It's been pretty well established that abstinence-only sex ed has been a failure in promoting abstinence or responsible sexual behavior among teenagers. Except that this isn't really true. By and large, abstinence-only sex ed programs were run by a certain type of people in a certain type of way. And yes, these people and these programs have consistently failed.
The question remains: Is it that these programs are poorly constructed or carried out, or is the goal a reducing teen sexual behavior through abstinence only education unachievable? Some evidence that it may be the first option can be found here (NY Times article here).
Briefly, researchers led by John Jemmott ran abstinence only education programs that seem to have worked. The major difference is that they discarded moralistic orientation, scare tactics, and dishonesty in favor of scientific orientation that was scrupulously honest.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Interesting.
I remember reading something that Abstinence pledges worked so long as only 30% of the students took them up, so that they saw themselves as a rebellious minority.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I haven't looked up the full study yet, but if its the one I'm thinking of, the message was "Abstinence until you are ready for sex."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes. It was explicitly not about "Abstinence until marriage".
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Isn't all sex education "abstinence until you are ready"?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
The goal in unachievable. We live in a society with some districts trying to teach abstinence only, and entertainment that teaches one to be promiscuous. The human sex drive is also incredibly powerful, and for many millenia marriage in the teens was common place.
Abstinence should be encouraged, in my opinion, but educators should also teach methods of contraception knowing that teens WILL have sex.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, how do you explain the success in this study?
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I have to wonder how many parents of the upcoming generations actually are going to have abstinence until marriage as a goal for their children. While I am certainly against my daughter having sex in her teens, I don't really have anything against it in her twenties and beyond. The abstinence until marriage movement seems to be increasingly tied to religious views. I don't know anyone actually who waited until marriage for nonreligious reasons.
If the reasons for abstinence are religious, it seems like something that doesn't need to be taught in schools. I would much prefer something that taught about contraception, the risks of sex, and the ways in which sex can emotionally effect you. All of these are things that have been studied in science and can be taught in a scientific manner. One of the things I will teach my kids is that they shouldn't have sex with anyone they aren't willing to let be the parent of their child and that they shouldn't be having sex if they couldn't deal with the consequences of a pregnancy. To me those are much more important requirements to meet then if you are married.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
"The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. "
This sentence in the report bugs me. The model estimates what they would have done with out it. I don't see how they KNOW the program reduced sexual initiation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Stephan, I think you may be misreading the results. The main measure they used was self-report of sexual activity by the teens. The model-estimated probability is talking about the statistical model they built from their results (i.e. this self-report).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
theresa, Dr. Jammett is primarily concerned with AIDS prevention, and, as I understand it, this study was undertaken to see if abstinence-only education can be effective in cases where that's really the only option for the population (the majority of cases of this in the US I imagine would come from parental disapproval of any more comprehensive sex ed).
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"So, how do you explain the success in this study? "
What success? 1/3 of the kids had sex within 2 years of the program... I.E. before age 15.
For "abstinence only", that's an abominable failure.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure I understand what you are using for the success/failure measure here Paul. There was a significant decrease in initiated sexual behavior over the control group. That looks like an unambiguous success to me.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
Interesting, I would have never thought that AIDs prevention would be effectively addressed through abstinence only. I remember reading several articles about the fact that while some virginity pledges and abstinence only programs has reduced teen sex rates for those teens that did have sex it increased the likelihood that they would have unprotected sex. I would think withholding info about condoms and STD testing would be counterproductive to the extreme in AIDs prevention so it is really interesting to me if this study actually found the opposite effect.
