A Historical Overview of Sex Education in America: From Parallel to Divergent Tracks, Apuntes de Antropología Social

¡Descarga A Historical Overview of Sex Education in America: From Parallel to Divergent Tracks y más Apuntes en PDF de Antropología Social solo en Docsity! Cedarville University DigitalCommons@Cedarville Master of Education Theses School of Education 2009 A Historical Analysis of Public School Sex Education in America Since 1900 Valerie Huber Cedarville University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/education_theses Part of the Education Commons This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Cedarville, a service of the Centennial Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Education Theses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Cedarville. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@cedarville.edu. Recommended Citation Huber, Valerie, "A Historical Analysis of Public School Sex Education in America Since 1900" (2009). Master of Education Theses. Paper 21. Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL SEX EDUCATION IN AMERICA SINCE 1900 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Education By VALERIE J. HUBER B.A. History, Cedarville College, 1980 2009 Cedarville University Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies iv Table of Contents Page I. Introduction of the Study............................................................................................1 Definition of Terms..................................................................................................3 Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................4 Scope of the Study and Delimitations ......................................................................7 Significance of the Study .........................................................................................8 Methods of Procedure ............................................................................................10 II. Plenary Literature Review ......................................................................................12 Sex Education in America Prior to 1900 ...............................................................12 The Progressive Era ..............................................................................................15 Intermediate Era ....................................................................................................28 The Sexual Revolution Era (1960s and 1970s) ...................................................35 The Modern Sex Education Era (1980 to the Present) ........................................44 Summary ...............................................................................................................52 III. Methodology ...........................................................................................................54 Introduction to the Method ....................................................................................54 Rational for the Method .........................................................................................55 Procedure ...............................................................................................................57 IV. Results and Analysis ...............................................................................................60 Introduction ............................................................................................................60 Description and Analysis of the Key Turning Points ............................................61 Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies v Conclusions ..........................................................................................................108 V. Discussion and Implications ..................................................................................109 Introduction ..........................................................................................................109 Ways Relevant Paradigms Affect the Study ........................................................110 Interpretations of the Results ..............................................................................112 Potential Applications of the Findings .................................................................119 Biblical Integrative Component & Implications ..................................................122 Strengths of the Study ..........................................................................................125 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................127 Suggestions for Future Research .........................................................................129 References .......................................................................................................................131 Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies vi List of Figures Figure Page 1. Poster 22 from the Public Health Service “Keeping Fit” Campaign .....................22 2. Poster 29 from the Public Health Service “Keeping Fit” Campaign .....................23 Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 2 The 1960’s publicly gave voice to a highly sexualized counter culture, but social mores in favor of sex inside of marriage generally continued. The late 1960’s and early 1970’s ushered in widespread availability of birth control and liberalization of abortion laws (Akerlof, 1996). Both of these events provided a turning point in sexual traditions. The shotgun wedding was not necessary with easier availability of abortion and the fear of pregnancy was substantially reduced with the use of birth control pills. While both contraception and abortion logically would seem to have negative effects on the number of out of wedlock births, the opposite was actually true. The 1970’s ushered a sharp increase in the number of nonmarital births that continues to spiral out of control. In 1959, for example, 8% of births were nonmarital, but today the figure is nearly 40% (Ventura, 2009). The discovery of AIDS in the 1980’s brought a stark reality to America’s consciousness – that sex had risks far beyond the STDs of past generations or the embarrassment of an unplanned pregnancy. Sex could and did kill. This concern, coupled with the ever-increasing welfare costs of nonmarital births helped launch the modern abstinence education movement (Haskins & Bevan, 1997). The emphasis was on primary prevention, particularly among teens, with the thought that, if skills and attitudes toward avoiding sex until marriage could be increased in young people, then the potential consequences of such activities could be mitigated. The results were encouraging. Teen birth rates plummeted in the ensuing decade and sexual activity among teens also decreased, despite an ever-increasing sexualization of the cultural conversation. (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2009d). Out of wedlock birthrates continued to increase, but Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 3 most dramatically among young adults who were out of high school and who no longer received any reinforcement to abstain from sex (Ventura, 2009). Individuals and organizations that were heavily influenced by the permissive values of theorists such as Kinsey mobilized their efforts and built a convincing web of counter arguments against the value of abstinence. The recent election of President Obama gave these organizations the cogent voice they previously lacked. An agenda to deconstruct a cultural more and public health model that stresses sexual abstinence is aggressively underway at the highest levels of public policy; at long last, it is beginning to mirror the sexual permissiveness that has pervaded cultural segments for more than 100 years. Definition of Terms Abstinence-centered. This is abstinence education, as funded by Congress. It involves a holistic approach that may discuss many topics, including how to identify a healthy and unhealthy relationship, refusal skills, STDs, contraception and goal setting, but always within the context of why abstinence is the healthiest choice (NAEA, 2009A). “Comprehensive” sex education. Risk reduction approach to sex education in which condom negotiation and skill-building activities are typically central to the educational strategy. It often is used as a synonym for contraceptive education, HIV/STD prevention, pregnancy prevention, and abstinence-plus programs (HHS, 2007). Hedonism. A Greek philosophy that taught the chief goal of existence is pleasure (Hall, 1920). Sexual abstinence. Choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage (HHS, 2008b). Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 4 Sexual activity. Genital contact or sexual stimulation including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse (HHS, 2008b). SIECUS. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. It is a non-profit organization founded in 1964 by Mary Calderone to promote sexual rights and “comprehensive” sex education (SIECUS, n.d. [a]). SIECUS Guidelines. The prominent framework for the implementation of “comprehensive” sex education, beginning in kindergarten and continuing through 12th grade (SIECUS, 2004). Social hygiene. A movement devoted to the improvement of all social ills, particularly those pertaining to sexual problems such as venereal disease and prostitution (Bigelow, 1916). Statement of the Problem The debate over the appropriate role of the school in providing sex education as well as the content of this education is not new. Since Chicago tried the first public school sex education experiment in 1913, public sentiment has vacillated from outrage to gratitude (Jensen, 2007). Today, most Americans acknowledge that schools must provide some sort of sex education to its teens, but the debate over the content of this education still rages (Irvine, 2002). Since the turn of the 20th century, there has been a tense disagreement over the place and content of sex education. Who should teach the information to youth? What is age appropriate? When should discussions begin? How should the material be presented? Should information be shared from a moral, amoral, religious or medical standpoint? Should the education be directive or non-directive? What is the goal of the education? Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 7 times made as a result of onerous misinformation, continue to have an effect down to the individual level. This study identifies the responsibility that significant historic events played in influencing cultural values and sexual decision-making over the last century as well as today. Scope of the Study and Delimitations I am studying sex education and the development of a formal system of instruction within the American public school system and community setting since 1900. The influence of key historical events regarding the current sex education debate is explored in detail. The scope of the study involves the identification and explanation of specific event clusters that have played a marked role in the creation of two distinct views for sex education over the past century. While there are nuances in the two views and supporters fall along a rather broad continuum, the two perspectives are distinct in their goals and measures for success. Although sex education often overlaps other related educational strategies, this study only concentrates on classes defined as sex education. These classes have changed their look over the decades but, for the purposes of this study, the common thread is that they addressed male-female relationships, reproduction, and/or sexually transmitted diseases. School-aged youth are the focus for this study, although, obviously, contemporary cultural traditions heavily impact the messages that are given to youth. Therefore, the state of the culture is discussed in terms of its impact on sex education and youth behavior. A discussion of sex education in countries outside of the United States is not part of this research. Sex education developed on both parallel and divergent tracks in other Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 8 countries, but a comparison of foreign sex education with the American sex education system would require a comprehensive treatment beyond the scope of the present study. Cultural changes throughout history are not discussed in terms of how they affected other topics of school instruction because this study is limited to the interrelationship between culture and sex education. Further, private and religious schools are not included in this research, although it would be an interesting