have a problem with people choosing not to have sex... but I'm not sure how I feel about actively convincing people not to have sex. In America, I advocate for open, explicit, pleasure-affirming sex education. But that's a radical stance even in America -- I'm not sure whether it's possible here! At least I'm spotting a few allies, some in unexpected places: for instance, there's a great high-profile, outspoken sex-positive educator named Agrippa Khathide in South Africa... who happens to be a pastor. I'm starting to think there's room to do fascinating work here, creating culturally appropriate sex-positive education. Yet abstinence remains the only 100% effective tactic for avoiding HIV. As another educator told me, "I hate abstinence-only education more than anything. Seriously. But... here, I think it's a necessary ingredient." Is it responsible for me to avoid promoting abstinence? Even if marketing abstinence means that to some extent, I'll have to tell people sexual exploration isn't worth doing? I'm still feeling out my approach, but... what if the most effective way to fight HIV is to align myself with values antithetical to free sexuality? Does properly doing my job require me to promote a sex-negative agenda? Surely not. Surely there are ways to promote sex-positive abstinence -- perhaps a "Vibrators for African Women" program...? (This is a joke. Mostly.) And that's just one facet of the broader question keeping me awake at night! Which is: given a fatal, incurable sexually transmitted infection; given a population where, in some groups, up to 40% test positive; given a society in which culturally appropriate messages emphatically do not include my pro-sex, pro-queer, pro-kink approach to sex education... what does being a sex-positive educator mean? Maybe I can harvest clues from my own feelings, past and present, about abstinence: clues for how to promote it compassionately, effectively and responsibly; clues for locating my boundaries when I talk abou