is parallel to Christian values and beliefs, which is probably why more Christian politicians support abstinence-only programs than comprehensive sex education, that doesn’t place an emphasis on sexual abstinence. Moreover, the idea that “abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, STIs, and other associated health problems” is also taught (Schleifer 2002: 13). This aspect is true for the most part, except for the fact that diseases such as HIV/AIDS can be transmitted through contact with blood from cuts and injuries that are not sexually related. Although, overall this criterion is true and does help to raise awareness of the importance of subjects managing their health while being sexually active in a responsible way, by using protection and contraceptives.

Next, “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity” (Schleifer 2002: 13). Abstinence programs do provide some useful information about sexual health management, however a lot of the data shows a tendency to try and determine student’s morals and values for them. One family’s expected standard for sexual activity is not the same as everyone else’s in any community. Many of the standards perpetuated by abstinence-only programs are reflective of Christian values and 78.4% of adults in America who are religious identify themselves as Christians (Pew Forum 2007:1). However, that doesn’t make it ok to intrude on student’s and family’s abilities to make their own moral decisions, by teaching students that marriage is the only acceptable time to be sexually active.

In addition, abstinence programs teach that “sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects” (Schleifer 2002:13). This statement has merit in reference to extramarital affairs, because cheating on a partner, or being cheated on can have very negative effects in regards to psychological and emotional health. There is also the heightened risk of contracting an STI from someone who is not a marriage partner. Conversely, individuals who decide to be sexually active before marriage, who have been properly educated about sexual health management, are not at as great a risk as educators would have students believe. A lot of the risks are exaggerated, to serve the program’s purpose of promoting sexual abstinence.

Programs also teach that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents and society” (Schleifer 2002: 13). This stipulation does hold some merit as well. The task of raising a child is more challenging for a single parent than it is for a couple. The lack of a second income if the second parent decides not to be involved in raising the child can have an effect on the quality of childcare provided, and create or increase a need to depend on federal assistance; tax payer money could be required from society to help a single parent take care of their child financially. Unplanned pregnancy can also adversely affect the parent’s ability to receive a college degree because of the time, money and effort invested in childrearing that conflicts with educational requirements. In contrast, if both parents remain involved in caring for the child, many of the potential issues that could arise from a single parent care arrangement become less of a problem, or disappear altogether. A marriage certificate isn’t required for two people to be effective, successful parents.

Furthermore, abstinence programs teach students how to reject sexual advances and that alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances” (Schleifer 2002: 13). Educating youth about the risks that come with alcohol and drug consumption is important and a valuable aspect of the programs. Inhibitions are lowered when individuals are under the influence, and youth might make decisions they wouldn’t normally make sober. Knowing how to say no to unwanted sexual activity is also important, so this aspect of abstinence education is very beneficial.

Finally, students are taught about the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity” (Schleifer 2002: 13). The concept of self-sufficiency is very ambiguous and completely subjective. Educators teaching abstinence-only education are given the power to shape discourses that define what self-sufficiency is, and what the correct level of self-sufficiency is for youth, before it’s safe for them to engage in sexual activity. This criterion is an exertion of biopower (Foucault 1978) in a useless, negative context because as individuals it is hard enough for us to personally decide when we have reached the optimum level of self-sufficiency, so how can it be possible for someone to determine that for another individual? The amorphous nature of this requirement affords sex educators a large amount of control, while discrediting youths’ and their family’s ability to decide when they are ready to be sexually active.

Support for abstinence education comes from a variety of others sources besides politicians and their administrations. An organization called Passion 4 Purity is opposed to comprehensive sex education and supports abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education. Their mission statement introduces the organization as “a group of young adults who are..pursuing purity as a lifestyle and choosing to wait for God’s best” (SIECUS 1999/2000: 25). Members wear a covenant ring to symbolize their commitment to remaining sexually abstinent until marriage, and they hand out bumper stickers with the phrase “Bod 4 God, Bought With A Price” (SIECUS 1999/2000: 26). This group clearly has a foundation in Christian beliefs, which clearly demonstrates the influence religion can have on politics and the types of policy people will support.

On the other hand, there are organizations which are supportive of abstinence-only sex education that don’t use explicit Christian/religious language, so the relationship is a little more unclear. Teen Aid’s purpose is to “promote premarital abstinence and character in schools, through parent teen communication and now on the internet!” (SIECUS 1999/2000: 25). The organization uses phrases such as “character and family values” (SIECUS 1999/2000:25), implying that premarital abstinence is a moral decision, although they never use any words that refer specifically to a God or to any religion. Yet the undertones of abstinence in relation to morality and character do convey a certain parallelism to Christian values concerning sexuality. The majority of organizations that oppose comprehensive sex education and support abstinence-only sex education use veiled, careful language in most cases.

