Not Going Away: National Abstinence Clearinghouse Comes to Minnesota, Part One
Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 4:41 pm
- 34 Comments
This is part one of a three-part series. Read Part Two and Part Three.
‘There Are a Lot of Fallacies That Need to Be Undressed’
I know the St. Paul Crowne Plaza Riverfront hotel like the back of my hand. It used to be the base hotel for the Minnesota YMCA Youth in Government program, in which I participated as a student and adult volunteer. I spent better than a month of my life there, stretched over a dozen years.
So as I descended to the pool level on a Monday afternoon, I was walking into familiar territory. And yet, as I got off of the stairs, I couldn’t help feeling like I was in very alien territory. It took me a long moment to put my finger on why things felt disjointed; it certainly wasn’t that a convention was set up on that level. More than once I’ve walked through on the way to a meeting only to have to wade through a conclave of insurance salespeople or someone’s holiday party. No, it was more strange than just that — more like someone had gone into my living room and replaced all of my furniture with bean bags. It just wasn’t right.
And then I became aware of one of the booths, which was advertising “Just 4 Girls” and “Just 4 Guys” magazines. I looked a moment longer, and realized it was a booth for the Human Life Alliance.
Then it clicked.
I was in the middle of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse’s convention floor.
I should have expected it, I suppose. I was there, after all, to cover the event. The NAC was holding its annual international leadership conference and a press conference to kick it off. But somehow I hadn’t quite been prepared to see the cheery, trade-show booths lined up with their neat, professional banners advertising the urgent need for everyone not to have sex.
A helpful exhibitor directed me downstairs to conference check-in, where I encountered three pleasant, middle-aged women staffing the fort.
“I’m here for a press conference?” I asked.
“Oh, yes. Do you have any I.D.?” a bespectacled woman replied.
I fished out my driver’s license and she dutifully photocopied it, and had me write my name and media affiliation on the copy. She handed me a license and a nametag simply marked “PRESS” in large, red letters. As another cheerful woman guided me to the elevators, I had to admit I wasn’t certain I wanted the NAC to have my I.D. on file.
The press conference was held in the Presidential Suite, in a corner of the 20th floor. Another reporter and I gathered in a corner, perusing the conference guide. It was sharp and jazzy, and probably pretty expensive because of the layout and design. Still, I noted, the guide was pretty thin.
“OK, come on in!” came the voice from the dining area, where a group of black-suited men and women were gathering. The voice belonged to Leslee Unruh, who offered water and chocolates to the press. When they were declined, she said, “You know, the American press never takes anything. The international press does. We always ask them why they eat and the American press doesn’t, and they say, ‘because we’re hungry,’ ” she said, beaming, as she sat at the head of the table.
To say that Unruh is a polarizing figure in reproductive circles is to trivialize the meaning of the word. She was a leader in South Dakota’s failed bid to outlaw all abortion, including in cases of rape and incest. She and her husband founded the Alpha Center in South Dakota, a staunchly anti-abortion organization that in 1987 pleaded no contest to charges of providing unlicensed adoption services, mainly centering on cases where Unruh allegedly paid women to not have abortions. The organization is still active, and provides abortion recovery counseling for women who, like Unruh, come to regret their abortions.
Unruh founded the National Abstinence Clearinghouse in 1997 and has been its president ever since. Its website offers “faith, hope, and love” and “what would Jesus do?” purity rings for sale, with prices ranging from $29 for the women’s silver “I’ll Wait” ring to $329 for a men’s yellow gold cross ring. The NAC also hosts the notorious purity balls, which young women attend with their fathers. There, they take their fathers’ hands and pledge “to remain sexually pure … until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband,” according to Generations of Light magazine. Fathers, in turn, recite:
I, (daughter’s name)’s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.
* * *
“We feel it’s a privilege to be here,” said Unruh, after spending the first 10 minutes of the press conference chatting amiably with a cohort at the table. Indeed, it’s hard to describe it as a press conference, exactly. It was more like a brief gathering of conference leaders that invited the press to hang out.
At long last, Unruh began to call on members of the table to give their paeans to abstinence. The first was Lakita Garth Wright, a longtime pro-abstinence-based education speaker, author and former Miss Black California, who argued that the abstinence movement has been getting a bad rap.
“There are a lot of fallacies that need to be undressed,” she said, explaining that she had decided at age 11 to be abstinent until marriage, after seeing how her grandfather missed her late grandmother.
