The Journal Star ran an Associated Press story in its print edition today (you can read the same story online here in the NY Times) about how statistics show that fewer teens are having sex, and more of those who are sexually active are using condoms. Also, the birth rate for teens is down sharply.
It appears that abstinence-only sex education is having some positive effects.
The full 207-page report is available in PDF format by clicking here.
From the NYT article:
Sounds like they’re not listening to the abstinence only education, but fewer are getting pregnant because they’re using condoms more frequently.
Only having read the NY Times article, what evidence do you have to suggest the abstinence-only education appears to be working. Is it just your personal bent to be so optimistic? The article points to one quote from a guy that says education campaigns (generally) are working.
I believe that most studies of abstinence-only programs have shown them to be generally ineffective. How do you square your assertation about the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs with the better rate of teens using condoms? Where would they have learned that?
Damn, KID must have been typing at the same time as me.
KiD: From the report itself, “In 2005, 47 percent of high school students reported ever having had sexual intercourse. This was statistically the same rate as in 2003 and a decline from 54 percent in 1991.” (emphasis added)
Progressive: I have no proof, and can cite no scientific study. Nor did I make any such claims. I was simply observing that a lot of federal money has been pumped into abstinence-only education since 1996 when Section 510(b) of Title V of the Social Security Act was adopted, and despite protests from the comprehensive sex-ed crowd, the statistics have improved over that time, not worsened. Thus, it “appears” (key word) that the abstinence-only education is having some positive effects. I can guarantee you that if the stats had gone the other way, there would be plenty of rhetoric attributing the cause to federal funding of abstinence-only education.
Sounded like a claim to me, but I give you the benefit of the doubt. The fact is, since 1996, all sorts of money has been allotted for sex ed. Some has funded abstinence only programs, some has funded the other types. It would be interesting to know which had more meaningful impact.
All of this of course, depends on the reliability of the answers given by the students.
How many of them are really going to be truthful when an adult asks them about their sexual exploits?
“Are you gonna tell my mom?”
I agree JW…..not that it isn’t GREAT to see fewer KIDS having KIDS but I am skeptical of the results becuase I wonder if they are being thruthful.
JB
207 page report…Did you interview every single one of them CJ? Man, your thorough.
Heh — it’s not really as long as it sounds. It has a nice executive summary up front, and a good portion of the report is an appendix filled with raw data. 🙂
Well, a decline from 54% (1991) to 47% (2003 & 2005) is significant if those numbers can be extended population-wide – it probably means thousands of kids.
Of course “abstinence-only” education has only been a priority during the Bush II presidency, and that article indicates that rates of sexual experience have been stagnant between 2003 and 2005. The 54% rate was quoted at a time when we had three Republican presidencies in a row (Reagan x 2, Bush I x 1).
Looks like those wanton sex-fiends in the Clinton administration can be credited with the drop. 😉
Since everyone seems intent on making sex ed a partisan issue, here’s a short civics/history lesson. While Republicans did control the Presidency for 18 of the last 26 years, the Legislative Branch was controlled by the Democrats for all of the Reagan administration (save two years when Republicans controlled the Senate), all of Bush I, two years of the Clinton administration, a brief time earlier in the Bush II administration (Senate only) and the past six months. And while the President can promote any agenda he chooses, all policies/laws and SPENDING BILLS come from the Legislative branch. Further, if anyone has seen any appropriation hearings (state level included), the House pretty much does whatever it wants, regardless of what the President, public opinion, or even the Senate may think. In addition, I think it’s fair to say that the leadership of the NEA leans more to the left (they would say “Progressive” most likely). So I think that the decrease in sexual activity among teens is less a result of governmental intervention and more in spite of it.
OK, enough of the history lesson.
Is abstinence really such a bad thing? Those who speak against it (not necessarily in this forum) say it’s unrealistic and an imposition of someone else’s moral standards. The message is that parents become hostile when they find out their children are sexually active, and those parents who find their children are having children will become abusive or even throw their children out of the house. Kids can’t be honest with their parents for fear of the treatment they will receive, so they must keep everything secret (sexual activity, condom use, pregnancy, and abortion or birth).
