Abstinence education: like intelligent design, teaching abstinence in place of sex education is the Christian right's way of injecting religion into our education system. They promote abstinence as the only true way to avoid pregnancy and STDs and the ultimate evil, abortion. And you know what, they're right.
But just like communism and all the other ideas that sound good on paper, reality has a funny way of proving how wrong you really are. Abstinence-only education is no exception.
Anyone who has ever been a teenager or currently is one, knows full well that the idea of abstinence is about as realistic as jumping from here to the moon in a single bound. Bodies are primed and ready, hormones are going crazy and the urge to merge is flying right in the face of society's man-made age of consent and social mores. We want to protect our children, so what's the best way to do that? Is it to tell them simply, just say no and that's final? I suppose this is the sexual equivalent of "because I'm your mother and I say so".
Is that simple prohibition enough to override the forces of nature, peer pressure, human curiosity and the first feelings of love and attraction? Let's take a look.
As expected, the answer is no. A study in the American Journal of Health Behavior was conducted to analyze the sexual behavior of more than 2000 students in the Cleveland area. Researchers led by Elaine A. Borawski, Ph.D., in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, found that after going through the program, teens reported significant increases in their HIV/STD knowledge, their personal beliefs about the importance of abstinence and their intentions to remain abstinent in the near future.
That sounds nice.
But the program did not affect students' confidence to avoid risky sexual situations, and sexually inexperienced and female students actually reported a decrease in their intent to use condoms in the future.
Article comments
1 - Rob
First, I find your attitude that "Abstinence is impossible" to be insulting to teenagers. Yes, hormones do hit at puberty, but they do not override all thought. Look up the stats on when people lose their virginity. It's obviously not impossible.
What the study you quote shows is that abstinence-only education doesn't work the way it's being taught. Giving kids all the information and giving them the emotional tools to make use of that information is going to do a lot more than abstinence-only.
The Christian Right is pushing abstinence-only and distorting the information to support it.
Is that really the pattern you want to follow?
2 - Rudicus
Did you actually read the article?
Please quote me where I said abstinence was impossible.
What I DID say was that abstinence-only education was unrealistic and irresponsible because the odds of getting 100% abstinence participation is as close to zero as one can get without being an absolutist.
Thus it is dangerous and irresponsible not to teach all the factors that go into a viable sex education curriculum - which includes accomodating the percentage of teenagers that are going to be having it.
What I'm talking about is the delusional belief that teaching abstinence-only and not including the rest of the curriculum apart from scaring kids with AIDS will have any impact on sexuality and may in fact be counter-productive - which is what I am suggesting.
And for the record you said:
"What the study you quote shows is that abstinence-only education doesn't work the way it's being taught. Giving kids all the information and giving them the emotional tools to make use of that information is going to do a lot more than abstinence-only."
Hence it would cease to be abstinence-only education and would become a full sex education curriculum, which is exactly what I'm saying.
3 - David Flanagan
Rudicus,
A couple of points. First of all, I made it through my teen years and through college as a virgin. Was it easy? No way! But it's realistic if that is what you want.
Secondly, there are quite a few studies that show abstinence education to be highly effective. Probably the most effective program is what I believe is called the "ABC Method." Abstinence first, then contraceptives, then something else (not sure what the "C" stands for). That method is highly successful, far more than simply teaching kids how to use contraceptives or simply teaching them not to have sex.
The advantage that abstinence until marriage has over everything else is the fact that it maximizes your chance of staying STD free for the span of your life. Unfortunately, kids are being taught to have "safe" sex when, really, there is no such thing as "safe" sex.
There are many STDs that condoms can't even protect against, so why are we telling kids that they can? And that is where evolution and the "safe sex" rhetoric intersects in my opinion. Some want evolution AND "safe sex" taught as fact when, in reality, evolution is just a theory and safe sex is, at best, a fantasy.
Thanks,
David
4 - Rudicus
Again, I appreciate your positions and applaud people who make life choices and stick to them.
And I said myself, the only 100% effective means to prevent STD's and pregnancy is abstinence.
But where you guys are missing the point, for some reason, is not that people can't choose abstinence, it's that most people do not. And, whether I think people should wait until they are married or have as much pre-marital or homosexual sex as they can is really immaterial to the issue.
What we are talking about is preparedness and reality. Since we know that 100% of the students in question will not be practicing abstinence only then it is in our best interests as a society to equip the kids with as much information and knowledge as possible about the entire gamut of sexual activity and relationships so that whatever decision they choose to make they have the very best information they can have.
The fact that there is widespread difference in the quality, content and education of the curriculums and their instructors, it would not surprise me if there was a whole host of nonsense being peddled as true and correct.
Condoms cannot protect 100% from either pregnancy or STDs, but they're a damn sight better than nothing and mostly pretty good regardless and that IS a fact. So if I had a kid who was going to be having sex anyway, I'd much rather have them do it with protection rather than not.
No one is claiming (or at least should be claiming) that condoms are 100% safe and effective or that evolution is the be all end all of existence. Those kinds of statements are best left to absolutists. However both represent the best we have so far, and until something comes along that changes either of those things, that's what we have to work with.
5 - Joey
I could have used a lot more controlled, protected sex as a teenager. Perhaps a hot phys ed teacher. But plenty of it, directed toward putting my hormone levels at normal, and allowing more focus on study rather than always onthe hunt.
I think I would have been a lot better off. Seriously.
6 - lelouisa
Abstinence programs are as varied as the person presenting. Social skills for better relationships are good for everyone. Information on contraception and birth control is more likely remembered if the person seeks it out from a medical professional and that information is relevant for their life at the moment. Wholesale promotion of contraception doesn't meet the desired goal unless its just to sell products and services.
A much overlooked fact is this debate is that most abstinence education is aimed at children ages 10-15 years old, all illegal to have sex with even with each other in most states. There are reasons for sexual age of consent laws. The debate is so myopic. Human beings are not merely biological they are emotional, social, intellectual, and spiritual and these young people have financial responsibilities, too. Ignoring all these aspects should send up red flags to caring adults.