There is an ongoing debate in the U.S. over the way sexuality education is taught in public schools. As the debate continues, researchers attempt to determine the most effective means to curtail rates of teen pregnancy and to slow the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. I argue that researchers' emphasis on “effectiveness” obscures power politics in the name of pragmatism, and I seek to broaden the debate through a rhetorical analysis of two sexuality education programs. Utilizing a feminist Foucauldian frame, I argue that both programs naturalize gender assumptions and promote a “pro-life” agenda. I conclude by discussing the implications of this analysis for the assessment of sexuality education programs and for feminist rhetorical criticism.