It has been reconfirmed – yet again. Research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute indicates that sexuality education does not encourage teenagers to have sex sooner or to engage on more sexual risk-taking behaviors. As a matter of fact, it delays sex.

In analyzing data from the 2006 to 2008 National Survey of Family Growth, involving 4,691 males and females, ages 15 – 24, U.S. researchers examined participants’ reports of whether they’d received formal sexuality instruction before turning 18 on “how to say no to sex” and/or “methods of birth control.”

Those who had received instruction on both contraceptives and abstinence reported being older at first sex than those who had received no such instruction. They also had healthier partnerships, and were likelier to have used rubbers or another form of birth control in having first-time sexual intercourse.

The findings, published in an online edition of the Journal of Adolescent Health, also revealed that females who had received both contraceptive and abstinence information were significantly more likely than those who had received abstinence-only sexuality instruction to use a condom during first sex. (Gals in the abstinence-only group were, however, likelier to delay first intercourse than those who had received zero sex instruction.)

As governments fail to make sexuality education a priority or continue to fund abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, we’re once again being given scholarly, evidence-based data that indicates the importance of comprehensive sexuality education. Such complements Douglas Kirby’s 2008 review of evaluation studies examining abstinence, comprehensive, and/or STD/HIV sex education programs. Kirby found that two-thirds of the 48 programs teaching both abstinence and contraceptive use had positive behavioral effects.

So given the good news such studies yield time after time, when will the politicians start to listen? How many research studies like these do we need before policymakers begin funding and supporting comprehensive sexuality education efforts? They’ve been ignoring the evidence for far too long, continuing to cultivate a culture of sexually ignorant youth, who lack the knowledge and skills necessary to postpone sex or protect themselves.

In bolstering young people’s health and well-being, parents, teachers, school administrators, and other important players need to guarantee that youth are accessing medically accurate, comprehensive sexuality education. As constituents, all of us need to demand it. Enough is enough – and that includes having enough data to make our case. Contact your representatives today, letting them know that you support holistic approaches to sexuality education – and that you expect them, in their funding priorities and policymaking, to do the same.  

The legendary football coach Joe Paterno was laid to rest this past week, with his passing reigniting the recent debate over whether he could or should have done more to protect young boys from sexual abuse. Despite the fact that it’s his former assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, facing over 50 counts of child sexual abuse, the public’s venomous wrath has focused on Paterno. The few comments he made about the situation, before succumbing to lung cancer January 22, have been ridiculed as seeming incredulous.

As a sexuality educator, I have not been surprised by Paterno’s explanations about his reactions to Sandusky’s alleged activities and how he fulfilled his legal obligations of reporting what he learned to his superiors. Like it or not, his statements are reflective of how most individuals, including his critics, would respond.

“He didn’t want to get specific.”

In an interview with the Washington Post, Paterno explained how assistant coach, Mike McQueary, had come to his home one Saturday evening in 2002 to inform him that he’d seen what looked like inappropriate touching or fondling between Sandusky and a young boy in the shower at Penn State’s Lasch Football Building. Many have criticized Paterno and McQueary for not discussing the details of what McQueary saw.

Reality check: How easy would it be for you to talk about sex with your superior or employee, especially when there’s a 50-year age difference and power dynamic involved? Despite rampant popular press discussions about sex, it’s still hard for individuals of all ages to talk about sex. Whether it’s two lovers, a parent and child, teacher and students… most people do not have the comfortability and language to effectively communicate about sexuality, especially when it involves a matter causing anxiety and distress, and accusations against people that you know and respect.

So it should come as no shocker that these full grown men did not get into the nitty gritty of what took place, especially since Paterno described McQueary as having been upset. Like it or not, their lack of discourse is the norm. Often starved of sexuality education, let alone any forum in which to learn about sex communication, most people don’t have the lingo, confidence, or ability to have sex conversations. The end results: miscommunication and a failure to adequately address problems. 

“To be frank with you I didn’t know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man. “

It has only been recently that people, namely younger generations who are fortunate enough to get a taste of sexual assault prevention education, have become aware that males can be raped. Consider that it is only in the last month that the FBI changed its definition of rape, announcing that it will include the rapes of men and statutory rape in its official statistics (for its annual Uniform Crime Reports). Until now, it only counted the “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”

Given the generation that Paterno is from, it’s understandable that any rape awareness he might’ve been exposed to only focused on women. Regardless of age, both males and females have a hard time grasping how a male can be raped since he doesn’t have a vagina. Add to this the fact that a successful child sexual predator is characterized as clever, secretive, charming, pleasant, engaging, skilled at reassuring that nothing is wrong, an expert at giving a convincing façade… and many end up getting duped on who can do what to whom.