But when was the last time any junior high or high school student made a decision based solely upon the material they covered in class? Kids are bombarded with all kinds of messages about sex: music, tv, movies, commercials, books, magazines all have very overt messages about sex, what’s acceptable, what they should be doing and why. Not to mention the fact that their peers have great influence (positive and negative) on what they do. And the message of the 80s and early 90s was sex is good and it won’t hurt you — as long as you don’t tell and as long as you use a condom. Even the President was trying to convince us that oral sex wasn’t really sex so it was perfectly acceptable.
What you saw in the late 90s and see even through today could be attributed to any number of elements: the social acceptability of abstinence-based education (read: it’s OK if you don’t have sex — you’re not weird); participation in faith-based youth groups; involvement in extra-curricular activities; the True Love Waits movement (and other programs like it); the rise of cases of STDs and medically-linked evidence (e.g. chlamydia leading to cervical cancer) and the fear it incites.
I don’t think you’re going to be able to point to one cause of either kids having sex (I saw American Pie Band Camp and decided to have sex with my girlfriend) or deciding not to have sex (my best friend came down with chlamydia so I’m not having sex with anyone ever). It’s entirely too simplistic. But after years of having the pendulum swing to the direction of “sex – anywhere, anytime, with anyone as long as you use a condom”, I think messages that say abstinence is socially acceptable, medically sound (it’s the only method of STD- and pregnancy-prevention that works every time it’s used) and a healthier option (physically and emotionally) are beneficial to today’s youth. And to think that teens can’t possibly be expected to make the decision not to have sex sets too low of an expectation.
When the ‘Abstinence Only’ crowd preaches abstinence only… they really mean the ‘only’. No condoms, no pill, no diaphragm etc…
I have never read anything to indicate the inclusive sex ed types wanting to exclude abstinence from the curriculum. Abstinence was part of my sex ed curriculum along with everything else. The words still ring today, the only sure way to not catch anything or get pregnant is to abstain, period. Further, I don’t think any responsible sex ed teacher is going to come out and say ‘go have sex, just wear a condom’.
The only side wanting to disinform the youth are the Abstinence Only crowd.
There have been a lot of reports in the couple years like the one CJ cites. One argument the abstinence only folks like to say over n over is that if you teach kids about condoms they are going to have more sex. Much to their disappointment statistics don’t bear this out. Sexual activity isn’t driven by whether kids know about condoms (or other bc methods) or not. Pregnancy rates however are driven hard by the lack of that knowledge. It is no accident that the highest teen pregnancy rates exist in the states with the most restrictive sex education (and abortion) requirements.
For a good read… pick up Freakonomics by Steven Levitt, a well known economist. In the book there is a chapter where he looks at crime. As a case study he looks at Romania, which outlawed all birth control and sex education. The effects were dramatic and disastrous for the country. One such consequence was a rapid rise in crime rates due to the multitudes of unwanted children.
Here are a couple of things to wonder about:
For one, how is “sex” defined? (Yep, now insert Clinton and Gingrich joke/sarcastic remark here.) The reason I ask is not long ago I read an article dealing with the kids promising to remain virgins and were remaining so only by not having vaginal intercourse. However, the vaginal intercourse was being replaced with anal intercourse and oral sex.
Sadly, what the abstinence crowd will refuse to acknowledge is humans will never be able to stop young people from exploring the pleasures of the body. That is why sex education is so important and this is reinforced by the use of the increased methods of birth control.
Every study I have seen suggests that abstinance-only education does not lower rates of teen sex and that teens who are abstinance-only educated or join the promise-ring groups continue to have sex at the same rate as their peers but use protection far less often.
