Study: abstinence-only education doesn't work

I am shocked, shocked: "You mean, simply telling teenagers not to have sex doesn’t work? And quality, comprehensive education does? And the Bush administration insists on supporting the prior while rejecting the latter? You don’t say."

Comments

[Derek]

Brendan, how about, uh, actually reading or citing to the report? That might be helpful. (I know, I know, primary sources are just so boring.)

Dr. Kirby, the report's lead researcher, refuses to call for a withdrawal of federal funds for abstinence-only education. Kirby found two abstinence-only programs that showed positive results but that required further testing.

Note that Bush is calling for federal funding of $137MM for such programs (which is about 1/3 of what Planned Parenthood alone received from the Government, and whichCongress increases to $141MM).

And Kirby's conclusion is radically different from what the second-hand sources report.

Even though there does not exist strong evidence that any particular abstinence program is effective at delaying sex or reducing sexual behavior, one should not conclude that all abstinence programs are ineffective. After all, programs are diverse, fewer than 10 rigorous studies of these programs have been carried out, and studies of two programs have provided modestly encouraging results.

In sum, studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination. Instead, efforts should be directed toward carefully developing and evaluating these programs. Only when strong evidence demonstrates that particular programs are effective should they be disseminated more widely.

I think spending $141MM for programs is about the right balance for attempting to "develope and evaluate" such programs. Certainly, $141MM isn't going to result in any real "widespread dissemination" of abstinence-only education.

[Virgin]

Abstinence-education worked for me!

[Angrier and Angrier]

Doesn't "dissemination" sound like another term for "abstinence?"

[Angrier and Angrier]

Per Derek's point, maybe a more accurate description is that there is no evidence that abstinence programs work.

For those of who don't know, would anyone mind explaining where and when these programs are being conducted? Are these "abstinence only" programs taught in public high schools or junior highs or are they conducted elsewhere?

[Angrier and Angrier]

I suggest a quick poll.

How many here believe that teens should abstain from sex?

Now how many here actually abstained from sex as a teenager?

I would be interested in knowing.

[Brendan]

Yes, Angrier, that would be interesting. Also, of those who would answer "yes" to the latter question how many can honestly say it was by choice? ;)

[Angrier and Angrier]

I would recommend those folks save face and abstain from answering at all. : )

[dcl]

What we are all wondering is why Brendan is attempting to embarrass himself. Then again at this point he is married. Hmm, is that a plus or minus in this situation?

[Brendan]

I have no idea what you're talking about. My abstinence-only high-school experience is a model that everyone should look up to. :)

[Josh Rubin]

As one of Brendan's best friends in high school, I can confidently tell you that he and I both practiced abstinence ... Though I'm sure that this was not what either of us truly intended :-P In other words, if you don't want your kids to have sex, make sure that they are the world's biggest dorks.

As someone who deals with teenagers daily, there are some times when abstinence-only education might work. Like if the school is on an island surrounded by shark-infested waters and there is no actual physical contact with anyone because they are locked in a room 24 hours a day and only interface with computers (but then they'll look at porn, so maybe not such a great idea).

That having been said, I got a good chuckle out of the graffiti in one of my school's bathrooms yesterday (the closest staff bathroom was occupied, so I had to go into the Den of Pee...). Someone had drawn a perfectly, anatomically-correct version of the male genetalia and what I can only assume was an attempt at female genetalia next to it. Except the latter looked more like a doggie bone with a dot in the middle of it. I have a feeling that the artist had spent more time admiring the former (i.e. his own) than the latter.

But seriously, one thing that we as a society need to acknowledge is that kids have sex. Let's not play the blame game about why kids are having sex at a young age--only that they are doing it. Teaching abstience is like telling your dog to stop smelling your crotch: he hears you, but he doesn't care and he'll do it anyway.

Kids have been having sex for centuries. Until the post-industrial era (i.e. the mid-20th century), it was common for a girl to get married at much younger ages than 18. And there were also a strange number of babies born less than nine months after weddings. Miracles or hanky-panky? You decide.

Oh, and I think it's safe to assume (Becky being pregnant and all) that Brendan has... shall we say ... moved past his previous abstinence-only programme.

[David K.]

Parents and religious leaders should teach abstinence if they feel it is the correct route.

Schools should either teach nothing, or more realisitically teach the whole gamut of information. Birth control, STD's, etc. Point out that abstinence is the only sure fire method but atleast acknowledge the other methods pluses and minuses. I don't think schools should be handing out condoms to kids, that steps over the line, and in most places they are either cheap or can be obtained freely if the kids so choose from other sources like planned parenthood.

[Condor]

If I were in charge, I would promote misogyny and misandry as viable alternatives to pre-marital sex.

[Aaron]

Derek is actually correct that the secondary sources linked here misrepresent Dr. Kirby's position. On the other hand, I think Dr. Kirby's position is pretty tendentious.

Josh, multiple "heh"'s for your comment ;)

[Alasdair]

Condor - a lot of schools (and NOW) already promote misandry ... hip-hop already promotes misogyny ...

[Condor]

You're right, Alasdair. I guess my misogyny/misandry plan would have to take steps not to make men and women into objects, since that could just lead to more premarital sex. It would have to work to achieve such distain for members of the opposite sex that even considering them as objects to be used would be too disgusting.

[4-7]

Abstinence only education may not work, but abstinence does.