I do wonder what happens further out from the two years though. The kids at this point are only 15. It seems like you would need to know what happened in the next 5 years. Did they still remain abstinent and if they didn't did they engage in a similar contraception and condom usage ratio as their peers
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I want to ask whether or not the study has shown if it is equally or more effective in the prevention of sexually transmitted disease and teenage pregnancies among the included group, against children enrolled in a comprehensive sex education intervention. Note that in the trial, the more delayed onset of sexual activity is measured between the 'abstinence only' intervention versus the study's own 'safer sex–only intervention' — which sounds on the surface like the research is effectively pitting two distinct and divided components of comprehensive sex education against each other by seeing what happens when kids are taught one half of it and not the other.
quote:It's been pretty well established that abstinence-only sex ed has been a failure in promoting abstinence or responsible sexual behavior among teenagers. Except that this isn't really true.
For everything we called 'abstinence-only sex education,' this is absolutely true. One of the central, core tenets of abstinence-only sex education was the promotion of abstinence until marriage; it comes as no surprise that this tested system — which differs wildly from AO tenets and goals and is instead really an 'abstinence until ready' program, in addition to de-emphasizing the scare tactics, absolutes, and distorting the efficacy of contraceptives — is greatly more effective.
It now differs from comprehensive sex education (which also promotes abstinence until ready) only in the sense that it omits discussion and education on contraceptives; otherwise, it has been made similar to it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think the best way to promote abstinence among teens is let them meet some single mothers and teen fathers paying child support. That scared he hell out of me as a teenager. No way did I want to be stuck in my home town forever in a crappy job.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm not sure I understand what you are using for the success/failure measure here Paul. There was a significant decrease in initiated sexual behavior over the control group. That looks like an unambiguous success to me.
Let's try to keep two thoughts in one head, shall we? First, the goal is not, presumably, to prevent sex as such, but to prevent unintended pregnancies and STDs. Second, how much did the program cost, and how does its sucess rate compare with other programs of the same cost? You're trying to do a benefit analysis with a cherry-picked metric instead of a cost/benefit analysis with the numbers you actually want to influence. Bad idea.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Well, actually, I'm thinking of failure in terms of "We had one idea we wanted to communicate. 1/3 of students did not get that one idea. On top of that, we provided no fail safes for the students who did not grasp the idea we were trying to communicate."
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:First, the goal is not, presumably, to prevent sex as such, but to prevent unintended pregnancies and STDs.
I would consider the emotional consequences of sex before you are emotionally ready for emotional complications of sex to be something worth preventing as well. This will certain vary a lot from person to person.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'd find it really interesting to see the same study done on kids two years older.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
I wonder if the abstinence-until-marriage concept is anthropologically obsolete. Marriage in an agrarian, and much shorter lived, society was necessarily at a much younger age than is normal now. It often occurred shortly after puberty, during what we now consider to be adolescence. Biologically, hormone production peaks and body changes would occur merely a few years before it was socially expected that teens would marry. This meant that the sheer length of time that premarital sex was a temptation was much shorter than it is now.
Too off topic? New thread needed?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have no idea if it's 'anthropologically' obsolete, but one could make the argument that it's a large factor in the pressures that have made it socially obsolete in modern nations.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
Surely a later age of marriage has to be a contributing factor. The availability of modern contraception is obviously a factor as well. I would also point to a decline in religious pressure from both parents and the teens themselves. Obviously there are still religious sects who take abstinence seriously but the consequences opposed by them are a lot less sever than historically seen. No more convents and homes for unwed girls.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Oh joy
quote:The conservative American organization Focus on the Family gained its first major toehold in Chinese classrooms this past week.
The Yunnan provincial education bureau has ordered high schools and universities to teach Focus on the Family's "No Apologies" (无悔今生) strategy for rejecting premarital sex.
This is just a single study and I don't think anyone is looking to endorse this type of education be standardized.
As I noted, the primary focus was on addressing the question of whether abstinence only education can be effective. This study gave some evidence that it can be and that the failure of the other programs were just that, a failure of the other programs.
So far as I can tell, the question of the efficacy of this sort of sex ed against more comprehensive ones hasn't been adequately addressed, although it does seem an important one to look at moving forward. My personal expectation is that comprehensive education is going to be superior. However, as said, Dr. Jemmott was considering what is to be done in cases where abstinence only education is the only available intervention, most probably because of parental or community disapproval of anything else. I'm getting the impression that some people are unhappy with the idea of accommodating these sorts of situations and are taking the stand of either comprehensive education or nothing. I don't agree that this is responsible.