“I run a business. If you come in for a job washing my bathroom floors, I ask you your name — and your real name, not ‘Pookie’ or ‘Ray-Ray’ or whatever you’re calling yourself today. I ask you your address, so I can see if you’re still living with momma. I ask you where you’ve worked…and that’s to clean my floor. That’s more than some girls ask guys they sleep with.”
Wright says she views her abstinence-based message as the “Ultimate in teaching feminism. I had no need for a man while friends [were] addicted to ‘Sex in the City.’”
* * *
Amanda Marcotte, a feminist writer and head of the blogging community at Pandagon.net, disagreed strongly with the idea that Wright’s is a feminist message.
“Obviously she’s not feminist or she’d know that real feminism isn’t about hating men or wanting to be apart from men, but having equality with men,” Marcotte said, in an interview with Minnesota Monitor. “She’s setting up a false definition of feminism to back her ideals.”
Marcotte is withering in her criticism of abstinence-based education, which she says pushes proscribed gender roles as part and parcel of its message. She notes the report commissioned in 2004 by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., that showed program after program pushing girls into one model of life and boys into another. Saying she lives in Texas where the ‘silver ring thing’ began, she observed, “I’ve heard some boys wear them, but I’ve never seen any. But I’ve seen plenty of girls wearing them.”
Marcotte also notes something not discussed by the abstinence-based education community: what it means for a student who is gay.
“By definition, [abstinence-only] is heterosexist,” Marcotte said, “because gays can’t get married. And if they have to maintain abstinence until marriage, they can never have sex.”
Part Two: ‘Every young person deserves to know they have the choice to be abstinent.’
Part Three: ‘The message is good with or without federal dollars.’
34 Comments
Comment posted July 11, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Um… Why does Ms. Wright need to know if I still “live with momma” so I can wash her bathroom floors? Not to mention her choice of nicknames for said potential floor-washers, both of which connote a certain ethnicity, now don’t they?
Comment posted July 11, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
Unruh She looks like Patricia Arquette’s evil twin! With that expression, I wouldn’t take a chocolate from her, either!
Comment posted July 11, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
abstinance good…pre marital sex BAD i fail to see what is wrong wit hteaching kids to not have sex until they are married….premarital sex is bad in so many ways…good in none….as far as homosexuals…..they should never have sex….i guess for you pro aborts..the less kids have sex..the less abortions there will be
Comment posted July 11, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
I beg to differ. Maybe you weren’t doing it right, but I think most of us have found that there are at least some good things about premarital sex.
At any rate, your argument here is just incoherent. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with abstinence qua abstinence. And as you’ll see in part two, neither does anyone else. It’s just that if people do have premarital sex, I’d like them to know enough about contraception to avoid an unwanted pregnancy — you see, I’m not a “pro-abort,” I’m pro-choice. Abortion may be the absolute right decision for a woman, but it’s still major surgery, and I think almost everyone would rather an unwanted pregnancy never exist in the first place.
Finally, your comments on homosexuals are flatly bigoted, and I don’t even see a need to engage them, any more than I’d engage someone who thought that people of different races shouldn’t have sex. Hate is not persuasive.
Comment posted July 11, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
To the remarkably small-minded prude at 20:28:09 PM: You unquestionably have the sex life you deserve. Sorry it’s such a nightmare for you. Too bad for your spouse too.
However the rest of us deserve better than what you settled for, because–unlike you–we weren’t so gullible and cowardly as to throw away a wonderful and significant part of our lives.
(As for the snippy business about “pro aborts,” you have managed to confirm–once again–that the anti-abortion crowd is about your festering hatred of sex, and about sticking your noses into everyone else’s bedrooms. You people couldn’t care less about the lives of babies, or anyone else.)
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 3:51 am
Abstinence bad As somebody who is not married and finds sex one of the great joys and one of the places where best qualities like empathy, consideration, respect, generosity, love and a deep spiritual appreciation of life can be expressed, I DO see something wrong with abstinence. Sex is a good thing. It’s pleasant. It enriches your life. It teaches you to be close to other fellow humans. It fosters love.
Saying that abstinence is good is like saying that avoiding scrupulously painting, singing, playing an instrument or dancing is a good thing until some unspecified moment in time. (“I kept myself pure, not touching paints and colors no matter how great the temptation was until I could give myself as a gift to my seven-year old. In the end it was a bit of a disappointment, I could only produce splotches of color and my seven year old kept trying to do the deed himself!” “I kept myself pure, avoiding dancing and yeah, verily even tapping my foot until my High School Prom. And you know what, all those sluts who had been dancing sinfully before the prom were better at it than me! I tried shuffling around but I felt so hot and so clumsy…”)
I see something wrong with being silly about the risks of sex, and not using rather simple and sensible precaution like a condom, the pill or ideally both. I also see something wrong with having sex when you don’t want to or with somebody you don’t want to. I believe that is usually known as “not getting raped”, not “keeping myself pure”.