Financial support for abstinence-only sex education comes from some of the aforementioned organizations, but most of the funding is primarily from programs or policies that use” Congress-approved” funds. As aforementioned, part of the Welfare Reform Act supported by Clinton’s administration funneled at least $50 million dollars towards abstinence-only programs (Schleifer 2002: 13). In addition, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extended funding for another five years in March 2010, which provides $75 million to sex education programs that “promote personal responsibility” (LSRJ 2012: 1).

Widespread support for abstinence-only sex education that usually includes purity pledges as part of the curricula, led to an increased circulation of discourses about sexual purity, which caused a recent purity movement. “Since the concept was introduced, virginity pledges have been intricately linked with religious organizations” (SIECUS 2005: 1). Because the concepts of sexual purity and virginity are gendered, the purity movement is gendered as well. “It is a movement indeed with conservatives and evangelical Christians at the helm, and our government, school systems, and social institutions taking orders” (Valenti 2010: 23). This movement has spawned several purity pledge programs.

The Silver Ring Thing is a purity pledge organization with a Christian background that was started in 1995 by Dennis and Amy Pattyn. The program encourages youth to remain sexually abstinent until marriage. They use propaganda such as comedic skits, video and sound displays, and talk about the “joys of the chaste life (Ehrlich 2006: 180). When youth join the program they are given a silver ring that represents their commitment to sexual abstinence.

Another version of chastity pledge programs are the Purity Balls, and these have a Christian foundation as well; a large wooden cross is usually the centerpiece of the ballroom. The first ball was held by Randy and Lisa Wilson in 1998 (Valenti 2010:66); in 2006 there were “over 1,400 federally funded purity balls where young girls pledged their virginity to their fathers in a prom-like event” (Valenti 2010: 217). The whole event is reminiscent of a wedding because the daughters are required to wear white dresses, and receive rings from their fathers. Fathers pledge to keep and protect their daughter’s virginity, and in some cases after the purity pledge is recited girls give their fathers “little pink boxes” (Valenti 2010: 67). There are good intentions behind purity balls, however the event has incestuous undertones. A quote from the promotional handouts stated that “more and more fathers are becoming aware of their influence and are regularly dating their daughters” (Valenti 2010: 68). The intention is to teach daughters that a future husband should treat them with love and respect, however the way some aspects of the program are portrayed cast negative shadows.

Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs have been found to be ineffective, so while they garner a lot of support from conservative groups and politicians, they do not r cause significant positive changes in behavior. Mathematica, an organization assigned to evaluate the effectiveness of abstinence programming reported negative results. Their researchers found “no evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs increased rates of sexual abstinence” (SIECUS 2009: 1), which is the whole purpose of the programs, so they are not fulfilling their primary function. Secondly, “young people who took a [virginity] pledge were 1/3 less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active” (SIECUS 2009: 2). Many other evaluations of abstinence-only programs have come to similar conclusions as well. A lot of the information presented to youth is inaccurate or biased. The abstinence program called Me, My World, My Future compares using condoms to playing Russian roulette: “there is a greater risk of a condom failure than the bullet begin in the chamber” (Donovan et al 1998: 7). Statements like this are used as fear tactics to scare youth out of having sex.

Consequently, the Obama administration is working to repeal abstinence-only sex education and replace it with more comprehensive science-based sex education. Comprehensive sex education provides youth with “medically accurate information about the health benefits and side effects of all contraceptives, including condoms” and “teaches young people the skills to make responsible decisions about sexuality” (SIECUS 2009: 1). The comprehensive approach provides a greater amount of unbiased health information and doesn’t try to impose any particular system of morality on the participants. This type of program has also produced positive results: “many either delayed or reduced sexual activity, the number of sexual partners, or increased condom or contraceptive use” (SIECUS 2009: 1). For these reasons, the Obama administration is supporting comprehensive sex education. “Obama’s 2010 budget proposes almost $178 million for comprehensive sex education” (Weiser et al. 2010: 2). His Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program received $75 million of that funding for “science-driven” sex education (LSRJ 2012: 2) that focuses on increasing contraceptive use and reducing teen pregnancy (Weiser et al. 2012: 2). We have yet to see the effects of this shift in financial and ideological support because abstinence-only programs are still very widespread.

Overall, religion and politics have a strong connection at their core. According to the political theology discipline, both view humans as inherently evil with a need for management and control. Foucault’s idea of biopower is a covert modern form of power that manages the population’s sexuality through discursive formations and discourses about sexual purity. These discourses have been used by politicians and religious organizations alike to promote abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education, that lead to a recent purity movement. Though this could be starting to change as the Obama administration seeks to provide support for comprehensive sex education through federal funding, because it has been proven to be more effective in reducing rates of unwanted pregnancies and STIs. Hopefully, over the next few years discourses surrounding sex education will change and cause more positive results.

_________________________________________

Annotated Bibliography

Bernstein, Richard J.