Personally, I was abstinent. But from what I’ve seen of these curriculums, many are horrifically bad. High school is the last time you’re going to be able to state mandate that people learn something, and I think mandating they learn about sexual health (which many abstinence programs don’t teach) isn’t a bad thing. I had a roommate in law school who didn’t know a damn thing about how her body worked — her parents were devout Christians who refused to even discuss sex because it was not an option outside marriage and she wasn’t married, and her school was abstinence only. Well, she didn’t know it was abnormal not to menstruate for TEN YEARS and when we (our other roommate and I) finally convinced her to go to an ob/gyn (both her parents and her school told her women didn’t need to do that unless they were having sex, and that ob/gyn appointments were uncomfortable or outright painful), she discovered she was infertile from years and years and years of untreated … I forget if it was PCOS or fibroids. Since much of her life was built around a dream of marriage and family, she was absolutely devastated.
Kids should have facts about how their bodies work. It’s an entirely separate question from how we teach the MORALITY of sex. Too many of these programs, under the guise of “not glamorizing sex” or “teaching abstinence” keep teenagers ignorant about their own bodies and sexual health or teach them outright lies.
Doctors now tell us that women need to start protecting their fertility AS SOON AS THEY START MENSTRUATING because there are so many dangers to fertility out there, if they intend to ever have children. Well, if sex and babies and fertility and uteruses are too dirty to talk about, those girls are going to have no power to protect their futures. Saving yourself for marriage is a simple choice and hardly requires a nine-week curriculum to get the point across. Protecting your fertility and sexual health over the long term is a far more complicated thing that deserves serious teaching time.
I went to college with girls coming out of abstinence-only curriculums who didn’t have even the VAGUEST idea how their bodies worked. Urinary tract infections were a total unknown (and on occasion provoked panic). A handful thought WITHDRAWAL was effective birth control. The whole process of ovulation and menstruation was a mystery to them, which is a serious indictment of our high school science curriculum as well as the sex ed one. These women had more in common with my grandmother (who woke up one morning in her early teens to find blood all over the sheets and went into screaming hysterics because she thought she was hemmorhaging to death because in those days one didn’t talk about menstruation to little girls) than they do with functioning adult members of today’s society who are educated in their health and active participants in protecting it. It’s absolutely insane, in this day and age, for teenaged girls not to know HOW UTERUSES WORK.
Martha,
Yes, the Legislative branch makes the laws, but the Executive branch enforces the laws and staffs the federal agencies. As we have seen glaringly during the Bush II administration, that authority can be used to pervert the spirit of the law – or even outright ignore it. Executive priority matters a great deal.
However, I was mostly in jest when I said Clinton’s administration could claim credit for the drop … thus the smirky emoticon –> 😉
E.M. and Makhno make the point – EVERY sex education class worth its salt includes the statement that abstinence is the only sure-fire way of preventing pregnancy or STDs. “Abstinence Only” education insists on denying the fact that we’re sexual beings at all, and teenagers are VERY sexual beings. They have been for millenia. Two girls in my dad’s graduating high school class of 40-something in VERY Conservative TinyTown, USA were pregnant before they graduated. The year – 1951. People blame the hippies and the pill, but teen pregnancy has been THE NORM for most of history.
E.M. is absolutely right. We’re way too uncomfortable talking about sexuality in our society, although mainstream media and the internet are filled with gratuitous sexual images. By refusing to discuss sexuality and sexual health with our pre-adolescent and adolescent children or allowing a professional health educator to do so in our stead, we essentially abrogate our parental responsibilities and hand it over to their peers – peers filled with all sorts of bizarre misinformation.
“Abstinence Only” does not protect children from the sexual imagery prevalent in our society. It does deny them the information they need and deserve to know in order to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and STDs.
My first introduction into sex ed came in 5th grade PE class (sometime during the 1981-1982 school year). The boys & girls were separated (so I can only imagine what the boys were taught), and the girls spent two days watching REALLY OLD films on menstruation, the anatomy of the female body, etc. I also had science classes every day from 5th – 8th grade. And while sometime during those four years I know we studied some anatomy/physiology (we had to memorize the names of bones and put the organs along the digestive tract back into the model body cavity), no time that I recall was spent on reproductive organs.