And for all the religion haters responding here, I'm a little surprised that they missed what was one of the most interesting implications of this to me, although it may be more evident to me because of my focus of study being in this area. That is, the way that traditional western religions often try to go about moral instruction contradicts a lot about what we know about morality formation and practice, motivation, and learning. If discarding their aspects in sex ed leads to actual success instead of failure, this strengthens the conception that the poorer behavior of the majority of religious people on several measures of morality is due in significant part to the unfitness of the way these religions go about trying to teach them. And, in an interesting twist, if they actually want effective abstinence only education, they're going to have to abandon their traditional methods.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:As I noted, the primary focus was on addressing the question of whether abstinence only education can be effective. This study gave some evidence that it can be if you do the right sort of cherry-picking your metric, and aren't too fussy about what you count as success.
There, fixed that for you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think you understand the area you are talking about.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
KoM, there are plenty of people who see abstinence as a goal in and of itself. MrSquicky is not saying that this is a totally great way for liberal people with liberal values to teach sex ed, he's saying that conservative people with conservative values are doing it wrong ("it" being defined as "being conservative.")
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And for all the religion haters responding here, I'm a little surprised that they missed what was one of the most interesting implications of this to me, although it may be more evident to me because of my focus of study being in this area. That is, the way that traditional western religions often try to go about moral instruction contradicts a lot about what we know about morality formation and practice, motivation, and learning. If discarding their aspects in sex ed leads to actual success instead of failure, this strengthens the conception that the poorer behavior of the majority of religious people on several measures of morality is due in significant part to the unfitness of the way these religions go about trying to teach them. And, in an interesting twist, if they actually want effective abstinence only education, they're going to have to abandon their traditional methods.
This has the potential to be easily the least sucky option for parents who absolutely do not want to teach their kids about contraceptives. However, in its present form it requires abandoning the moral goal of maintaining no sex outside of marriage as a standard.
If you look at the overlap of two groups in america:
1. parents who refuse to have their kids taught about contraceptives 2. parents who refuse to have their kids taught that sex outside marriage is okay
... it's nearly total. the comorbidity of the two conditions is extreme. So that means that for the attempt to appeal and be acceptable to demographic (1), not including the ability to make it tolerable to demographic (2) is a deal-breaker.
And that's the tricky part, because the whole no-sex-outside-of-marriage thing pretty much has to be based on irrational and/or faith-based appeal, since you cannot demonstrate inherent harm to the practice, and people are more than happy to shed the stigma and find out that unmarried sex is just fine.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I think the best way to promote abstinence among teens is let them meet some single mothers and teen fathers paying child support. That scared he hell out of me as a teenager. No way did I want to be stuck in my home town forever in a crappy job.
My dad says all pre-teens and young teens in sex ed should be forced to sit through a video of a baby screaming through a 2 hour airplane flight, and not allowed to get up or leave the room. He thinks that would do it. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I thought it has been shown that abstinence-only education does delay sex for teens, but it doesn't stop them, and it also seems to lead to a higher rate of pregnancy/STDs in that population, compared to comprehensive sex education?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I think the best way to promote abstinence among teens is let them meet some single mothers and teen fathers paying child support. That scared he hell out of me as a teenager. No way did I want to be stuck in my home town forever in a crappy job.
My dad says all pre-teens and young teens in sex ed should be forced to sit through a video of a baby screaming through a 2 hour airplane flight, and not allowed to get up or leave the room. He thinks that would do it.
Just reading the parenting thread at Sake has me terrified about the difficulty of raising kids.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Spending a weekend with my kids didn't do that? Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Well, actually, I'm thinking of failure in terms of "We had one idea we wanted to communicate. 1/3 of students did not get that one idea. On top of that, we provided no fail safes for the students who did not grasp the idea we were trying to communicate."