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 5:38 am
poor you you must really hate your bedroom. all that nasty sex stuff that might go on there. still keep ‘em crossed eh? and hope that the nasty feelings go away soon.
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
Pro murder is not a choice Jeff;
acceptance of abortion is not pro choice, it’s pro death.
Choice comes before conception, not after.
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Ah, yes. Well, I’ve never heard that before.
All right, since you just argued I was pro-death (I argue a fetus is not meaningfully alive; we’re at an impasse on that one that’s insoluable), here’s a counter to you: support abstinence, or oppose? And do you support greater access to birth control?
I’m going to go out on a limb and say you’ll answer “support” and “oppose,” respectively, but surprise me. Depending on the answer, I’ll know whether you’re a well-meaning but misguided pro-lifer, or an anti-sex, anti-woman, anti-choicer.
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
Your becoming predictable Abstinace is a personal choice, I neither support or oppose it. I called you out on the “choice” issue, not abstinance. It is a rather effective birth control method though.
Surprise surprise, a pro death type automatically thinks a pro life advocate is anti birth control. You couldnt be more wrong. I have absolute no problem with increased access to birth control. In fact I encourage it.
As you feel a fetus is not alive, I take it you are working to appeal the recent laws which charge those (other than the mother and the murdering doctor) who kill a fetus with murder, and those who kill a pregnant woman with not one, but two murders.
Suppose a woman is on the way to the clinic to abort her child, gets in a wreck, and the baby dies. Other than the normal after accident charges, No harm, no foul, on the death of the child correct?
Whats you position on the guy who kicks his pregnant girlfriend in the belly and kills the child. Simple assult on the mother?
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Well… First of all, let me say you’re the type of pro-lifer I can respect, if not agree with. I think you’re wrong about a fetus being alive in any meaningful sense, especially in the first two trimesters when 99.9% of abortions occur. (cf: Easterbrook, Gregg. “Abortion and Brain Waves,” The New Republic, ca. 1997).
As for the laws you cited — I do have trouble with the “fetal pain” bill, especially since there’s strong evidence that a fetus’s mental processes do not begin to organize until the third trimester. I’m honestly conflicted about fetal murder laws; I would be more comfortable making it an intensifier to existing crimes, the equivalent of the hate crime laws.
If you wonder why I assumed you were anti-birth control, it’s because so many of your fellow travelers — including Unruh and her cohort — are. Those are the anti-choicers, the ones for whom abortion is a smokescreen they can use to attack women. They’re hurting your movement, but unfortunately, they’re also running your movement.
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
OK So we remain at agreeing to disagree on the abortion issue.
Glad I could make you see that not all (and probably not most) of those of us against abortion are anti sex.
I’m gone for the day,
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Abstinence not bad. I’m sorry, but I’ve got to disagree with the first argument you are making. Just as it isn’t right for Unruh to oblige others to follow a strict sexual schedule (in which sex is only allowed after marriage), it also isn’t right to scorn any person who chooses not to engage in sexual behavior at a certain time in one’s life – or, for that matter, those who do not have a sexual partner and thus cannot have sex.
The positive things you mention about sex are indeed good and all, but they are not unique to those who engage in sexual intimacy. Also, they aren’t always present in a sexual relationship. I was in such a relationship not too long ago; it was with a person who was using me, (while at the same time claiming how great sex is), treating me terribly, and when I decided to end it, she ended up hating me. The exact opposite.
While I expect future relationships to turn out better (as I know am better able to stand up for myself), the fact remains that sexual relationships can be very good, or very bad. And for anyone who does not want to subject themselves to the risk until she/he is completely emotionally ready, I applaud such a decision!
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
pro choice?? the only choice is to murder a baby…It is comical the way you folks pretend to know me..my wife…and my sex life..too bad..wrong on all accounts………… Fecke..you are a piece of work……why are you so concerned about abstinence education?..does it harm you in any way?..or any one else??..shouldnt you be more concerned about more pressing issues?….you people are hilarious…
Comment posted July 13, 2007 @ 12:14 am
why it “harms” Abstinence education – to be specific, the type advocated by Unruh – is harmful because it doesn’t work. It keeps knowledge of how to use birth control away from young people, so that in the circumstances in which certain individuals don’t abstain, they may end up suffering greatly.