I can tell you that a member of my 8th grade graduation class (a class of 79 in small, conservative grade school in small-town Illinois in 1985) was pregnant but lost the baby a couple months after graduation.
I can also remember getting a physical exam every year up through high school. Not once do I remember having a discussion with my doctor about sex/reproductive health.
In high school, we had an extensive unit on sexual health. Our health teacher had a way of presenting the material that made discussion comfortable, not embarrassing. We talked about the many and various STDs and what they did to your body, but we didn’t discuss intercourse. The class was very memorable and (dare I say) enjoyable. But it was one semester out of my sophomore year. During my three years of high school I took 5 honors science classes. I dissected more animals and parts of animals than I would care to remember (senior year biology was the reason I didn’t go into medicine). But again we didn’t focus on human physiology.
I was not an active church-goer for most of grade school or high school. Or even college for that matter. So I can’t speak for the messages that were being taught in area churches to the youth in regards to sex. I can tell you that NOW my church conducts an extensive program for pre-teens and their parents (boys are separated from girls to allow for a more open discussion) about their bodies, how they work, and sex from a Biblical point of view. But at that time, this wasn’t an option.
In college, all of my roommates and I were abstaining, but I knew girls in my dorm and my sorority who were very sexually active. In most cases, they really believed it made them more well liked.
SO… who’s to blame for my (or my friends’) lack of sufficient sexual education? Mrs. Stahly and Mr. Wetzel, my grade school science teachers? Dr. Simmons, my high school biology teacher? Or Coach Facker, my health teacher? Maybe Dr. Baer, our family physician during most of the 80s? The superintendents of the Jr & Sr High Sunday School classes? Or my parents, who not only didn’t discuss sexual matters (outside of the talk about menstruation) but didn’t model a healthy sexual relationship within their marriage? Or, better yet, the first OB I went to see who told me that if I would just have sex more (it was just before my wedding and I was a virgin) the exam wouldn’t hurt so much?
I completely understand that there are many, MANY parents who shelter their children in an effort to protect them (and in many cases over-protect them). And for these kids, it’s not just their families but their churches and their schools as well. I’ve seen first hand the sheltering that goes on, and I don’t excuse it. But I do believe that abstinence-only education, as ONE PART of Christian education and training, is the best option.
This is a much bigger issue than whether or not the “abstinence-only-crowd” is nothing more than a bunch of right-wing, religious ignoramuses who are trying to stop all sexual activity and discussion. What it comes down to is this, and it’s no different than any other part of the educational system: the current programs of sexual education are horribly inadequate, incomplete, and impossible to legislate. You can’t require parents to be open and honest with their children in spite of the fear of an uncomfortable conversation. You can’t require or expect schools to cover all aspects of sex ed (the physical, emotional, moral and spiritual). You can advise physicians to give more comprehensive education, but in a world where it costs $120 or more for a physical you can’t force/expect parents to take their kids if they don’t need it. And you can’t expect Hollywood to portray sex in a realistic light (when was the last time anyone on tv cleaned up after sex?) if it doesn’t fit with their agenda (sex is glamorous, exciting and a big fantasy, and you should be doing it).
Schools should do a better job of teaching physiology at a younger age. Doctors should have the freedom to discuss sexual/reproductive health in an environment where they don’t fear litigation (with the parent present would be even better). Congress should be able to have a reasonable discussion of how to protect children from internet pornography without it devolving into a screaming match over first amendment rights. Parents should be more involved in and aware of what is going on in their children’s classrooms and not just let the state take over in the educating process. At the same time, they should be more involved in their children’s lives so they can have these talks about sex without being embarrassed. Until all of these are achieved, sex ed can by no means be deemed comprehensive.
