newjerseynewsroom.com

BY SUSIE WILSON

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

SEX MATTERS

I read obituaries on a pretty regular basis. I don’t want to miss the deaths of those I may know or admire. I’m also drawn to reading about the lives of people I might not know. Consequently I read the obituary of 60-year-old Dr. Richard F. Daines when it appeared in The New York Times on March 2. Dr. Daines was the former health chief of the state of New York. The obituary described him as “an advocate for politically risky initiatives, like a tax on sugary drinks.” One “politically risky initiative” Dr. Daines opposed was abstinence-only sex education. In his first year in office, he rejected millions of dollars in federal grants for abstinence-only sex education, because he believed it was ineffective.

Now not many obituaries mention the deceased’s opposition to abstinence-only education, and I applaud Dr. Daines. He was right about the ineffectiveness of most abstinence-only education programs, since there’s still no solid evidence that they help young people postpone first intercourse, decrease their number of sexual partners, or use protection once they decide to have sex.

But still, without any important proof of efficacy, abstinence-only education marches on. Schools, community agencies, and faith-based programs will receive grants for the next five years, because Senator Oren Hatch inserted $250 million in the Affordable Care Act, and our Congressional representatives probably thought it was too “politically risky” to delete it from the law. Only a few brave governors and health chiefs have shown the same courage as Dr. Daines and refused to take the money in these cash-strapped times.

Governor Christie and his health chief are among those taking abstinence-only money. Christie’s administration is taking the money for public schools for the first time since it became available years ago. He recently issued a request for proposals for public schools, community agencies, and religious organizations that serve young people ages 10 to 13.

Abstinence from sexual activity should be emphasized for this age group, since it’s the best choice. But there’s no reason why middle school students shouldn’t learn about other forms of protection against pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, such as condoms. It will not encourage them to have sex. The earlier we introduce protection, the better off young people will be as they mature to adulthood and ultimately choose to have sex. Yet most abstinence-only programs avoid any discussion about condom use and stress only its negative aspects.

Jane Russell’s obituary—titled “Sultry Star of the 1940s and ’50s Dies at 89”—was the second one I read last week. Unlike Dr. Daines, Russell lived a very full life. The obituary’s opening line describes her as “a voluptuous actress,” primarily because she was at the center of “one of the most highly publicized censorship episodes in movie history.” The episode concerned a poster for the movie The Outlaw, in which Russell played “the tempestuous Rio McDonald,” the sheriff’s girlfriend. The poster showed her in a “cleavage-revealing blouse falling off one shoulder, lying on a haystack, holding a gun.”

Movie censors, led by the Roman Catholic Church, attempted to prevent the film’s release for ten years, because it “revealed too much of the star’s breasts.” The “38D bra” that Russell was supposed to have worn in the film—and which she denied wearing—became cinematic history.

But that was long ago; now naked breasts are everywhere. We see adult and teen women’s cleavage in films, on magazine covers, and on the red carpet of the Academy Awards. The 2011 Sports Illustrated issue features model Irina Shayk on a Hawaii beach exposing her breasts in the scantiest of bikinis. Instead of hearing criticism of her pose, Irina made it on to The Today Show, where everyone congratulated her for making the cover.

I know it’s not going to change anything to rail against the widespread exposure of breasts in our sexualized media, or talk about the different values we hold about out-of-wedlock births. But apparently, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee doesn’t agree. He took a swipe at Natalie Portman, who won the Oscar for best actress. She is unmarried and six months pregnant, and seemingly proud of it. When she rose to accept her award in a stunning plum-colored dress, she revealed not only a lot of cleavage, but also her “baby bump.”

On a radio show, Huckabee said that the visibly pregnant Portman shouldn’t have appeared at the Oscars and that giving an unmarried pregnant woman a prestigious award glamorizes teen pregnancy. Portman’s decision to have a child before marriage is not going to have serious effects on the social fabric. It simply reflects the growing trend of the millennial generation, who choose parenthood ahead of marriage.

Huckabee got it somewhat right when he said, “Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can’t get a job, and if it weren’t for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care.” I say “somewhat,” because his tone is demeaning and harsh, and he doesn’t discuss the positive effects of good government programs, such as family planning services for teens, which do reduce teen pregnancy rates when given half a chance and proper funding.