Now, even if one does buy the concept that sex is only acceptable if a government certificate has been granted, and that erring from this standard is sinful… it’s still a huge stretch to say that violators deserve to suffer dangerous diseases as punishment.
Comment posted July 13, 2007 @ 7:45 am
Yes. When my daughter gets into school, I want her to learn the facts about life. The abstinence movement would harm her by hiding things from her, in hopes that she wouldn’t find things out on her own. And I’m going to tell you flatly, the harm that could potentially do to my daughter? That’s not a minor thing. That’s a pretty major thing. It isn’t funny. And quite frankly, I’d much rather it did potential harm to me than her.
Comment posted July 15, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
not having sex is harmful??? WTF then you should teach her Fecke..or your wife……..your being paranoid……… we are not out to get your kids….but, I do believe yoru ilk is out to get mine
Comment posted July 11, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Um… Why does Ms. Wright need to know if I still “live with momma” so I can wash her bathroom floors? Not to mention her choice of nicknames for said potential floor-washers, both of which connote a certain ethnicity, now don't they?
Comment posted July 11, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Unruh She looks like Patricia Arquette's evil twin! With that expression, I wouldn't take a chocolate from her, either!
Comment posted July 11, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
abstinance good…pre marital sex BAD i fail to see what is wrong wit hteaching kids to not have sex until they are married….premarital sex is bad in so many ways…good in none….as far as homosexuals…..they should never have sex….i guess for you pro aborts..the less kids have sex..the less abortions there will be
Comment posted July 11, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
I beg to differ. Maybe you weren't doing it right, but I think most of us have found that there are at least some good things about premarital sex.
At any rate, your argument here is just incoherent. I don't think there's anything wrong with abstinence qua abstinence. And as you'll see in part two, neither does anyone else. It's just that if people do have premarital sex, I'd like them to know enough about contraception to avoid an unwanted pregnancy — you see, I'm not a “pro-abort,” I'm pro-choice. Abortion may be the absolute right decision for a woman, but it's still major surgery, and I think almost everyone would rather an unwanted pregnancy never exist in the first place.
Finally, your comments on homosexuals are flatly bigoted, and I don't even see a need to engage them, any more than I'd engage someone who thought that people of different races shouldn't have sex. Hate is not persuasive.
Comment posted July 11, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
To the remarkably small-minded prude at 20:28:09 PM: You unquestionably have the sex life you deserve. Sorry it's such a nightmare for you. Too bad for your spouse too.
However the rest of us deserve better than what you settled for, because–unlike you–we weren't so gullible and cowardly as to throw away a wonderful and significant part of our lives.
(As for the snippy business about “pro aborts,” you have managed to confirm–once again–that the anti-abortion crowd is about your festering hatred of sex, and about sticking your noses into everyone else's bedrooms. You people couldn't care less about the lives of babies, or anyone else.)
Comment posted July 11, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
Abstinence bad As somebody who is not married and finds sex one of the great joys and one of the places where best qualities like empathy, consideration, respect, generosity, love and a deep spiritual appreciation of life can be expressed, I DO see something wrong with abstinence. Sex is a good thing. It's pleasant. It enriches your life. It teaches you to be close to other fellow humans. It fosters love.
Saying that abstinence is good is like saying that avoiding scrupulously painting, singing, playing an instrument or dancing is a good thing until some unspecified moment in time. (“I kept myself pure, not touching paints and colors no matter how great the temptation was until I could give myself as a gift to my seven-year old. In the end it was a bit of a disappointment, I could only produce splotches of color and my seven year old kept trying to do the deed himself!” “I kept myself pure, avoiding dancing and yeah, verily even tapping my foot until my High School Prom. And you know what, all those sluts who had been dancing sinfully before the prom were better at it than me! I tried shuffling around but I felt so hot and so clumsy…”)
I see something wrong with being silly about the risks of sex, and not using rather simple and sensible precaution like a condom, the pill or ideally both. I also see something wrong with having sex when you don't want to or with somebody you don't want to. I believe that is usually known as “not getting raped”, not “keeping myself pure”.
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 12:38 am
poor you you must really hate your bedroom. all that nasty sex stuff that might go on there. still keep 'em crossed eh? and hope that the nasty feelings go away soon.
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 7:51 am
Pro murder is not a choice Jeff;
acceptance of abortion is not pro choice, it's pro death.
Choice comes before conception, not after.
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 8:31 am
Ah, yes. Well, I've never heard that before.