Closing thought: are the parents who firmly believe that abstinence-only education is the best form of education (based on religious or other convictions) any more wrong or less responsible for their mistakes than those government leaders under the “War on Poverty” who said if you were poor, had children, and WEREN’T married you would get government funds, regardless of how many kids you had? After all, they also had the best of intentions, didn’t they?
The problem is that abstinence only sex education doesn’t work as well as comprehensive sex education, and many of these programs actively promote factually incorrect information. An analysis of the 13 most commonly used abstinence-only curricula in the United States was discussed recently in the Washington Post. From that article:
So yes … many of those parents ARE wrong because their children are attending abstinence-only programs that are promoting misinformation. That’s worse than not receiving any information at all.
Knight: From a May 2007 Department of Health and Human Services report on comprehensive sex education curricula:
So, by your logic, it would appear that parents providing their kids comprehensive sex ed are also wrong, eh?
EM — I have great respect for the fact that (1) you are extremely articulate and knowledgeable on a breadth of topics and (2) you received a completely comprehensive education from school your church and your family. But what you just said is not what is being taught:
“ ‘We do not believe sex outside marriage morally acceptable’ and ‘Here is how sex works and why it is a good and beautiful thing within marriage.’ ”
People on the side of “comprehensive, non-abstinence emphasizing sex ed” don’t want to emphasize the “good and beautiful thing within marriage.” Such a claim restricts teens, confining them to a strict moral standard that we can’t expect them to follow (as a previous post stated: “humans will never be able to stop young people from exploring the pleasures of the body”). It defines the accepted moral standards at consistently lower levels. 25 years ago, the talk on sitcoms of a teen losing his/her virginity was “A Very Special Episode” that parents and teens should watch together and discuss. Did anyone on “Friends”, “Seinfeld” or “The O.C.” EVER say “No” and get treated seriously?
I believe in abstinence-only education because it’s consistent with my world view. I believe God created the universe, He created man and woman to be united as one in marriage, and He created sex as the ultimate gift that men and women can share with one another within that bond of marriage. I understand this may or may not your world view. But regardless of your beliefs, you have to agree that sex, as an act, is not merely physical. There are physical, emotional and moral components to sex. And outside of abstinence-only education, I don’t know of anything that teaches all three areas.
We’ve spent a great deal of time talking about the evils of abstinence-only sex-ed. Does anyone who’s been participating in this discussion have first hand knowledge (either by being an educator or having a child of school-age) of what is being taught? Comprehensive or “a-o”? Is this material adequate? Are there inaccuracies? I’d be curious to know, just so we can have a balanced discussion.
I find the entire contention bizarre that teenagers can’t receive more than one idea at a time. That is, it’s SO WEIRD that people are afraid teenagers can’t simultaneously understand, “We do not believe sex outside marriage morally acceptable” and “Here is how sex works and why it is a good and beautiful thing within marriage.” (Or, to move away from sex, “Do. Not. Drink.” and “For God’s sake, if you’re drinking at a party, call us, DON’T DRIVE!”)
Comprehensive sex ed has an awful lot to do with anatomy and physiology. It’s just friggin’ FACTS. Why are facts so scary? People afraid of facts are usually actually afraid their arguments suck.
My parents had no fear that their moral stance on sex outside marriage was wrong. They were quite sure their stance was persuasive. As was my church. Therefore both my parents AND my church felt quite comfortable providing me with comprehensive sexual education INCLUDING why sex is a lovely and good thing in the right context and *gasp, horror* FEELS GOOD.
Anyone who demands teenagers not be provided with facts is actually convinced their moral stance is weak and unpersuasive. Otherwise the facts wouldn’t threaten them.
Besides, it’s not like we don’t teach teenagers how to do things that are actively ILLEGAL — or were you (general you) not aware that in Illinois high school students are required to take consumer ed and learn how to get and use credit cards, despite the fact that it’s illegal for them to do so until they’re 18? We seem to have decided we prefer for them to have the right factual information so they can make smart financial decisions, despite the fact that we’re teaching them things that would constitute fraud if they actually DID them while still in high school.