topic for future study. This is because so many differences exist between private-public, private-religious, and religious-public schools that it would not be feasible to survey those differences vis-à-vis sex education. An entire thesis could be devoted solely to this topic. Moreover, the differences among the sub-domains of religious and parochial schools also makes covering this subject even more complex. The present study only focuses on events after 1900. Although it can be argued that sex education existed prior to 1900 in America, this study does not explore any efforts prior to the turn of the 20th century other than in general terms. The rationale for not giving coverage to pre-1900 sex education is because generally, school-based sex education did not begin until the turn of the 20th century. Moreover, federal funding for the efforts only began after 1900. Finally, the public school system was less organized prior to 1900, so coordinated efforts at any systematic education were difficult to monitor or implement. Significance of the Study Some would argue that current policy decisions and adolescent sex education approaches are completely dependent upon contemporary problems and needs. They might insist that historical circumstances and deceased individuals have little impact on Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 9 present-day strategies. I suggest that this view is narrow and inconsistent with a full understanding of the nature of cultural change. No single event stands alone. Antecedent and subsequent events are interrelated and create a ripple effect that typically grows in impact over time. Seemingly unrelated events in the history of America worked to change the priorities toward sex education. Dramatic historical events, like a world war, affected every aspect of American culture. Each individual was impacted, even those who neither went to war nor sent a family member to fight. The entire nation was changed as a result and sex education was no exception. Other seminal historical events provided similar changes. The present study pulls a silver thread through the pages of history so that the casual surveyor of the past can understand why few issues elicit such visceral response as the sex education debate. The dispute over the content of sex education in public schools has resulted in the unseating of entire school boards and firing of administrators. The topic of sex education has been the catalyst for numerous individuals running for political office. It has been the source of lawsuits and the reason that some parents opt their children out of sex education classes. The primary lines of this debate have been drawn for over 100 years and significant historical events have solidified the resolve of both sides to “win” the debate. This debate, however, has consequences far beyond those who engage in the dispute. STD prevalence, teen pregnancy rates, and emotional turmoil are the individual consequences that must be weighed when making sex education policy decisions and history is a good teacher. Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 12 II: Plenary Literature Review The historical record of sex education in American public schools is relatively short. Developments after 1900 were the emphasis in this study, but a brief examination of events prior to 1900 provided an important foundation. Cultural and moral gatekeepers made sexual experimentation a frowned-upon activity during early American history, but those gates were forced open by a series of events after the turn of the 20th century. Sex Education in America Prior to 1900 Little has been written about sex education before 1900 (Pearsall, 2001). Searches within typical academic research vehicles do not provide much information. Traditionally, in early American history, the home was the place where discussions of sex took place and, even then, the conversations tended to be minimal, usually a mix of practical physiology and moral instruction, grounded in religious standards (Peterson, 1983). Some children would learn about reproduction from watching animals in the barnyard, since much of early American society was agrarian. For human behavior, abstinence until marriage was expected and, although young people sometimes engaged in premarital sex, the social norm and family expectation discouraged such practice. One of the earliest examples of governmental expectations for premarital purity was included in the 1778 Journals of the Continental Congress stating that any soldier who was treated for venereal disease was required to pay for his own treatment (Blaine, 1778). Sex education in pre-1900 public schools typically was not a general consideration because most believed this topic was not an appropriate responsibility for Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 13 the school and that doing so, would supplant the role of the parent (Kaslow, 2006). In addition, population distribution significantly affected schooling opportunities afforded children in early America. The general populace was dispersed, with pockets of society congregating in growing towns and cities, but many more living far from community neighbors. Prior to the 19th century, Christian theology often was integrated into subject matter, so morality and the development of character were prominent in textbooks (Brown, 2002). Many children learned at home. The extent or quality of education varied widely, depending on family wealth and geographic location (Delano, 1976). In the latter part of the Colonial period, school districts were established to afford educational opportunities to more children, but these schoolhouses had students of varying ages learning in the same room, making age-specific conversations difficult. Cultural mores precluded open discussions of sex and the unsystematic organization of schools made any coordinated sex education course impossible, had the mores been different (Parkerson & Parkerson, 2001). The 19th century signaled the beginning of the Common School when education became available to the masses (Chang, 1985). Even then, schools varied widely. Some were one-room schoolhouses; others were larger schools separated by grades. The distribution of the population in a given area tended to predict the quality of education in that region (Cremin,1980). Homeschooling was still common, especially in the more remote areas of the country (Caither, 2008). McGuffey Readers were used widely, which heavily emphasized morality and Bible-based ethics (Ellenwood, 2006). Developing and maintaining healthy relationships with others was a theme throughout the readers, with a key emphasis on making character-based decisions in all interactions (Kammen, 2009). Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 14 During this same time period, Whewell (1856) discussed how parents could teach morality and sex education by modeling behaviors before their children. He described marriage as the balance of “desires and affections” (p.126) and a place where men could “maintain” their morality. Mayhew (1850) contended that moral education was the most important purpose of education. Johnson (1883) wrote that the ability to teach morality in the schools was significantly hampered by the “sectarian spirit” (p. 749) that existed around how to best teach the subject. Moral citizenship predicted good citizenship, said Johnson, but the means of achieving it, apart from religious education, was just beginning to be discussed. Morality education served as a precursor to sex education, which was on the verge of becoming a new role of government (Moran, 1996). Some events of the 19th century paved the way for a differing consciousness regarding sex education, however. Luker (1998) noted that during the mid-1800s, some “experts” called for the tacit legitimacy of prostitution by police registration and inspection of prostitutes. Others wanted laws to strengthen the institution of marriage by requiring couples to obtain licenses but, instead, the courts began a precedent of recognizing “common law” marriages if a couple lived together for a certain number of years (Luker). The Purity Crusades opposed this institutionalization of immorality. King (1870), an activist at the time, feared that a “flood of sensuality” (p. 5) was sweeping the land and that the nation was on the verge of moral ruin unless something was done to reverse the tide. The Comstock Laws were passed in the 1870’s and outlawed the distribution of birth control information or devices, characterizing them as “lewd” and “obscene” (Wardell, 1980). The previous laissez faire attitude regarding the topic of sex Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 17 most states. They advocated that law could not make men and women moral, but they also believed that government regulation was a necessary first step toward producing a sexually moral society. (Morrow, 1904). Jane Addams (1912), founder of the Settlement House movement, complained that prostitution was “semi-legal” in many cities. The rampant spread of Syphilis and Gonorrhea demanded a strong antidote. Once believed to be a “divine chastisement of the sin of unchastity” (Morrow, 1904, p. 348), sexual diseases were then known to afflict innocent women and children. Morrow was disgusted that a “conspiracy of silence” ignored the discussion of venereal disease in public, believing that knowledge and information were crucial to taming the effects of the diseases. Various sources cited the prevalence of venereal disease as infecting 50% to 90% of all men over the age of 18, but these statistics were largely the product of guesswork or deliberate exaggeration in order to incite action (Bigelow, 1916). Even conservative estimates, however, stated that more than 50% of men had one of the diseases during their lifetime, which showed that moral laxity was profound. Hygienists refuted the myth repeated by men that they had a “sexual necessity” to engage in sexual relations from adolescence onward (Lowry & Lambert, 1912). Blair (1980) indicated that the suffrage movement joined with the hygienists in order to banish the double standard of morality between men and women; they also supported the need for sex education for children (“New standard,” 1908). Changing view on the purpose of sex. During the progressive era, the public discussion of sex always stressed sexual abstinence until marriage. Sex generally was seen as a function primarily for procreation, particularly among eugenists; nonetheless Margaret Sanger and others also explored the recreation of sex (Reed, 2003). Sociologist, Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 18 nudist, prolific author, and eventual member of the F. D. Roosevelt Administration, Maurice Parmelee, sought to dispel the notion that enjoying sex should be forbidden (Woodall, 2002). In fact, he advocated that ignoring the play function would be harmful to society. Parmelee (1920) called for youth to be taught all aspects of sex. He stressed the importance of fully developing the play function by a couple prior to children being brought into the world. In order for this information to be a part of marital decisions, Parmelee asserted that youth should be taught these aspects of sexual decision-making. Sex education, then, would better equip them to be responsible citizens in the future. Sanger expanded on Parmelee’s view, arguing that women should have the freedom to enjoy sex without the fear of pregnancy, giving women both sexual and reproductive freedom (Chesler, 2003). Her newspaper, The Woman Rebel, used the motto: “No Gods. No Masters,” which promised information that would potentially free women from pregnancy and the sexual restraint that it engendered (Galvin, 1998). Antonucci (1995) quoted Sanger’s aversion to abstinence, insisting it caused mental disorders and “nervousness” and her similar aversion to the marriage bed as being a “degenerating influence” in society. Sanger’s views were radical at the time, but her voice gained strength in the coming decades, and became an early influence in what would become sex education in American public schools. Monitoring of birth rate. The eugenics movement worked to change Americans views regarding human reproduction. It was also an important tenet in early public school sex education programs (Bigelow, Balliet, & Morrow, 1913). Eugenics began in England near the end of the 19th century by Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin (Gerrard, 1914). The theory quickly moved to the U.S., reaching its highest point of Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 19 acceptability between 1905 and 1930 when many in the