Not really, Paul. They may have gotten the message and disagreed with it. No program will have a 100% success rate.
I'd hardly call it a breakthrough, but it does seem to have worked at least somewhat.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
If they disagreed with the idea trying to be communicated, they didn't grasp the message very well, did they?
Yes, no program will have a 100% success rate. But, for an abstinence only education program, a 100% success rate (or very near) is the only result I would consider successful. Why? Because the point of sex education programs is to enhance the safety of children. In an abstinence only sex ed program, there is no layering of information on how to be safe. That is irresponsible, unless the first layer of safety net is near certain catch everyone.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Paul, Would you likewise consider a comprehensive sex education program a failure if at least one of the kids had unprotected sex? That seems like an impossibly high bar.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
No.
I consider the abstinence only sex ed program to be a failure because the implicit assumption is that the abstinence message is enough to prevent all kids from having sex/getting pregnant/contracting STDs. Clearly, this is not the case if 1/3 of kids are having sex before age 15. If that assumption is denied by an abstinence only sex ed program, than the program fails on grounds of irresponsible and dangerous program design.
On the other hand, a comprehensive sex ed program does NOT have an implicit or explicit assumption that the program will prevent all kids from having sex/getting pregnant/contracting STDs. Rather, the assumption is "We can reduce prengnacy and std rates by giving kids information."
Different bars set based on different assumptions.
Also, please reread my previous post. You either missed a statement of mine, or are deliberately creating a strawman.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I consider the abstinence only sex ed program to be a failure because the implicit assumption is that the abstinence message is enough to prevent all kids from having sex/getting pregnant/contracting STDs
Where are you getting that from?
edit:
quote:In an abstinence only sex ed program, there is no layering of information on how to be safe. That is irresponsible, unless the first layer of safety net is near certain catch everyone.
I think you may have a mistaken idea of the goal here. You seem to be comparing this intervention against a comprehensive sex education. As I've noted, the goal here is to develop effective programs for cases where comprehensive sex ed is not practical.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
From the fact that abstinence is the only message of an abstinence only program. If you DON'T assume that, and teach the abstinence only message, you're a moral monster, because you are willingly putting children's lives in danger.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm having trouble following your logic here Paul. Could you give me more background or maybe the word I'm looking for is elaboration?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: No.
I consider the abstinence only sex ed program to be a failure because the implicit assumption is that the abstinence message is enough to prevent all kids from having sex/getting pregnant/contracting STDs. Clearly, this is not the case if 1/3 of kids are having sex before age 15. If that assumption is denied by an abstinence only sex ed program, than the program fails on grounds of irresponsible and dangerous program design.
On the other hand, a comprehensive sex ed program does NOT have an implicit or explicit assumption that the program will prevent all kids from having sex/getting pregnant/contracting STDs. Rather, the assumption is "We can reduce prengnacy and std rates by giving kids information."
Different bars set based on different assumptions.
Also, please reread my previous post. You either missed a statement of mine, or are deliberately creating a strawman.
Paul, the bar is the same. The goal of both types of sexual education is to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STD's. Both programs go about it in different ways, but that is the goal. Abstinence is a valid birth control method, just as condom use is. Both can help prevent STD's.
I honestly don't believe abstinence only sex ed programs really expect or have the assumption of preventing every teen from having sex. While abstinence is the most sure way to prevent pregnancy and STD's, I don't think anyone has the expectation that no teen will get pregnant.
I say teach both. Teach them that abstinence is the best way to keep safe, but if you choose to have sex, use protection.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm not sure what about my logic you aren't following?
(back in a few hours, I am not ignoring you just going out)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Paul, the bar is the same. The goal of both types of sexual education is to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STD's.