“(as a previous post stated: “humans will never be able to stop young people from exploring the pleasures of the body”).”
Do you really think they will be able to? I mean, I don’t think teenagers are all raging horndogs unable to control themselves — that’s condescending — but do you really seriously think “underage” people, whatever you make that age, will stop having sex?
“Did anyone on “Friends”, “Seinfeld” or “The O.C.” EVER say “No” and get treated seriously?”
Donna did on 90210. (And actually, the virgin episode of Seinfeld was just on the other night and her no meant no.)
“I understand this may or may not your world view.”
If you read what I have written, you will see that that IS my worldview.
“There are physical, emotional and moral components to sex. And outside of abstinence-only education, I don’t know of anything that teaches all three areas.”
That was ABSOLUTELY a MAJOR component of my comprehensive sex ed. They HEAVILY emphasized the emotional and moral components over and above the plain physical or feel-good components. We spent almost two weeks on the emotional and moral components of sex, on the relationship components, on the repercussions beyond the physical or medical that arise from sexual intercourse AND OTHER FORMS OF INTIMACY THAT MAY TAKE THE PLACE OF INTERCOURSE.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with what’s actually taught in comprehensive sexual education. We got a MUCH more comprehensive and thorough discussion of the emotional, moral, and lifestyle impacts of sex than any abstinence-only curriculum I have seen or been personally exposed to. Too many of them (not ALL of them, some are great, but many are like this:) leave the emotional/moral/lifestyle impact at “as long as you’re married, it’s moral, it’ll bring you closer to your spouse, and all lifestyle impacts will be good because you’re married.”
CJ,
Do you mean the HHS report requested by ultra-social conservative Senators Tom Coburn and Rick Santorum and carried out by the Administration for Children & Families under the direction of “abstinence-only” proponent Undersecretary Wade Horn with the contracted assistance of the “abstinence-only” supporting Medical Institute for Sexual Health and the Sagamore Institute for Policy Research, whose core values include belief in “the valuable role of faith and faith-based organizations in public life” … do you mean THAT HHS report???
I also enjoyed the report on hen-house security written by Hungry Fox.
Knight, I see you’ve resorted to ad hominem attacks instead of answering my question, so I’ll assume that’s a tacit admission that you’ve lost the argument.
(Incidentally, the report you cited was produced for ultra-liberal long-time comprehensive-sex-ed-proponent Henry Waxman by a committee of House Democrats… not exactly a paragon of unbiased scientific inquiry.)
I guess this has gotten quite off-topic… so I’ll do my duty and say that I’m just happy that less teenagers are getting knocked up. I was quite disappointed, however, that the ‘education’ section of the paper contained nary a word about sex ed… as if that surely has nothing to do with the subject at hand???
The HHS report is blatantly biased, C.J. That’s a legitimate criticism, not simply an ad hominem attack. I agree that the same argument could be made regarding Waxman’s report. He’s a liberal bull-dog.
However, when you look at objective data, abstinence-only sex education fails. A recent study followed adolescents from 2 rural (Powhatan, VA and Clarksdale, MS) and 2 urban (Miami and Milwaukee) centers who received abstinence-only sex education and compared them with teens from the same grades who did not participate in these programs. The study looked at both knowledge AND behavior.
Results? NO DIFFERENCE.
A recent study of U.S. public opinion regarding sex education, sampling about a thousand respondents, indicated that 82% supported comprehensive sex education and 68.5% wanted instruction in condom use. Abstinence-only programs received the lowest level of support (36%) and the highest level of opposition (~50%). Another public opinion study done in North Carolina (that liberal stronghold) showed that 89% supported comprehensive sex education.
In summary, the government is spending millions upon millions of dollars on programs that don’t work and that the majority of the American people don’t want – all to assuage the sensibilities of a vocal and politically powerful minority.
Argument lost? I think not.