church, the university, and well- known leaders embraced the theory. Eugenics, or “good breeding,” was a theory having an intellectual birth closely tied to Darwinian survival of the fittest (West, 2005). It suggested that cultural progress for future generations was possible through selective breeding or discriminatory reproduction, encouraging strong hereditary lines that seemingly held the key to improving the culture (Parmelee, 1920). Left to itself, American culture was on the verge of degeneration as the so-called “unfit” sectors of society were reproducing at a faster pace than the supposed “fit” genetic strains; charity and modern medicine were hindering nature’s natural selection of those with weak heredity (Searcy, 1914). A chief American eugenist, Harry Laughlin (1920), believed eugenics provided a potential scientific solution. Sterilization, encouraging contraception, and restricting marriage for the “unfit” were important aspects of the national campaign. In addition to advocating the restriction of reproduction by those who displayed mental or physical disorders or weakness, the theory also stressed that social ills such as poverty, alcoholism, sexually transmitted disease, and prostitution could be eradicated by restricting reproduction of “unfit” classes and encouraging “fit” genetic lines to extend their superior gene pool (Baer, 2002). The birth control movement was founded during this period by Margaret Sanger, a nurse who wanted birth control to be easily accessible (Jensen, 2007). She coined the term “birth control” (Galvin, 1998) and most historians agree that her work did more to advance access to contraception than any other person in American history (Vespa, 1980) Sanger (1922) purported that the primary purpose of birth control was to encourage fewer children from the “unfit” portions of American society, a common theme among Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 22 Figure 1. Poster 22 from the Public Health Service “Keeping Fit” Campaign. (Scanned from original posters that are a part of the American Social Health Association <http://special.lib.umn.edu/findaid/xml/sw0045.xml> records in the Social Welfare History Archives <http://special.lib.umn.edu/swha/> at the University of Minnesota. Copyright to the original posters has expired, but University of Minnesota libraries <http://www.lib.umn.edu/> holds copyright to the scanned images and grants this permission for use.) Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 23 Figure 2. Poster 29 from the Public Health Service “Keeping Fit” Campaign. (Scanned from original posters that are a part of the American Social Health Association <http://special.lib.umn.edu/findaid/xml/sw0045.xml> records in the Social Welfare History Archives <http://special.lib.umn.edu/swha/> at the University of Minnesota. Copyright to the original posters has expired, but University of Minnesota libraries <http://www.lib.umn.edu/> holds copyright to the scanned images and grants this permission for use.) Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 24 moral absolutism and moral relativism in their application of the principle (Blanshard, 1923), and the outworking of that theory predicted the nature of sex education that was recommended. The school setting became a testing ground for new theories and social experiments, much of which was led by Dewey and the Progressive Education Association. This educational reform movement sided heavily on the side of “nurture” as opposed to the heavy reliance on “nature” by eugenics. Musolf (2003) asserted that educational progressives opposed the view taken by eugenics that whole sectors of the population could not benefit from formal education. They dismissed biological determinism in favor of self-determination, believing that education was transformative. They wanted students to learn experientially (Berube, 1994). They wanted students to become responsible citizens in the future and this meant more than registering to vote; they also needed to act responsibly in their sex lives. Educational progressives and social hygienists prepared the environment for sex education. Advocates argued that sexual problems prevailed because there was an unwillingness to address the problems openly. “Mystery and silence” were not effective in keeping young people sexually abstinent. Children needed to learn to control their sexual appetites and this was not possible without adequate information, reported Pivar (2002). Young people needed to know that sex could be healthy and wholesome, both pleasurable and reproductive in nature (Bigelow, 1916). The work of G. Stanley Hall (1905) changed the way the world looked at youth by identifying a definite period in a person’s life called “adolescence,” the time when sexual reproduction was possible. That age had special challenges and special needs that sex education could address. Hall stressed the need for sexual restraint during this critical developmental period. Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 27 Religious groups, Catholics in particular, bristled that moral teaching was being separated from the supernatural source of morality (Moran, 1996). Bigelow (1916) noted that most professional educators and scientists supported sex education, but that the “uninformed masses” needed a propaganda campaign in order to convince them of the need for this new approach. Most parents did not yet support open sex education because of three reasons: (1) they believed their children would not receive inaccurate information elsewhere, so they wanted to protect them from receiving any sex information, (2) sexual experimentation was just a part of growing up, so efforts to curb such activity were useless, (3) girls should remain pure and boys should “sow their wild oats” during their youth, so the messages to both genders should not be uniform (Bigelow). Young resigned in protest over a loss of confidence in her leadership by members of the school board. With her resignation, the “Chicago controversy” ended, lasting only one semester. Sex education supporters used the failed attempt in Chicago to fine-tune a stronger approach in other cities. They were able to learn from Chicago’s mistakes and many errors were attributed to Young’s harsh advocacy efforts. Other schools quietly implemented many social hygiene principles in their classrooms, but away from the public fanfare and without school board approval. The lessons were integrated into extant classes such as biology and home economics, using models suggested by social hygienists. Widespread sex education in the schools was still an idea whose time had not yet come, but the foundation was largely built during this period. In fact, by 1920, 40% of all high schools responding to a survey said they implemented sex education in some form (Carter, 2001). Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 28 Intermediate Era The time period between the end of the progressive era (1920) and the beginning of the sexual revolution (1960) was the intermediate era in the development of public school sex education in America. During this period, many of the movements begun during the progressive era continued, such as eugenics, birth control and social hygiene. Several new developments presented themselves that significantly impacted the development of modern sex education. They included: (1) the new morality of the 1920s, (2) initiation of family life education, and (3) the influence of Alfred Kinsey. Building on efforts begun in the progressive era. Engs (2005) reported that the influence of the eugenics movement reached its peak in the 1920s, but began to wane as more information from genetic science emerged in the 1930s. Americans recognized that the simple description put forth by eugenic proponents did not adequately describe the cause of physical, mental, or social problems. Further, the widespread use of the eugenics theory for the mass eradication of minority groups in Nazi Germany caused many to disassociate themselves from the movement (Engs). Sanger and advocates within the birth control movement gained momentum as they continued to push for easy access to birth control, beginning the American Birth Control League in 1921 (which was to become Planned Parenthood in 1942). Planned Parenthood adopted its first official statement on sex education in 1946. Sanger won an important court ruling in 1936 when the court decided that birth control devices and materials could no longer be considered “obscene” (Tuhus-Dubrow, 2007). By January 1940, Henry Fairchild, president of the American Eugenics Society noted that “these two great movements, [eugenics and birth control], have now come to such a thorough Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 29 understanding and have drawn so close together as to be almost indistinguishable” (Gordon, 2002, p. 202). This admission was telling, for as the eugenics movement was losing social acceptability, the birth control provided them a new venue for renewed, less obvious, advocacy. In 1948, Sanger helped fund Gregory Pincus, a research biologist, to develop an early birth control pill (Lawrence, 2008), which was introduced to the public in 1959 (Galvin, 1998). This paved the way for future sex education programs to include contraceptive advocacy as a priority message. The Public Health Service continued to fund programs designed to prevent and treat STDs and targeted one part of the campaign toward teen girls and boys (Public Health Service, 1924). The economic results from the depression required the government to temporarily discontinue the program but, in 1936, the campaign was again renewed following a severe syphilis outbreak (Cutler, 1988). World War II further supported the campaign, with soldiers again heading overseas and away from the watchful eyes of family (Rotskoff, 2001). A War Department (1941) document stressed that prevention assisted in creating an “efficient military force,” suggesting that messaging for WWII was similar to that of WWI – avoiding illicit sex was both a personal and patriotic effort. ASHA (1942) cooperated with the government to distribute Fit to Fight….and Fit for Life, a campaign designed to reduce sexually transmitted disease transmission. Loss of pay and possible court martial were penalties for contracting an STD. Treatment centers were also created and the discovery of penicillin, which was effective in treating the two venereal diseases of the day, aided in the cure (Cutler, 1988). Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 32 together with the outrage by concerned members of the community, foreshadowed a coming battle over moral expectations that would move the debate to the schools. Influence of Alfred Kinsey. Indiana University zoologist, Alfred Kinsey, published two books on research of sexual behavior in the late 40’s and early 50s. He allegedly collected around 18,000 sexual histories, the largest collection of such data ever assembled. At the time, many communities banned the book and open discussion of sexual behavior was considered off limits. The books contained controversial information about such topics as bestiality, homosexual behavior, widespread marital infidelity, and alleged infant sexual responses (Turan, 2004). At a time that monogamy and premarital abstinence persisted as the cultural norm, Kinsey advocated “open marriage” and filmed couples having sex as a part of his research (Turan, 2004). Kinsey (1948) was the first to hold that 10% of the male population was homosexual. To arrive at his information on normal sexual behavior, Kinsey interviewed a nonrepresentative proportion of sex offenders, participants in the homosexual bathhouse community, and at least 25% of his population was from the prison population. Some of the participants were also alleged pedophiles (“Really, Dr. Kinsey,” 1991), since Kinsey’s (1948) research described the sexual manipulation of babies as young as 2 months old. For example, he described one 11-month infant, citing that he had 14 “orgasms” within 38 minutes, a shocking detail that has led to the claim in modern sex education that humans are sexual from birth. Although Kinsey’s views were countercultural during his life, they provided a foundation for modern sex education decades after his death. Abrams (1998) contended that Kinsey “established the sexual license he (personally) espoused” (p. 37). Kinsey Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 33 (1948) created an “anything goes” mentality in regards to sexual experimentation by stating that abstinence before marriage could lead to psychological or emotional harm. His research also prepared the way for gay