All right, since you just argued I was pro-death (I argue a fetus is not meaningfully alive; we're at an impasse on that one that's insoluable), here's a counter to you: support abstinence, or oppose? And do you support greater access to birth control?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you'll answer “support” and “oppose,” respectively, but surprise me. Depending on the answer, I'll know whether you're a well-meaning but misguided pro-lifer, or an anti-sex, anti-woman, anti-choicer.
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 9:37 am
Your becoming predictable Abstinace is a personal choice, I neither support or oppose it. I called you out on the “choice” issue, not abstinance. It is a rather effective birth control method though.
Surprise surprise, a pro death type automatically thinks a pro life advocate is anti birth control. You couldnt be more wrong. I have absolute no problem with increased access to birth control. In fact I encourage it.
As you feel a fetus is not alive, I take it you are working to appeal the recent laws which charge those (other than the mother and the murdering doctor) who kill a fetus with murder, and those who kill a pregnant woman with not one, but two murders.
Suppose a woman is on the way to the clinic to abort her child, gets in a wreck, and the baby dies. Other than the normal after accident charges, No harm, no foul, on the death of the child correct?
Whats you position on the guy who kicks his pregnant girlfriend in the belly and kills the child. Simple assult on the mother?
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 9:47 am
Well… First of all, let me say you're the type of pro-lifer I can respect, if not agree with. I think you're wrong about a fetus being alive in any meaningful sense, especially in the first two trimesters when 99.9% of abortions occur. (cf: Easterbrook, Gregg. “Abortion and Brain Waves,” The New Republic, ca. 1997).
As for the laws you cited — I do have trouble with the “fetal pain” bill, especially since there's strong evidence that a fetus's mental processes do not begin to organize until the third trimester. I'm honestly conflicted about fetal murder laws; I would be more comfortable making it an intensifier to existing crimes, the equivalent of the hate crime laws.
If you wonder why I assumed you were anti-birth control, it's because so many of your fellow travelers — including Unruh and her cohort — are. Those are the anti-choicers, the ones for whom abortion is a smokescreen they can use to attack women. They're hurting your movement, but unfortunately, they're also running your movement.
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 9:53 am
OK So we remain at agreeing to disagree on the abortion issue.
Glad I could make you see that not all (and probably not most) of those of us against abortion are anti sex.
I'm gone for the day,
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 10:08 am
Abstinence not bad. I'm sorry, but I've got to disagree with the first argument you are making. Just as it isn't right for Unruh to oblige others to follow a strict sexual schedule (in which sex is only allowed after marriage), it also isn't right to scorn any person who chooses not to engage in sexual behavior at a certain time in one's life – or, for that matter, those who do not have a sexual partner and thus cannot have sex.
The positive things you mention about sex are indeed good and all, but they are not unique to those who engage in sexual intimacy. Also, they aren't always present in a sexual relationship. I was in such a relationship not too long ago; it was with a person who was using me, (while at the same time claiming how great sex is), treating me terribly, and when I decided to end it, she ended up hating me. The exact opposite.
While I expect future relationships to turn out better (as I know am better able to stand up for myself), the fact remains that sexual relationships can be very good, or very bad. And for anyone who does not want to subject themselves to the risk until she/he is completely emotionally ready, I applaud such a decision!
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
pro choice?? the only choice is to murder a baby…It is comical the way you folks pretend to know me..my wife…and my sex life..too bad..wrong on all accounts………… Fecke..you are a piece of work……why are you so concerned about abstinence education?..does it harm you in any way?..or any one else??..shouldnt you be more concerned about more pressing issues?….you people are hilarious…
Comment posted July 12, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
why it “harms” Abstinence education – to be specific, the type advocated by Unruh – is harmful because it doesn't work. It keeps knowledge of how to use birth control away from young people, so that in the circumstances in which certain individuals don't abstain, they may end up suffering greatly.
Now, even if one does buy the concept that sex is only acceptable if a government certificate has been granted, and that erring from this standard is sinful… it's still a huge stretch to say that violators deserve to suffer dangerous diseases as punishment.
Comment posted July 13, 2007 @ 2:45 am
Yes. When my daughter gets into school, I want her to learn the facts about life. The abstinence movement would harm her by hiding things from her, in hopes that she wouldn't find things out on her own. And I'm going to tell you flatly, the harm that could potentially do to my daughter? That's not a minor thing. That's a pretty major thing. It isn't funny. And quite frankly, I'd much rather it did potential harm to me than her.
Comment posted July 15, 2007 @ 8:03 am
not having sex is harmful??? WTF then you should teach her Fecke..or your wife……..your being paranoid……… we are not out to get your kids….but, I do believe yoru ilk is out to get mine
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