“I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn’t work out that way.”

Ever hear of the PLISSIT model? Used by therapists and healthcare practitioners to assess and manage clients’ sexuality, this assessment is grounded in professionals making referrals when they’re out of their league in handling a situation. Failure to refer, let alone try to address a matter where one has no training, background, or expertise, would be considered unethical.

So why is Paterno being faulted for the fact that he didn’t follow up more aggressively with his superiors or the police about Sandusky’s alleged activities? Like so many other professionals in so many other fields, he did the right thing, trusting that his superiors would be better able to handle the situation than he could. It’s not his fault that they didn’t.

“So I sat around. It was a Saturday. Waited till Sunday because I wanted to make sure I knew what I was doing. And then I called my superiors… I had never had to deal with something like that. And I didn’t feel adequate."

Many have thrown harsh criticism at Paterno for not acting right away. While a heroic, Superman response would’ve been ideal, it’s just that – a fantasy. And maybe it should stay so given that levying sexual abuse charges against somebody is a huge deal. Any misstep could end up ruining innocent lives if the accused isn’t guilty.

Between processing the shock of the situation, the wave of emotions unleashed, and a plan of action, it was right of Paterno to “sleep on it.” Isn’t it Proverbs 19:2 that reads: “Enthusiasm without knowledge is no good; Haste makes mistakes”?

“In hindsight, I wish that I had done more.”

This statement doesn’t incriminate Paterno any more than it should anyone else. When it comes to sexual assault of any kind against anybody, almost everybody could say the same. Everyone should be saying they could’ve done more to prevent sexual abuse.

“I don’t want to walk away from this thing bitter. I want to be helpful.”

Despite the fact that Paterno was terminated via phone after over 60 years of service at Penn State, he and his wife, Sue, continued their generous philanthropy, donating another $100,000 to the school in December. In spite of people brutally questioning a life he’d defined with honor, academics, and sportsmanship, he chose to be positive. How many people could say that?

How far is going too far when it comes to sex education? Such is being debated once again thanks to a live sex act demonstration at Northwestern University. The controversy, spawned by the decisions of tenured professor J. Michael Bailey, involves an after-class where a guest presenter used a machine-powered saw with a phallic object (instead of a blade) on his fiancé, to the point of orgasm, in front of about 100 students.

This “on the fly” event followed a lecture on bondage, swinging, and other sexual behaviors, plus video of a woman experiencing climax. When the flick was deemed “unrealistic,” the idea of a live sex act was born. With Bailey finding no reason not to allow the demo, he and his co-presenter gave students numerous warnings about the graphic nature of the presentation before proceeding. Some students did leave before the woman was penetrated with a sex device for about three minutes.

While Northwestern’s president, Morton Schapiro, has reacted by launching an investigation, Bailey first reacted with “that is what I get paid for.” The psychology professor has since issued a written apology, claiming that the demonstration was unplanned and based on a quick decision – something he should not have done – though he naively sees “absolutely no harm in what happened.”

In the meantime, the media and academic circles alike are debating whether or not higher education can – and should – go about teaching differently. This demonstration was just the latest in a string of educational offerings Bailey has facilitated, with earlier ones involving presentations, panel discussions or question-and-answer sessions by swingers, transvestites, convicted sex offenders, transsexual performers, and people into “kink.” So does making topics “live” cross the line?

Bailey’s defenders claim that his teaching decisions are all in the name of academic freedom, and that he cannot be faulted for providing students with an opportunity that is a part of what the university experience should be about. Bailey’s critics see what apparently amounts to no more than a reenactment of an Amsterdam sex show as inappropriate, irresponsible, and poor judgment on a number of levels, most basically when it comes to consent.  

Concern has been raised over matters like: Did students truly understand what they were about to see? How much did peer pressure play in students not leaving? (Consider that some may not have attended class that day had they known about the demo ahead of time.) Regardless, were students fully protected from what they were about to witness?

Issues around preparation, debriefing, and support have raised alarm even more given the woman involved, a self-described exhibitionist, has made statements indicating that the audience was actually part of the couple’s sexual experience. Media attention, students’ own negative experiences with sex, and conflict over the decision to stay and watch could further be causing students distress.

Bailey has gone on the defensive as sex positive, feeling that his “sex negative” attackers are practicing censorship. He believes no one has given good cause for why the demonstration should not have been offered, especially since he warned the 567 students enrolled in the class that the demo would be explicit (students were invited to voluntarily view the demonstration, and without any impact on their grade). He sees this demonstration as an opportunity for learners to experience areas of sexuality rarely seen.