rights, sexual rights, and women’s rights movements in the future (Turan, 2004). A survey of young people at the end of 1920 revealed that many were engaging in sexual activity, including oral sex, but were not receiving any sex education (Wheeler, 2000), so an effort to quietly implement sex education continued during the intermediate era. From the 1920’s through the 1950s, the goal of American public school sex education was to encourage premarital abstinence and faithfulness within marriage in order to better assure a satisfying and happy marriage (Carter, 2001). Sex education advocates began using a new argument for premarital abstinence: that sex in marriage would be more fulfilling if individuals remained abstinent when single. This argument signified a departure from identifying sex as merely a function of procreation, but also made certain that students knew that the pleasurable aspects of the behavior were meant for marriage (Kett, 2002). Sex education became a formal part of the character education movement. In 1922, the Public Health Service published a manual for high schools. Continuing the view of hygienists from the previous era, the manual stated that sex education was holistic, operating as a “phase of character formation” (Gruenberg, 1922, p. 2). It warned schools that the surest way to raise opposition to the program was to call a program “sex education.” Advocates learned from the mistakes of the “Chicago Experiment.” Therefore, the manual provided practical ways to integrate sex education within academic courses such as biology, physical education, English, and the social sciences, thus Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 34 avoiding controversy (Gruenberg). For example, the “birds and the bees” was often taught in biology class. By 1927, 45% of schools were offering some type of sex education, though few parents were aware of the matter (Carter, 2001). Sex education continued to adjust to the times. During World War II, the danger of venereal disease again became a priority when syphilis peaked to the highest level to date (Smallman-Raynor, & Cliff, 2004). Campaigns connected sexual abstinence to national security and protection of the family (ASHA, 1942). Figure 3 depicts a poster created for the campaign. Athletics and other extracurricular activities were encouraged as a healthy alternative to premarital sex (Gruenberg, 1946). The priority of including STDs in sex education decreased after antibiotics were discovered to be an effective treatment of gonorrhea and syphilis in the mid-1940’s (Public Health Service, 1959). Public school sex education subsequently turned toward the sociological and psychological aspects of sex education. The term “family life education” (FLE) became an important part of school-based classes during 1940s and 1950s in which the discussion of character building, relationships, money management, marriage, and childbearing was part of home economics classes. Marriage was increasingly seen as a companionship rather than merely an institution that legitimatized procreation. Burgess and Locke (1945) noted that this transformation had been gradually taking place for several decades. The family provided a healthy and safe place for children to be born; therefore sexual restraint before marriage was deemed necessary (Kris, 1953), and FLE classes generally reflected this sentiment. Changing the direction of sex education classes to economic and relational subjects also helped them become much more palatable to the public (Carter, 2001). Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 37 officially part of the debate over sex education, they did influence teen perception of normalcy and morally acceptable behaviors (Allyn, 2000). Their combined rise as a public subculture also became a target of some local school boards vis-à-vis behaviors they sought to curb through the adoption of sex education in their school districts. Beatniks represented a group of writers who publicly rebelled against the “establishment,” and called for sexual freedom of speech and expression. They cemented their camaraderie by casual sex of all kinds (Allyn, 2000). Hippies were known for their commitment to “free love.” They purported that sex was a natural part of life and should be enjoyed without restraint. By the early 1960s, there were several homosexual advocacy organizations, including Mattachine and Daughters of Bilitis (Costain & McFarland, 1998). The Stonewall riots of 1969 increased public awareness of homosexual demands when a police raid on a gay bar sparked a violent three-day riot. The riots symbolized the confrontational organizing point for gay rights activists seeking equal access to sexual freedom (Carter, 2009). A particular businessman rose to capitalize on the new public sexual permissiveness. Although Hugh Hefner founded Playboy in 1953, it was not until 1960 that he opened his first Playboy Club. Within 3 years, he opened 6 clubs with 250,000 regular patrons, signifying a rapid growth in the mainstreaming of pornography (Allyn, 2000). The profits that amassed through this lucrative business helped give the Playboy Foundation the wherewithal to help fund the creation of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), a new organization that supported “values neutral” sex education (Reisman, 2000). Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 38 Birth of “pro-sex” organizations. Women’s liberation drew headlines with the release of Helen Gurley’s (1962) infamous Sex and the Single Girl. It described, in graphic detail, a young girl’s uninhibited sexual life. Her expose was followed by Betty Friedan’s (1963) The Feminine Mystique, which officially launched the Women’s Liberation Movement (Heer, 1981). In 1966, Friedan founded the National Organization for Women (NOW). Among other agendas, it focused efforts on attacking the sexual double standard and eliminating the male domination they insisted was intrinsic within marriage. The group also claimed at least partial victory by legalization of the Pill and abortion. NOWs membership increased from 1,000 in 1967 to 40,000 by 1970 (Chappell, 2002). Women’s rights activists became heavily involved in the fight for sex education in the schools. Moran (2003) noted that SIECUS was formed in 1964 with the help of former Planned Parenthood medical director, Mary Calderone. Vespa (1980) argued that Calderone did as much for sex education as Sanger did for birth control; her work with SIECUS accounted for most of this credit. They supported values neutral “comprehensive” sex education that encouraged students to decide for themselves when to engage in sex, whether to seek an abortion, and how to obtain easy access to contraception (Kett, 2002). SIECUS (1969) maintained that the “old morality” of abstinence until marriage was widely challenged and that the “new morality” of relativism offered the most hope for modern sex education. Nonetheless, they were careful not to discount the “morality of indulgence” found among hedonists (p. 10). This philosophy of sex education may have been too radical for some because in 1969, the Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 39 California legislature banned SIECUS materials in sex education classes in that state (Mehlman, 2007). In 1967, SIECUS leader, Patricia Schiller, formed the American Association of Sex Educators and Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) to offer training and standards for sex education providers (Engel, 1989). By 1969, school districts were already using SIECUS consultants to assist their development of sex education classes (Moran, 2000). By 1973 over 450 people applied to AASECT for certification as professional sex educators (Engel, 1989). Another organization assisted the collection of research in support of sex education. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), a part of Planned Parenthood until 1977, was formed in 1968 to promote “reproductive health and rights” through the use of research, analysis and education (AGI, 2009). Situational ethics. Joseph Fletcher (1966) published an influential book, Situation Ethics: The New Morality. He suggested a new philosophy, advancing the notion that all decisions were relative to their respective situations. Love was the only absolute. Within that one absolute, every other decision could be individually determined: “What is sometimes good may at other times be evil, and what is sometimes wrong may sometimes be right when it serves a good enough end – depending on the situation,” argued Fletcher (p. 123). The theory became popular with proponents of sex education. SIECUS (1969) produced a booklet on values for sex education and referred to situation ethics as “the emerging new morality” (p. 9). The argument was that students should decide the prudence of a given sexual behavior based on the particular circumstances in which they found themselves. As an example, the booklet provided an application of the principle to premarital sex: “If you feel good about it, it’s right; if you Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 42 the Democratic Party adopted a pro-abortion platform. These actions signified the formal entrance of partisan politics into the debate (McBride, 2007). Altman (1982) believed that the sexual revolution marked an increasing obsession with sex. It brought an upheaval to sex education (Jimenez, 2005). It began in sex education books written for adults. Though the release of Kinsey’s books a little over a decade earlier met with vicious attacks, the release of Masters and Johnson’s (1966) Human Sexual Response, met with an overwhelmingly positive press. The book made them instant household names among a significant portion of the American population (Allyn, 2000). Alex Comfort’s (1972) The Joy of Sex further opened the public discussion of topics previously reserved for the married couple’s bedroom. Reading and discussing the books in public unlocked a new curiosity among youth that made its way into the halls of public schools, if not inside the classrooms (Cornog & Perper, 1996). The sexual revolution significantly changed public values about sex as well as sexual behavior among an increasing number of Americans, including youth. In 1965, 3% of all White births were outside of wedlock and 24% of Black births were nonmarital (Akerlof, 1996), but by 1978, the numbers jumped to 20% for White mothers and 75% for Black mothers (Moran, 2000). Before 1970, nonmarital parenthood was stigmatized, but the sexual revolution broke down many barriers to premarital sex and young people were among the most affected by the change (Akerlof, 1996). To address this growing problem of teen pregnancy, the U.S. Office of Education in 1966 funded 645 agencies to help develop sex education programs throughout numerous American communities (HEW, 1966). The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) was presented a grant to develop a sex education training manual for teachers Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 43 (Larson, 2002). Among public schools, the curricular content greatly varied, but “comprehensive” sex education with an emphasis on birth control, was a hot topic (Balanko, 2002). Gallup polls in 1969 and 1971 showed a drop in support for public school sex education from 71% to 65% but most Americans still approved the effort (Scales, 1981). Nixon’s 1971 White House Conference on Youth supported a requirement that all public elementary and secondary schools implement a sex education program within academic curriculum (Engel, 1989). In the 1970s, the mission of sex education proponents changed. The goal was not as much to prevent teens from engaging in sex, but rather to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of their experimentation (Rotskoff, 2001). Balanko (2002) noted that the 1970s assisted the development of a sex education component that placed “an emphasis on pleasure and sex equity” (p. 118). Disease and morality were quickly becoming seemingly unimportant reasons to abstain from sex. The sexual revolution was invading the classroom with its me-centered emphasis and the changes in sex education goals were evidence of it. At the same time, some groups began to organize in order to counter the effects of the sexual revolution. They specifically focused their efforts to oppose sex education in the public schools (Kline, 2005). Mahoney (1979) described a national survey conducted in 1977 showing that most Americans who favored the traditional family and abstinence until marriage disapproved of sex education in public schools. Among respondents, age, religiosity, and ideology were unrelated factors in