Medical Men, Moralists, and the Roots of Sex Education

Chapter 1 examines the liberal Protestant roots of the American Social Hygiene Association (ASHA), a clearinghouse for the early sex education movement. ASHA emerged from the combination of two distinct movements: social purity and social hygiene. Liberal Protestantism came to influence sex education through the merging of these strands and the collective realization that scientific information was not enough to influence sexual behavior. This chapter locates the roots of ASHA in social purity groups of the 1870s, many of which were led by Unitarians and Quakers and focused on ridding society of prostitution. The chapter explores their evolving relationship with the physician-dominated social hygiene movement that began in the early twentieth century, demonstrating that liberal religious concerns about sexual morality impacted sex education through the dynamic interactions between purity reformers and social hygienists. ASHA became the organization within which both groups developed a joint strategy for teaching the moral side of sex.

Epilogue

The epilogue discusses the enormous power of recent presidential administrations to mold sex education through federal funding initiatives. Since 1996, the country has seen the pendulum in full swing, from the increase in abstinence-only support under President George Bush, to advancement of comprehensive sexuality education under President Barack Obama, to serious efforts to shift funds toward abstinence-only programs under current President Donald Trump. The legacies of religious sex educators established select terms of these discussions, especially in portrayals of what is at stake. Throughout this history, religious people have proven that the concept of morality could be used to expand discourses of sexuality beyond physical considerations, to limit these discussions to the restriction of sexual activity, or, in most cases, both. Contrary to narratives that pit secular sex education against religious actors, religious influence has been and continues to be both multidimensional and pervasive in the development of sex education.

Abstinence-Only and the Struggle to Define Sex Education

As Chapter 5 argues, conservative Christian abstinence-only advocates learned a great deal from the liberal Protestants and comprehensive sexuality education they rejected. This phase of sex education, often defined by the struggle between competing versions of sex education, began with the emergence of abstinence-only education in the 1980s. After years of opposing sex education, conservative Christians like Tim LaHaye developed their replacements. Supported by—and supporting—the newly developed Christian Right and the evangelical pro-family movement, these programs espoused chastity before marriage and omitted information on contraceptive benefits and the diversity of sexual behaviors and identities. It was no longer a question of whether sex education belonged in schools, but rather which type would be taught. Conservatives, too, had learned how to translate religious values into secular spaces in order to gain a bigger audience for their concerns and values.

The New Morality of Comprehensive Sexuality Education

Out of family life education grew comprehensive sexuality education, which taught sexuality as a public health topic and included information on contraceptives and, eventually, sexual diversity. Interactions between the National Council of Churches and Mary Steichen Calderone, a Quaker and public health professional, led to the founding of SIECUS in 1964 as the leader of comprehensive sexuality education. Chapter 4 argues that the “new morality,” a liberal theological trend also known as situation ethics, shaped comprehensive sexuality education and incited the intense conservative Christian opposition known as the “sex education controversies.” The new morality, with its rejection of absolutist interpretations of right and wrong behavior, tipped sex education further toward progressive sexual values. Responding to the new morality of comprehensive sexuality education, conservative Christians protested that children would learn an “anything goes” curriculum that violated their beliefs in modesty and the exclusive place of sexuality within a monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

Church, Sex, and “Judeo-Christian” Family Life Education

Chapter 3 argues that liberal Protestants and their engagements with social science transformed sex education into family life education beginning in the mid-1920s. Three liberal religious influences interconnected to bring about this transformation: (1) the leadership of Anna Garlin Spencer; (2) the alliance Spencer forged between ASHA and the Federal Council of Churches; and (3) the careful balance struck by Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish family life educators for encouraging the interfaith ideal of “Judeo-Christian” family values while rejecting marriage across religious lines. The shift to family life education activated churches and some synagogues in sex education work, effectively making the FCC a practical arm of the sex education movement. Shared interest in social scientific concerns about family life and methods of counseling grounded the partnership, with both ASHA and the FCC convinced that strengthening marital sexuality would improve society.

Moral Education about Sex in the YMCA and Military

After ASHA’s incorporation in 1914, it turned its attention to programs to carry out its vision. Chapter 2 examines the emergence of the Young Men’s Christian Association and chaplains as ASHA’s partners in providing sex education to young men within colleges, YMCAs, and the military. This chapter demonstrates how Christian sex educators used the framework of moral education to justify national sex education programs and to bridge religious and scientific interests. Their positioning of sex education as an integral part of moral education was further influenced by two trends within Protestantism: the social gospel and muscular Christianity. Through these interactions, sex education became a liberal Protestant version of muscular Christianity that sought to reform society. For sex educators within the YMCA and chaplaincy, restoration of moral and social order required instruction that could channel uncontrolled male sexual energy into recreational activities, service to the country, and monogamous, heterosexual marriages.

Introduction

This chapter introduces the ways religion contributed to the major agendas that defined the five historical phases of sex education. The phases include (1) the formation of the early sex education movement out of purity and hygiene movements between 1876 and 1913; (2) the institutionalization of moral education as part of venereal disease prevention programs in schools, YMCAs (Young Men’s Christian Associations), and the military between 1913 and 1925; (3) the shift to family life education between 1925 and 1964; (4) the development of comprehensive sexuality education between 1964 and 1981; and (5) the growth of abstinence-only programs from 1981 to the present. These phases were dominated by organizations like the American Social Hygiene Association (ASHA) and the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). Religion was prominent in the motivations of the organizations’ founders, the participation of religious sex educators, cooperation with churches and synagogues, and discussions within publications and conferences.