2013 Is Politics "Practicable" without Religion? Social Research 80(1):33-56.

This article talks about political theology, which examines the relationship between politics and religion. Political theory assumes man to be inherently evil at the core, and so does theology as Christians attribute a sinful nature to everyone before they are “born again.” This article is useful, because it explains how connected politics and religion/Christian views of humans are. The goal of policy is to write laws that steer man away from evil behaviors, and the goal of Christian ideology is the same.

Blank, Hanne

2007 Virgin: The Untouched History. Bloomsbury, New York. USA.

This book discusses virginity from a historical, contextual, and cultural perspective. Blank describes the physical characteristics that humans have used to construct virginity’s meaning. This book is important to the discussion of sex in relation to religion and politics, because premarital abstinence is a large part of Christian ideology, and it has bled over into politics. Politicians bring their religious views about sex into office, as well as their supporters’ religious views.

Donovan, P.

1998 School-Based Sexuality Education: The Issues and Challenges. Family Planning Perspectives 30(4):188-193.

Earp, Jeremy, Sut Jhally, Scott Morris, David Rabinovitz, Jessica Valenti, and Jason Young

2014 The Purity Myth : The Virginity Movement's War Against Women / a Media Education Foundation Production ; Executive Producer, Sut Jhally ; Directed by Jeremy Earp ; Written by Jessica Valenti & Jeremy Earp ; Produced by Jeremy Earp, Scott Morris & Jason Young. Media Education Foundation Collection.

This documentary takes an in depth look at virginity, and the purity movement. Valenti breaks down the major players in the abstinence education game on both sides. She also makes it clear that the discussions of virginity are gendered, and provides examples of religious influences on abstinence education. This documentary is useful because it provides a wide overview of how politics and religion intertwine when it comes to sex, virginity, and sex education.

Ehrlich, J. S.

2006 From Age of Consent Laws to the "Silver Ring Thing": The Regulation of Adolescent Female Sexuality. Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine 16(1):151-181.

Fahs, Breanne

2010 Daddy's Little Girls: On the Perils of Chastity Clubs, Purity Balls, and Ritualized Abstinence. Frontiers - A Journal of Women's Studies(3):116.

This article describes the chastity pledge phenomenon called purity ball. Fahs goes into detail about purity balls, and the ritualization of preserving virginity until marriage. Fah’s article is useful, because it provides background on purity balls, and their significance.

Foucault, Michel

1978 The History of Sexuality.New York : Pantheon Books, c1978-; 1st American ed.

This article discusses what discourse is, and how it constrains and shapes subjects ways of thinking, speaking and acting in terms of sexuality. He makes the point that sexuality is usually thought of as repressed (especially in reference to religion), however it is really managed instead. Foucault is important because premarital abstinence discourses are pervasive and they have made their way into the political arena. Therefore Christian/conservative politicians that subscribe to the premarital abstinence discourses have included them in their political decisions.

Hess, Amie

2011 The Politics of Virginity: Abstinence in Sex Education. Social Forces(3):1080.

Hess’ book about the politics of virginity is spot on for a paper discussing religion and politics. She points out a major connection between the two: morality politics. Morality politics focus on creating policy to police issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and youth engaging in sexual activity. This book has important information on this relationship, and will it be very useful.

Inda, Johnathan X.

2005 Analytics of the Modern: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Inda discusses Foucault’s idea of biopower and how sovereign power gave way to a more covert form of power. He addresses the fact that biopower is about “optimizing the population” as well, which is relevant to the discussion on different forms of sex education. This article is important because Foucault’s concepts of biopower and discourse are important.

Kempner, M., D. Arnberg, and A. Bracksmajer

2000 Fact Sheet on Opponents of Comprehensive Sexuality Education. SIECUS Report 28(2):19-27.

This article describes the different types of organizations that are against comprehensive sex education, and who support the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. The descriptions include mission statements, key people, and contact information. This is useful, because it puts a “face” to the organizations that side with conservative politicians in their stance on sex education.

On The Issues

On The Issues George W. Bush. http://www.ontheissues.org/george_w__bush.htm

This article discusses the stances of George Bush on everything from abstinence education, to drugs and alcohol. It provides background information on his campaign platform, and the policies he supported while he was in office. This article is useful because it provides information on Bush’s political affiliations, and shows that he sided with most conservative policies. He was a conservative politician, and he made it clear that he was a Christian, therefore his support of abstinence education, and its widespread growth during his presidency was the result.

SIECUS

Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.Viewpage&PageID=1195

SIECUS Is a government program/council that collects data on various forms of sex education, which include abstinence-only, and comprehensive sex education.This source is important, because it provides a lot of the data on abstinence program evaluations, and their effectiveness. They also provide statistics as well on rates of teen pregnancy, STIs and chastity pledge effectiveness.

Valenti, Jessica

2009 The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women / Jessica Valenti. Emeryville, California: Seal Press, c2009.

Weiser, Dana A., and Monica K. Miller

2010 Barack Obama Vs Bristol Palin: Why the President's Sex Education Policy Wins. Contemporary Justice Review 13(4):411-424.