determining support or opposition. Mahoney noted: “Sex education is not a political issue which finds itself in the moral arena, but a moral issue which finds its way into the political arena” (p. 274). Nonetheless, by the late 1970s, about 35% of private and public schools provided sex Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 44 education, but the content varied widely, determined in large part by local community standards (Scales, 1981). The Modern Sex Education Era (1980 to the Present) By the dawn of the 1980s, new counter-revolution groups fixed their sights on turning back the perceived harm of the sexual revolution. Tactics changed. Rather than advocating against sex education, groups requested that “safe sex” education be replaced with abstinence education (SIECUS, 2003). Innovative organizations emerged, working to put political leadership in charge of taking on the “culture wars” in favor of more traditional values (Irvine, 2002). For the first time, abstinence education was a designated federally-funded program (Pear, 1986). The increase of modern and persistent STDs caused health concerns to resurface as an additional reason for teaching sexual restraint to America’s youth. The discovery of HIV in the early 1980s caused fear over a virus that had no cure and led to almost certain eventual death (Balanko, 2002). In 1996, the bipartisan passage of a new welfare reform bill placed the debate over sex within a seemingly unrelated debate – that of child poverty and the escalating welfare rolls (Haskins & Bevan, 1997). Two sides of the debate advocated two very different solutions to modern problems related to teen sex. Sex education advocates of the 1960s called for “safe sex” or so-called “comprehensive” sex education, which permitted a continuation of sexual freedom, as long as contraception was used. Abstinence proponents sought to equip teens with the skills to avoid any of the potential risks of sex, both physical and emotional (Rector & Kim, 2007). The issue of sex education became increasing volatile during the Modern Sex Education Era as indicated by the emergence of two oppositional efforts: (1) Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 47 George W. Bush campaigned on a promise to provide equal funding for abstinence and so-called “comprehensive” sex education. While governor, Bush visited an abstinence education teacher-training workshop in Waco, where he gained an appreciation for the approach. Bush learned that abstinence education offered a practical, comprehensive skill building approach that reportedly made sense to a father of 2 teen- age daughters (L. Benn, personal communication, August 11, 2009). True to his promise, the Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) Program was initiated in 2002. Popularity for the CBAE program resulted in it quickly becoming one of the most highly competitive grants offered by the federal government (U.S. OMB, 2009). Contraceptive-based sex education proponents regrouped their efforts after discerning the support for abstinence education across the country. They rebranded contraceptive- centered education as “abstinence-plus” (Landry, 1999), in part, to assuage nervous schools boards and anxious parents that students were receiving the same abstinence until marriage message that was taught before 1960, when in fact, they were not. Despite the rise of abstinence education funding, contraceptive or so-called “comprehensive” sex education continued to be given precedence. Abstinence education only received a fraction of the funds available for so-called “comprehensive” sex education (Pardue, Rector, & Martin, 2004). Following the panic due to the discovery of the HIV/AIDS virus in the early 1980’s, by the mid 1990s, most states mandated that schools teach HIV/AIDS prevention. (Stein, 1998). This discovery created a platform for sex education advocates to press for more explicit contraceptive instruction, together with a discussion of homosexuality. The focus for HIV prevention funding and other STD or pregnancy prevention programs assumed that teens could not, or would not, abstain from Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 48 sex; therefore, they must learn to use condoms correctly and consistently (St. Lawrence, 1998). Advocates for “comprehensive” sex education increased their insistence for confidentiality in testing and counseling teens. The argument was that youth would not seek treatment if they knew parents would be contacted. This line of reasoning also strengthened the argument for school-based clinics (SBC), which afforded students easy access to birth control and pregnancy or STD testing, together with an array of other general health services. Although the SBC movement had its roots in the 1970’s, it generally did not gain popularity until the 1980’s (Card, 1999). In 1984, there were only 12 SBCs in the United States; by 1993, the number had increased to 500 (“School-based clinics,” 1993). The Clinton Administration attempted to insert funding for SBCs into a bill for healthcare overhaul, but the effort crumbled, leaving the current Obama Administration to renew the SBC effort within the 2009 health care debate (Obama for America, 2008). The election of Barack Obama as President in 2008 significantly influenced the debate over sex education. During the campaign, he was chided by some for supporting the SIECUS-based model for K-12 sex education (Davis & Ellerson, 2007) while a Legislator in Illinois (Illinois General Assembly, 2005). During the campaign, he reiterated his support for “comprehensive” sex education. Once installed as President, Obama submitted his 2010 budget proposal to Congress. In it, he called for the elimination of all funds previously devoted to abstinence education. In its place, he proposed a new “pregnancy prevention program” that would create a new dedicated funding stream for “comprehensive” programs supported by pro-sex organizations Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 49 (White House, 2009). Although President Bush did not decrease funding for “comprehensive” sex education during his administration, he did work to increase the primary prevention programs of abstinence education. By contrast, President Obama recommended increasing “comprehensive” sex education programs beyond their current 4:1 funding advantage by totally eliminating abstinence education. At the present time, the 111th Congress has yet to make a final determination, but it appears poised to follow the President’s request, changing the messaging once again for youth in America. Pro-sex organizations gain strength. During the Modern Sex Education Era, competing views of sex education intensified, in large part due to the fact that the federal government was funding both approaches (HHS, 2008d). Advocacy groups like SIECUS, Advocates for Youth, and Planned Parenthood receive significant funding from influential foundations, as well as from the federal government. This assists them in building their infrastructures to better lobby for “comprehensive” sex education (Guidestar, 2009). SIECUS is the only national organization dedicated solely to advocating for so- called “comprehensive” sex education (Irvine, 2002). They do so on an annual budget of around $2 million a year, much larger than any single-issue advocacy organization in support of abstinence education (Moran, 2003). They immediately entered the sex education battles shortly after their 1960s founding, but their influence strengthened in 1991, when SIECUS published the first edition of Guidelines for Comprehensive Education (Physicians Consortium, 2002). This is a curricular framework for school districts to follow when implementing so-called “comprehensive” sex education school programs, beginning in kindergarten. The lessons include general information about Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 52 Summary An overview of the history of sex education provides an essential foundation for understanding the current state of sex education in America. Before 1900, there was virtually no school-based sex education, but the progressive era proved to be an important departure from the status quo. For the first time, government saw its role move inside America’s bedrooms. The serious outbreaks of syphilis and gonorrhea required drastic measures in order to defend the national security and protect America’s families. The “social disease,” venereal disease and the age-old sexual double standard became the impetus for the nation’s first sex education classes. Many believed that schools held the most promise in addressing society’s ills, so they easily became the natural landing-spot for sex education. Movements begun during the progressive era proved to greatly influence the course of sex education, not only during that time, but also for the next century. Although sex education was controversial from the very start, the main message was character-based, health-based, and centered on abstinence until and faithfulness after marriage. The Intermediate Era was a time of significant change. The blatant decadence of the 1920s prompted some to consider it the first sexual revolution. Nudity on the screen and an attitude of sexual permissiveness among many of the younger generation led to a conservative reemphasis on sexual “continence.” The era saw a change of sex education from disease prevention to “family life education,” where students learned the importance of remaining abstinent in order to strengthen their future marriages. Relational understanding and marriage preparation skills were key components of this emphasis. Kinsey’s books on human sexual behavior, however, reignited the topic of sex and Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 53 prepared America for a renewed debate on how this new information should be integrated into future sex education discussions. The sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s turned America’s moral sensibility on its head. A synergy of countercultural groups flaunted lawlessness, drugs and sex. Although most Americans still believed sex should be reserved for marriage, a strong undercurrent was developing that would challenge this “old morality.” Situation ethics gave Americans intellectual permission to discard moral absolutes. Sex education moved away from abstinence as a priority to preventing pregnancy. The Pill and abortion provided the opportunity to experiment with sex without the previous fear of potential consequences. All of these cultural signposts afforded a healthy environment for the emergence of pro-sex organizations and governmental funding for the first contraceptive- based “comprehensive” sex education. The Modern Sex Education Era began with a reaction to the excess of the 1960s and 1970s. Abstinence education received federal funding for the first time, but it did not keep pace with funding available for “comprehensive” sex education. Funding disparity and a misunderstanding of the two approaches contributed to the result of most schools teaching the “comprehensive” approach. Pro-sex organizations used every opportunity to attack abstinence education. They employed public relations campaigns and political action committees to advocate for their agenda. This agenda was (and is) at least as much about destroying abstinence education as it is about supporting “comprehensive” sex education and free expression of nearly all sexual behaviors among young people. The current Obama Administration is prepared to use its fiscal scalpel to eliminate the growth of abstinence education within America’s school systems. Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 54 III. Methodology Cultural observers often look at a modern problem and want to know why it exists. Social scientists desire to understand how various problems affect society and the interrelationship of its people. Policy writers often are given the challenging task of fixing the identified problem. But social participants (common individuals in society), not only would like the problem fixed, but also wish for steps to be taken in order to assure the problem does not occur again. Historical analyses can make positive contributions to that end by providing insights regarding individuals involved at each step in the above process. Historical analysis is a research method that inspects events from the past, organizes the events around common themes, and then uses the information to gain new insights (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). Peterson (2006) argues that the “essence” of analysis involves “interrogating the text, image, or artifact” (p. 294). Merely reading primary and secondary historical sources is insufficient. Researchers using this method seek to gather a fairly exhaustive offering of historic information surrounding the topic being studied. While this is only the beginning of the historical analysis process, researchers also must examine each source for purpose and context. For example, researchers who use historical analysis might ask: Why was this document created? Who wrote it? When was it created? Who was the target audience? Does other evidence support or dispute the source? How are all sources connected (Peterson)? Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 57 This thesis represents a fresh approach to the study of sex education. I identified the key turning points in history that led to the current debate surrounding the issue. I scrutinized the zeitgeist present in each of the eras. I also explored the political implications that sex education decisions made in the past as a way to discern their impact on present sex education. Further, I examined the pro sex movement to identify elements that had their genesis in bygone eras. From a historical perspective, I identified not only the beginnings, but also the ways factions have influenced policy decisions and community standards. This apparently is uncharted territory. Procedure The present study evaluates potential historical contributions that made sex education a seemingly permanent fixture in modern school classrooms. Warren warned that the past is in the business of reprimanding the present (Warren & Watkins, 1990), an analogy that appears fitting for the present research endeavor. In other words, the look backwards in the present thesis contributes to potential forward applications. Conducting the present historical analysis required combing primary and secondary sources in order to find key events that contributed to the current state of sex education in public schools today. As the world’s largest repository of books and other historic documents, the Library of Congress was particularly valuable. The collection of almost 142 million items, including 32 million books and documents, helps provide resources to find answers to my research question. In particular, the Library contained rare finds, including sex education books from the turn of the 20th century and a trove that included the following: unpublished writings by Margaret Sanger, World War I reports by the War Department that detailed their fight against venereal disease among American Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 58 soldiers, first hand accounts of individuals who fought sex education battles mid-century, and early documents by SIECUS (the advocacy group that promotes a pro-sex agenda for sex education in public schools). Additionally, an extensive online search for additional primary materials located many out of print books that were available electronically. In addition to exploring written records, I also spoke with individuals who were a part of the countercultural response to the sexual revolution of the 1960s. This provided personal insights and additional details that sometimes are not part of formal written records. Secondary sources also supported the research process, including journal articles, newspaper clippings, and other reports that expanded my understanding of the history of sex education in America. In all, I thoroughly explored the writings of both abstinence and pro-sex groups – endeavoring to understand both sides of the contentious issue – from the groups’ respective vantage point. A comprehensive assessment of all the data showed four eras that seemingly hallmarked sex education in American public schools from 1900 to the present. They are the Progressive, Intermediate, Sexual Revolution, and Modern Eras. The divisions were not arbitrarily chosen. They were derived because of common themes that bound certain decades together in reference to the development of public school sex education. While each era played a key role in propelling sex education forward, not all events were equally important vis-à-vis their full respective impacts. Key turning points in the history of school sex education were subsequently evaluated. These turning pints were identified on the basis of how various events changed or significantly impacted the subsequent direction of sex education in the American public school. I cited scholars who recognized that the events were significant; the unique element in the present thesis is how I have Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 59 threaded together the various events, showing their overall impact, and also the analysis I provided within each era. An event qualified as a key turning point if it significantly influenced the culture of that particular period, as well as having the quality of exercising a continuing influence on subsequent public school education. As such, key figures, the zeitgeist, and policy implications were considered. Following the identification of key turning points, the final step of this study involved a discussion of the implications of the findings. What can be discovered from history that will assist in making wise choices regarding sex education in the future? In the past, well-intentioned individuals and groups implemented sex education programs that they believed would help teens make better sexual choices. The consequences of these changes had an effect – sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. This thesis separated the two and made recommendations for the future. This final step in historical analysis sought to make the study intensely practical, as the issue of sex education is more than an academic or cultural debate. Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 62 effort in the future through the eventual insertion of birth control instruction within messages given to students. Key figures. During the progressive era, two individuals were particularly important in what eventually would become public school sex education. The first was Margaret Sanger, founder of the birth control movement. She was a radical in her time, an atheist when being one was unpopular, and a socialist during a World War (Byfield, 1997). Sanger began the nation’s first birth control clinic, which served mostly poor immigrant women (Tolson, 1999). The vice squad raided the clinic soon after opening. Sanger was jailed but eventually won a legal victory when the court ruled that doctors, for any health reason, not merely the prevention or treatment of STDs, could prescribe contraceptives to women (Powderly, 1995). Goldberg (2008) related that Sanger also was arrested for violating obscenity laws in 1917 by distributing condoms. Sanger (1917) distributed Family Limitation to American women as a how-to manual, detailing home remedies of contraception, with the warning that birth control was the “only cure for abortion.” Sanger predicted that her efforts would give women the ability to practice one’s sexuality free of consequence (Chesler, 2003). Her labors seemingly did not have a direct effect on school and community-based sex education for decades, but “comprehensive” sex education eventually adopted her seeming aversion to abstinence (Antonucci, 1995) vis-a-vis their own advocacy efforts. The later approach also would emphasize the use of birth control as the priority message to avoiding pregnancy. The second person who was significantly influential during the progressive era was Prince Morrow, founder of the social hygiene movement. The high rates of STDs called for action and the social hygienists proposed a solution. They advocated an all-out Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 63 assault on the disease, using morality to bolster their health perspective (ASHA, 1916a). The social hygiene drive became an extraordinarily popular movement and was heavily connected with governmental efforts to curb the STD epidemic, lending the leaders’ expertise, time, and organizational efforts. Hygienists believed that silence was the primary reason for the problems of vice. If men and women fully understood the possible consequences of their illicit sexual decisions, they would avoid them. Boys would learn that they could exercise self-control over their sexual impulses and that they had no “sexual necessity” during adolescence (Bigelow, 1916). Morrow lent credibility to the movement as a doctor and he enlisted his colleagues in the medical profession to join his efforts. Morrow created a sex education model (detailed later in this section), but it was Maurice Bigelow who fleshed out the model in great detail and advanced the campaign for school and community-based sex education after Morrow’s death. Zeitgeist influences. Two features of society during the progressive era were particularly notable as they relate to turning points in future American public school sex education. The first was the national effort to eliminate the sexual double standard for men vis-à-vis women (Kimmel, 1916). For decades, society tacitly acknowledged that men retained a “sexual necessity” that required experimentation virtually from the time of puberty. During the progressive era, social hygienists, women’s groups, religious leaders, and social workers exhorted men to live by the same standard of morality as women. Women were encouraged to expect purity from men, thereby raising the standards in relationships and society as a whole (Moran, 2000). Men and boys did not “fall” because they set too high a standard and then failed to reach it, insisted Moore (1914). Rather, they fell because they had no standard to which they ought to aspire. The Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 64 “single standard” provided a positive expectation of abstinence. This principle was incorporated into the sex education model of the early 1900s and it continues to be a topic in sex education classroom discussions (Marks, 2008; Measor, Miller, & Tiffin, 2000). A second zeitgeist influence during the progressive era was the open public discourse about sexual hygiene. Social hygienists like William Foster (1914), President of the Pacific Coast Federation for Sex Hygiene and President of Reed College, supported the advancements made in educating the public regarding the need for sexual “continence” in order to avoid STDs. However, they were also frightened by what they considered to be a potential “monster” that was unleashed as a result. Public exhibits and films depicted the horrors of venereal disease and showed how innocent girls were turned into “white slaves” (prostitutes). Lectures were conducted throughout the country on sex hygiene. Professionals and opportunists used the movement to turn profits from various enterprises they developed for the public. Suddenly, the floodgates were open and publicity about social ills was a part of the daily news. Leaders of the hygiene movement were concerned that the manner in which the message was being communicated could be harmful and not appropriate for all ages of people who were receiving it. Materials were so prevalent and explicit that some young people used the information as an excuse to discuss the subjects for pure titillation. Some books that were written in order to carefully instruct the reader on proper conduct were tossed aside in favor of erotic publications produced under the guise of hygienic education. The immorality of the age was redirected to an open discussion of the social ills that social hygienists hoped to eliminate (Foster, 1914). The concern over explicit content and the fear of moving from sex “education” to Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 67 increased investment, oversight, and responsibility by the government that would never abate. Not surprisingly, the progressive movement of the 21st century is directly related to the philosophy pertaining to the government’s present role in solving social problems– teen sex being only one such issue. Impact on contemporary and future sex education policies. The progressive era marked the beginning of school-based sex education. Efforts by the social hygiene movement and its cohorts influenced future sex education policies. The first major impact pertaining to sex education made during the progressive era was the creation of the two models for sex education. Margaret Sanger and the birth control movement lit the spark that would eventually become “comprehensive” sex education. This sex education approach focuses primarily on the same two chief concerns of Sanger and her colleagues: advocacy for contraception and delinking sexual activity from pregnancy (Degette, 2008). Although social hygienists held values very similar to that of contemporary abstinence education leaders, many of their campaign components describe elements similar to those of today’s general sex education implementation model. Chiefly physicians, leaders in the hygiene movement believed that knowledge was power and, if individuals were provided accurate and scientific information, then they would make better choices. However, in order to achieve maximum impact, the message needed to have a clear abstinence until marriage focus (Cocca, 2006). These leaders called for a community saturation model, dispersing the information. Table 1 illustrates how closely the social hygiene model mirrors many components of modern sex education programs. (A discussion of the two modern models of sex education is presented in Chapter 5). Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 68 Table 1 Hygienist Sex Education Model & Modern Sex Education Hygienist Model for Sex Education Modern Sex Education in General Two Current Models for Sex Education - Unique characteristics - “Comprehen sive” sex education Abstinence education Stress on holistic aspects of sex, rather than solely on the physical consequences X Accentuate the need for medically accurate information X Belief that the message should be communicated through various community and cultural venues X Clear delineation between sex and other risk behaviors X Regular reinforcement of message necessary X Goal is abstinence until marriage X Information will result in changed behavior X Emphasize a sexual single standard X Ties healthy decision-making to character attributes X Belief that abstinence prior to marriage likely will increase commitment in marriage Concern that explicit information may be harmful and inappropriate for young people X Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 69 The second impact was the controversy surrounding the district-wide public school implementation of sex education, particularly during the Chicago experiment. Opponents were able to discontinue the program through highly organized efforts (Cocca, 2006). Opponents disagreed that knowledge alone was sufficient to affect behavior change. They argued that, if knowledge was sufficient, then doctors would always make good health decisions. Sadly, such was not the case. Sex education should not be values- neutral, they added (Jensen, 2007). Opponents to sex education also argued that parents should provide sex education instruction to their children, not the school, and not the government (Jensen). Their success in halting the Chicago experiment was an early foretaste of the public outcry that would occur when schools attempted to implement sex education in local schools, against the wishes of its local citizens. Research by Alfred Kinsey. The second major historical event that laid the foundation for public school sex education involved the efforts of Alfred Kinsey (1948, 1953) in publishing his research on the sexual behavior of men and women. His study was revolutionary in its frank discussion of what he described as typical behavior among Americans. The works were extremely controversial at the time, breaking new ground regarding the open conversation about sex. Many of his findings form the basis for sexual science research and thematic content in sex education texts. Key figures. Two individuals associated with Kinsey’s research were particularly notable. The first, of course, was Alfred Kinsey. A professor of zoology at Indiana University, Kinsey first expressed public interest in the study of sex when he taught a marriage class for engaged couples in which he discussed sex in explicit details (Jones, 1997). He is best known, however, as the individual who challenged nearly every Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 72 Zeitgeist influences. Two features of society (due to Kinsey’s research) were especially prominent as they relate to turning points in future American public school sex education. The first was an erosion of the institution of marriage. Kinsey’s assertion that nearly 50% of married men and women were unfaithful shook the foundation of marital monogamous expectations (Mestel, 2004). It seemingly mattered little that Kinsey’s research sample was seriously unrepresentative of the population (Gathorne-Hardy, 1998). His public pronouncement of widespread infidelity became an almost established “fact,” serving to assuage the guilt of men or women who participated in marital affairs and planting the seed of possibility among those who had not. Kinsey further weakened the sense of marital bond by reporting that, in his sample, less than half of all male sexual encounters were within marriage (Kinsey, 1948). A further blow to the belief in marital monogamy was the influence of Kinsey’s research on mainstreaming the pornography industry. He reported that 70% of all males engaged a prostitute at one time or another (Kinsey, 1948). This information served to permit pornographic exploration among the newly curious and sexually frustrated. Hugh Heffner considered Kinsey’s research to be the empirical validation for his lucrative business (Gathorne-Hardy). Reiss (2006) explained: “[The] philosophy favored increasing the range of sexual behavior that Americans accepted as moral” (p. 55). As a result, Hefner helped to bankroll the Kinsey Institute (Gathorne-Hardy). On at least one occasion, the Kinsey Institute organized gatherings at the Playboy Mansion in order to discuss the rise and acceptability of sexual pluralism (Reiss). The erosion of marriage, the social tolerability of nonmarital sex, and rise in acceptability of pornography cogently affects sex education in public schools. Since the Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 73 time of Kinsey, abundant social science research has emerged showing that children born within marriage typically have brighter social, economic, and personal outcomes (Stanton, 1997). Unfortunately, most teen births are outside of marriage (CDC, 2009a). For some students, marriage has not been a part of their familial experience for several decades, so abstinence education classes seek to rebuild an appreciation for marriage Phelps, 2006). Teen boys, in particular, often view pornography, usually on the Internet. The addictive nature of pornography is frequently a topic of discussion in abstinence education classes (For Keeps, 2007). The second element that demonstrated Kinsey’s influence on the spirit of the times was the belief that children were sexual from birth. The belief was based on Table 34 in Kinsey’s (1948, p. 180) seminal book. The table described pre-adolescent “sexual response” for children as young as 2 months (Kinsey). Kinsey appeared to tacitly affirm the possibility when he reported: “In five cases of young pre-adolescents, observations were continued over periods of months or years until the individuals were old enough to make certain that true orgasm was involved” (p. 177). John Bancroft of the Kinsey Institute later admitted that pedophilia was an involved source of the data collected on young children (Bancroft, 1998). But the assertion that children are sexual from birth remains, despite an inadequate foundation for the assertion. The relatively recent ability to view boys in vitro reinforced those who hold this view. They now contend that children are actually sexual before birth (Reinisch & Beasley, 1991). This philosophy provides a grounded rationale for advocating that sex education begin as early as kindergarten (Haffner, 2008). Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 74 Salient decisions and political implications. Kinsey’s research made two important contributions of academic and political implications. The first contribution was the founding and continuation of what was to be known as the Kinsey Institute located on the Indiana University campus. The Institute houses the largest assembly of sexually explicit material in the world (Gathorne-Hardy, 2000). It also tenders collections on pro-sex organizations such as the Sexual Freedom League and the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (Kinsey Institute, 2009). The Institute continues to contribute to Kinsey’s original research by sponsoring current research in sexual decision-making, sexual arousal, and condom use (Kinsey Institute). This research serves to inform the field of sexology as well as school-based sex education. The second major implication of Kinsey’s research was its vast influence on a gradual change to American penal codes. Kinsey, himself, provided expert testimony before committees in 21 state legislatures that were considering revision of their sex offender laws (Jones, 1997). However, his research was most helpful to the creation of the American Law Institute’s 1955 Model Penal Code, which was a project that began in 1953, but finally took shape, partly due to funding by the Rockefeller Foundation (Wechsler, 1952). In the Code, 33% of all social science citations and 100% of all scientific citations in regard to sexual behavior were from Kinsey’s research (Panzer & Mosack, 2009). His research also was eventually instructive to landmark court cases, such as the Lawrence v. Texas (2003), a Supreme Court case that invalidated states’ sodomy laws in support of homosexual rights to privacy (Chauncey, 2004). For example, the majority opinion referred to the Model Penal Code (MPC) to support its view; the only scientific research cited in the MPC for sodomy is from Kinsey, further illustrating Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 77 Table 2 Common Components: Kinsey’s Assertions & Modern Sex Education Kinsey’s Assertions (1948, 1953) in His Research of Sexual Behavior on the Human Male and Female Statements Accepted By the General Culture Two Current Models for Sex Education - Unique characteristics - “Comprehensive” sex education Abstinence education Humans are sexual from birth X X 10% of males identify themselves as homosexual X X Values-neutral view of sex: All sexual activity is “normal” (He included bestiality, though not widely accepted by values-neutral proponents) X A large portion of married individuals are unfaithful to their spouses Abstinence is an aberration, or at best, unrealistic X Sexual experimentation can be healthy behavior for teens X Minimize risks associated with multiple sexual partners X X Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 78 Key figures. During the sexual revolution, two individuals were especially important for the development of “comprehensive” sex education. Bill Masters and Virginia Johnson (1966) wrote the first mainstream, academic book sharing the intimate details of sex. The work was based on more than 10,000 observed sexual acts and gave confidence to the launch of a wider assortment of sex research (Reiss, 2006). Masters understood that Kinsey set the precedent for sexual research, and theirs was the next natural step. While Kinsey took the sexual histories of individuals via interview, Masters and Johnson directly observed the physiological changes that occurred during sex. They believed this provided a much more definitive understanding of sexual behavior than did often inaccurate self-reporting (Maier, 2009). Like Kinsey, they wanted the study to be scientific with documented evidence of each assertion. The findings also added more detail to Kinsey’s original assertion that children were sexual from birth, by citing evidence of sexual responses in infants (Masters & Johnson, 1966). Goldstein (2009) argued that the Masters and Johnson research made the study of sex legitimate. Reiss (2006) added that the study also revolutionized sex education in America. Masters and Johnson espoused that society harmfully hindered natural sexual expression. They also believed that sex deserved equal enjoyment by both men and women, thereby creating an environment where sexual pleasure became seen as a right. Zeitgeist influences. A single feature of society during the sexual revolution was particularly notable as it related to being considered a turning point in future American public school sex education. This attribute was the rise in a “new morality” that advocated a non-judgmental response to any behavior. Alternatively advanced by a variety of theologians, philosophers, and social scientists, this value was Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 79 directed to every segment of the population. Herbert Marcuse’s (1955) Eros and Civilization impact came to be more fully appreciated during the sexual revolution era. Marcusean theory could be summed this way: “Repression of sexual urges was a major cause of human misery” (Spann, 2003, p. 39). This idea was part of the “new” morality that questioned submission to traditional moral regulations. Spann continued: “Students took it as an obligation as well as a right to challenge conventional moral thinking” (p. 40). Fletcher’s (1967) Situation Ethics further provided a guidebook for the Christian “new morality,” the last bastion in the “outmoded” belief in absolutes. He explained that the “rightness” or “wrongness” of an action depended on the person and the situation. Regarding questions relating to the “rightness” of premarital sex and adultery, his response was “I don’t know. Maybe. Give me a case. Describe a real situation” (p. 142). No action was fundamentally wrong or fundamentally right and he even cited Scripture at times in order to drive home this new definition of decency. The nonreligious also adopted moral individualism by summing up the principle: any action is acceptable so long as it doesn’t harm others (Spann, 2003). “Make love, not war” had a peripheral connection to the “new morality” principle that stressed love as the only law. Many young people were disillusioned by the Vietnam War and believed a cathartic response to social violence was uninhibited sex (Allyn, 2000). Usually linked to student anti-war activism, John Lennon and Yoko Ono, for example, moved the concept to the public consciousness when they held a public “love- in” (in opposition to the war). Larry Bercovitz, a shock actor who was arrested for public lewdness during the presentation of Che, summed up the rationale for public nudity and Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 82 federal money to over 600 groups for the purpose of developing sex education programs across the nation (HEW, 1966). The growing teen pregnancy problem required a solution and sex education served as one potential means of curbing the crisis. Johnson’s move to fund sex education with federal dollars was significant for these reasons: • Grassroots organizations were perceived in many communities as “experts” since the government was funding their efforts. • Government funding provided “outside” money in order to address a local problem, making it easier for schools to agree to the services. • Organizations were able to significantly increase the numbers of students they served with the infusion of additional funding to their local efforts. • Government funding supplied a means to develop an intensive and concentrated body of curricula specifically devoted to sexual activity issues, apart from the more generic general health curricula. • Since the government deemed the problem serious enough to allocate taxpayer dollars to the prevention effort, then the public’s general perception was that the problem must be real and the proposed solution (sex education) must be implemented. Although Johnson was the first president to federally fund sex education, he was not the last to do so. Particularly, each subsequent President contributed monies to the implementation of sex education. It was not until the election of President Reagan, however, that a modern, federal funding emphasis was placed on avoiding sexual activity (White, 1991). Until that time, a “comprehensive” sex education model was recognized as the only way reasonably to respond to the teen pregnancy problem. Reagan did not Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 83 defund “comprehensive” sex education; rather he merely initiated a new primary prevention strategy. Each President after Reagan (until the current Obama Administration) continued this approach of funding both “comprehensive” sex education and abstinence education. Two new abstinence funding initiatives began in the interim – one by Bill Clinton and one by George W. Bush (NAEA, 2008). Despite the rise in abstinence education funding, however, equity between the two approaches was never reached, with “comprehensive” sex education able to access around four times as much money as abstinence education (HHS, 2008d). For 2010, Obama proposed a return to the 1960s approach of sex education, again stressing pregnancy prevention as the primary goal of the program (Melby, 2009). The sexual revolution significantly impacted the growth of “comprehensive” sex education by changing the focus from preventing teen sex to reducing the risk of sex. The soil for more extensive sex education in schools was prepared by the rise in “progressive” educational approaches, which stressed a “child centered” approach which met the individual needs of every student. Preparing children to successfully navigate their futures was the most important role of education, progressives reasoned (Spann, 2003). Sex education was a significant component in the overarching grand scheme of life, so this subject conceivably trumped other academic subjects that seemingly only presented stodgy facts from the past (Spann). TIME magazine named all young people 25 and under as their annual “Man of the Year” in 1967, pointing to the influence of what they referred to as the Now Generation. They were “pleasure seeking, [but] they supposedly practiced an honest hedonism without adult hypocrisy, one especially notable for its absence of Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 84 sexual inhibitions” (Spann, p. 101). The reasoning followed that, since young people lacked sexual reticence, sex education needed to help them avoid pregnancy. Additionally, the theories surrounding the “new morality” prompted support for discarding the previous morality-based sex education in favor of what was purported to be a more “scientific” approach. SIECUS and AASECT were founded in order to take up the mantle of advocating for and preparing professionals to provide “science-based” sex education (Fahlbusch, Bromiley, & Barrett, 2008). The seeds for growth in “comprehensive” sex education were planted during the sexual revolution. A federal grant to SIECUS, tasking them to write a national training manual for sex education teachers, served to fertilize and reproduce the concept in schools across America (Marshall & Donovan, 1991). Table 3 describes the major influences of the sexual revolution, together with their impact on the development of modern sex education. Compared with Table 1, that demonstrated the social hygiene movement was most closely related to many components of abstinence education, this table illustrates the influence of the sexual revolution on “comprehensive” sex education. Creation of SIECUS. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) was formed in 1964. Created during the sexual revolution, the group in many ways reflected the ideals of the era. SEICUS sought to change the sexual culture by promoting a “value free” sex education to students in schools across America (SIECUS, 1969). The organization’s ideals signified a sharp departure from that of the social hygiene program by refusing to inflict “shame” or “morality” on youth for their sexual behaviors (Levine, 2002). Although other organizations advocated for “comprehensive” sex education, SIECUS was (and is) the only single-issue Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 87 as a pregnancy prevention alternative to intercourse (Haffner, 1988), although such actions have the potential of contributing to the spread of STDs (CDC, 2008, 2009b). Zeitgeist influences. SIECUS leaders helped to shape the culture of sex education in two ways. The first was their role as spokes-organization for “comprehensive” sex education almost since the organization’s founding. The first edition (1991) of Guidelines for Comprehensive Education became a framework for schools to implement into their sex education classes (SIECUS, 2004). The lessons currently include information about many controversial topics, including masturbation, sexual orientation, sexual fantasies, contraception, and abortion (Irvine, 2002). SIECUS leaders believe that all persons have the right to “sexual expression” and that sexual rights are human rights (SIECUS, n.d. [b]). They believe that there is a need to educate teens on the relationship between sexual pleasure and sexual health (Fay, 2002). Therefore, they recommend students visit websites that normalize every kind of sexual activity and encourage risky sexual experimentation (Grossman, 2009). The organization also opposes perspectives that they believe might stifle “sexual openness” (Levine, 2002). SIECUS leadership has furthered the expansion of “comprehensive” sex education through their calculated use of the English language. SIECUS understands that the group who can best articulate its position often wins the “war of words.” An important part of this strategy involves framing the debate in a way that does not make an agenda appear extreme. For example, they discerned that parents were uncomfortable with “sex” education, but were more comfortable with “sexuality” education. Formerly known as the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States, SIECUS Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 88 changed their name to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. Presently, the organization advocates for “comprehensive sexuality education” which they believe is more than genital sex, but includes a lifelong pursuit to understand one’s total personal and unique “self” (SIECUS, n.d. [b]). When parents favor abstinence education in a particular community, SIECUS refers to this support as “restrictive” or “censorship” in order to better frame the issue to their favor. Similarly, when a community denies explicit texts in their schools, they are derided for banning books and censorship. For example, a school board voted to restrict It’s Perfectly Normal in elementary school libraries after a parent complained: “We do not believe a book with pictures of people having sex, naked bodies, people masturbating, people putting on condoms, a student having an erection in front of a school class, or gay people hugging is necessary at the (elementary) school level” (SIECUS, 2003, p. 5). In sum, SIECUS leaders have mastered the skill for framing their position as reasonable. Salient decisions and political implications. SIECUS made two specific policy decisions that helped the organization become a major influence in the growth of “comprehensive” sex education. The first was their targeted quest for federal funding. This effort helped them gain a national policy voice, and also provided funding to build the organization’s influence and infrastructure. Early in the organization’s existence, SIECUS received a federal grant to establish Parent Learning Centers, reportedly in order to help children develop healthier views of their sexuality. Calderone contended that parents needed to change their outlook: “Parents reflect our sexophobic society,” she said in an interview (Vespa, 1980, n.p.). In 1970, SIECUS received a grant to train sex educators (Marshall & Donovan, 1991). In the late 1990s, they received a CDC contract Cedarville University School of Graduate Studies 89 to evaluate and provide input to the HIV/AIDS and sex education programs being implemented in states (Panzer & Mosack, 2009). This type of federal funding for specific projects related to sex education continues to this day. The second decision made by SIECUS was to intentionally work with other organizations for a common purpose. SIECUS supports “comprehensive” sex education as a part of every grade in school, beginning in kindergarten and continuing through high school (Rodriguez, 2000). They learned that in order to gain success in the implementation of their goal, however, the movement needed extensive support. In 1970, conversations took place between Planned Parenthood and SEICUS regarding the need to work together for a broad service model for youth. Planned Parenthood would advocate for clinical services and SIECUS would advocate for sex education programs for youth. They worked to convince both the legislative and executive branches of their agenda (Marshall & Donovan, 1991). In 1980, Calderone explained the relationship between the Kinsey Institute and SIECUS as an intentional division of labor. She noted that the Institute “was formed very specifically with one major field omitted – sex education. This was because it seemed appropriate, not only to the Institute but to its major funding source, the National Institute of Mental Health, to leave this area for SIECUS to fill” (Reisman, 2000, p. 179). In 1999, SIECUS and Advocates for Youth cooperated on a poll designed to denigrate abstinence education (Rodriguez, 2000). In 2002, SIECUS partnered with almost 150 other organizations to oppose abstinence education and press for an expansion of “comprehensive” sex education (Panzer & Mosack, 2009).