Unfortunately, it’s all too predictable that the fields of sexuality education and sex research will pay the price for Bailey’s missteps – at least in the United States. What seemingly amounted to no more than an attempt to shock and titillate has crowned Bailey as the Jerry Springer of sex education, and any attempts to highlight real experiences as “freak shows.” Bailey has demonstrated complete ignorance or lack of care when it comes the political and social climates in which sexuality educators operate. Incidences like these hurt all educators who are truly interested in teaching learners about sexuality.

Ironically, many sexuality educators themselves have never attended a workshop or presentation involving nudity, live sex demonstrations, or enhancement products. Knowing well that such learning experiences are largely unnecessary in teaching and learning about sex, a number want to know about the goals and objectives in Bailey’s lesson plan. What were they and what does a live demonstration do for students that a film or website cannot? How does a live sex act meet students’ educational needs?

So far, Bailey hasn’t given anybody any good answers or rationale for his decisions. 

How far is going too far when it comes to sex education? Such is being debated once again thanks to a live sex act demonstration at Northwestern University. The controversy, spawned by the decisions of tenured professor J. Michael Bailey, involves an after-class where a guest presenter used a machine-powered saw with a phallic object (instead of a blade) on his fiancé, to the point of orgasm, in front of about 100 students.

This “on the fly” event followed a lecture on bondage, swinging, and other sexual behaviors, plus video of a woman experiencing climax. When the flick was deemed “unrealistic,” the idea of a live sex act was born. With Bailey finding no reason not to allow the demo, he and his co-presenter gave students numerous warnings about the graphic nature of the presentation before proceeding. Some students did leave before the woman was penetrated with a sex device for about three minutes.

While Northwestern’s president, Morton Schapiro, has reacted by launching an investigation, Bailey first reacted with “that is what I get paid for.” The psychology professor has since issued a written apology, claiming that the demonstration was unplanned and based on a quick decision – something he should not have done – though he naively sees “absolutely no harm in what happened.”

In the meantime, the media and academic circles alike are debating whether or not higher education can – and should – go about teaching differently. This demonstration was just the latest in a string of educational offerings Bailey has facilitated, with earlier ones involving presentations, panel discussions or question-and-answer sessions by swingers, transvestites, convicted sex offenders, transsexual performers, and people into “kink.” So does making topics “live” cross the line?

Bailey’s defenders claim that his teaching decisions are all in the name of academic freedom, and that he cannot be faulted for providing students with an opportunity that is a part of what the university experience should be about. Bailey’s critics see what apparently amounts to no more than a reenactment of an Amsterdam sex show as inappropriate, irresponsible, and poor judgment on a number of levels, most basically when it comes to consent.  

Concern has been raised over matters like: Did students truly understand what they were about to see? How much did peer pressure play in students not leaving? (Consider that some may not have attended class that day had they known about the demo ahead of time.) Regardless, were students fully protected from what they were about to witness?

Issues around preparation, debriefing, and support have raised alarm even more given the woman involved, a self-described exhibitionist, has made statements indicating that the audience was actually part of the couple’s sexual experience. Media attention, students’ own negative experiences with sex, and conflict over the decision to stay and watch could further be causing students distress.

Bailey has gone on the defensive as sex positive, feeling that his “sex negative” attackers are practicing censorship. He believes no one has given good cause for why the demonstration should not have been offered, especially since he warned the 567 students enrolled in the class that the demo would be explicit (students were invited to voluntarily view the demonstration, and without any impact on their grade). He sees this demonstration as an opportunity for learners to experience areas of sexuality rarely seen.

Unfortunately, it’s all too predictable that the fields of sexuality education and sex research will pay the price for Bailey’s missteps – at least in the United States. What seemingly amounted to no more than an attempt to shock and titillate has crowned Bailey as the Jerry Springer of sex education, and any attempts to highlight real experiences as “freak shows.” Bailey has demonstrated complete ignorance or lack of care when it comes the political and social climates in which sexuality educators operate. Incidences like these hurt all educators who are truly interested in teaching learners about sexuality.

Ironically, many sexuality educators themselves have never attended a workshop or presentation involving nudity, live sex demonstrations, or enhancement products. Knowing well that such learning experiences are largely unnecessary in teaching and learning about sex, a number want to know about the goals and objectives in Bailey’s lesson plan. What were they and what does a live demonstration do for students that a film or website cannot? How does a live sex act meet students’ educational needs?

So far, Bailey hasn’t given anybody any good answers or rationale for his decisions.