Maybe it's because 90% of the culture rejects abstinence that abstinence only education falls on deaf ears. At least abstinence only education is still instilling a few souls with the self-respect necessary to get through high school and college without wasting yourself on a night of non-commital nothingness.

[atmchick]

I support abstinence only education.

I was abstinate until I was married, after I graduated from college.

I dated my husband from the time we were 17.

Just because it's difficult for kids not to have pre-marital sex doesn't mean we should accept that they will. We should try to instill a moral standard and hold them to that standard by not teaching them ways to properly violate that it.

[Wobbly H]

I'm with Davie on this one. While ATM and 4-7's experiences and sentiments are acceptable, and admirable to many, I doubt they were learned from schools, but rather from religious institutions and family. Abstinence-first education, or at least some program which emphasizes the superior benefits of abstaining from sex at a young age, need to be a part of the curriculum. But basic reality shows us that it's important to provide information on contraceptives instead of pretending that they are not an option.

atmchick - your idea of morals or a moral standard is not necessarily what everyone believes is a moral standard. I would be extremely upset as a parent on either side of this issue to think of a public school teaching my children what morality is in this arena. Even if they taught the same thing I believed on this issue, this type of program opens to the door to other "moral" teaching that I might not agree with. This sort of program crosses the line. That sort of information should come from other sources, like parents, because there are legitimate arguments on both sides.

[dcl]

what, pray tell is this moral precept based on? And extend that to is that a moral question that government should be involved in. People should be given the tools to make their own wise ethical decisions. When we do so, you might be rather surprised by the results. But as a simple matter there is no logical imperative to wait for marriage nor is there a logical imperative not to. In my experience most people have different opinions on the question of when sex should enter a relationship and what the preexisting circumstances need to be in order to make that choice.

[Aaron]

dcl,

what, pray tell is this moral precept based on?

I assume that was a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway ;) Religion, obviously. Even if religion isn't the proximate cause of atmchick's moral aversion to pre-marital sex, it's certainly the ultimate cause. It's not an evolved moral trait, as plenty of past, present, and no doubt future societies have placed little or no moral implications on sex.

For me, arguments about pre-marital sex that rely on morality (or lack thereof) are like someone trying to persuade me of the moral dangers of pre-marital hang-gliding. There's no common ground there to argue upon.

[atmchick]

I would like to say that there is a logical imperitive to wait until marriage. I don't want to go on a rant here, but look at the rampant spread of STDs, the sad number of single, teenage mothers, not to mention the inability of a large number of young people in this country that have no concept of real intimicy or trust. I think these arguments easily show a "logical imperitive."

In my opinion, the use of casual sex as entertainment or as a way to establish yourself as "cool", as discussed about, has had terrible consequences to the psysche of America's population, especially for women and girls.

[Brendan]

Atmchick, is there no "happy medium" between waiting until marriage, on the one hand, and "the use of casual sex as entertainment or as a way to establish yourself as 'cool'," on the other? Methinks you're setting up a rather egregious false dichotomy here.

I don't want to get too deep into this, but I think there are some very excellent logical arguments to be made that it's better not to wait until marriage, but to limit sex before marriage (and during marriage, too, of course!) to committed relationships based on mutual love and respect. In other words, it makes sense to, as a certain relative of mine likes to say, "test-drive the car before you buy it" -- to experience the full reality of intimacy, including sex, before signing the paperwork that legally binds you to this person for life (in theory, at least). I'm not expecting you to agree with me, but you should at least acknowledge that this viewpoint exists, and is intellectually/logically legitimate, and is not at all the same thing as promoting casual sex.

[Brendan]

Atmchick, is there no "happy medium" between waiting until marriage, on the one hand, and "the use of casual sex as entertainment or as a way to establish yourself as 'cool'," on the other? Methinks you're setting up a rather egregious false dichotomy here.

I don't want to get to deep into this, but I think there are some very excellent logical arguments to be made that it's better not to wait until marriage, but to limit sex before marriage (and during marriage, too, of course!) to committed relationships based on mutual love and respect. In other words, it makes sense to, as a certain relative of mine likes to say, "try out the car before you buy it" -- to experience the full reality of intimacy, including sex, before signing the paperwork that legally binds you to this person.

I'm not expecting you to agree with this viewpoint, but you should at least acknowledge that it exists, and is intellectually/logically legitimate, and is not at all the same thing as promoting casual sex.

[Aaron]

What Brendan said. Twice ;)

I'd add that teen pregnancy, STD infection, divorce rates... starting from the early '90s all these things have been in decline, some of them dramatically.

[Brendan]

P.S. On its face, the idea of having pre-marital sex only in a loving, committed relationship -- if done properly, i.e., with actual love, commitment, and respect, and with the use of proper protection/contraception -- pretty much solves all the problems you mentioned, atmchick: "the rampant spread of STDs, the sad number of single, teenage mothers, not to mention the inability of a large number of young people in this country that have no concept of real intimacy or trust."

Of course, you can say that it often doesn't work out that way in reality. But that's not much of an argument, because marriage often doesn't work out the way it's supposed to, either (and I would argue that unhappy marriages are quite likely to occur if the virginal couple rushes into marriage because they're so eager to finally have sex). So unless you can show that there is some inherent structural reason why committed, loving, respectful pre-marital sexual relationships -- though NOT of casual sex -- are necessarily incapable of furthernig the goals you are seeking to advance, I don't think you can use those goals as a convincing argument for the "logical imperative" of abstinence until marriage.