I don't believe that this is always true of advocates for abstinence-only sex ed. Abstinence-only programs tend to be most heavily promoted in conservative communities where sex before marriage is considered an immoral act. Because of this, it seems that prevention of sexual activity is a primary goal, with prevention of pregnancy and disease a secondary or incidental focus. Instruction about safe sex practices is objected to because it will "tell kids it's OK to have sex." I believe this is the root of Paul's objection - that these programs are compromising the safety of kids to promote a position based on religious morality.
quote:I say teach both. Teach them that abstinence is the best way to keep safe, but if you choose to have sex, use protection.
That's not "both", that's comprehensive sexual education. It's what advocates of "abstinence only" programs object to. It's like we've already got math classes and there's now a group promoting "addition only" math instruction.
[ September 03, 2010, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Let me present a couple of hypotheticals.
First, let's say that we've a abstinence only program that consistently has an 80% success rate. That is, 4 out of 5 five kids who would have gotten pregnant, contracted an STD, or whatever had they not gone through the program did not. According to you, this would be a failure. In this hypothetical, let's say we're trying to decide between this program and a comprehensive sex ed one that has a 60% success rate, which, as far as I can tell, you regard as a success. Would you really say we should go for the 60% one over the 80% one? If so, how could that one be a failure and the other a success?
Second, in a situation closer to what is being considered here, let's say we have a population for whom comprehensive sex ed is not a viable option. We've got three alternatives here. 1) We do nothing 2) We use the morally oriented programs currently in existence that not only have a poor success rate in term of not stopping kids from having sex but also often have outcomes where the kids exhibit behavior that puts them at greater risk for bad sexual stuff than if they had not sex ed at all 3) We follow up on this initial research and develop abstinence only programs that significantly reduce certain parts of kids' risky behavior such as initiation of sex and/or number of sexual partners while not increasing other types of risky behavior.
In this case, I see 3 as obviously the most responsible option.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"First, let's say that we've a abstinence only program that consistently has an 80% success rate. That is, 4 out of 5 five kids who would have gotten pregnant, contracted an STD, or whatever had they not gone through the program did not. According to you, this would be a failure. In this hypothetical, let's say we're trying to decide between this program and a comprehensive sex ed one that has a 60% success rate, which, as far as I can tell, you regard as a success. Would you really say we should go for the 60% one over the 80% one? If so, how could that one be a failure and the other a success?"
I would say both programs failed. However, I am holding them to different standards because of their approaches.
Edit: An abstinence only program I am holding to a near 100% success rate, because it does not plan for any failures, so its idea must serve the entire population.
A comprehensive sex ed program, I am holding to a "better than the other stuff standard," because its supposed to teach everything, which INCLUDES any abstinence message that prevents some kids from engaging in risky behaviors. The comprehensive sex ed program you describe fails because it is, according to the hypothetical data, not comprehensive.
ENd edit.
"let's say we have a population for whom comprehensive sex ed is not a viable option"
Why is it not viable?
[ September 03, 2010, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Why not just consider an abstinence only program a failure if it uses school resources less efficiently than a comprehensive sex ed program for the sake of chasing an openly religious goal?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
That is a different way in which abstinence education also most often fails.
Why should I NOT consider a program, which gives no thought to the safety of its failures, with a 33% failure rate amongst its graduates as a complete and utter failure?
Or, let me give another example: If we had a driver education program that showed kids where the brake in a car is and then put them on the road, and 1/3 of those kids were in a potentially fatal accident within 2 years which the kids only survived because of knowledge gained from places other than the driver ed program, would you consider the program a success?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Why should I NOT consider a program, which gives no thought to the safety of its failures, with a 33% failure rate amongst its graduates as a complete and utter failure?
Most programs like this have no illusions that their goal is to eliminate teen sex. Like many other programs, the desired goal is to significantly improve behaviors and significantly reduce the rates of whatever it is they are targeting.
In that sense, on the surface metric, the program does work. What you should really be looking at is whether or not the study has yet tested the results of its intervention versus a comprehensive sex ed program (it didn't), whether this program is actually an Abstinence Only program as they have come to be defined (it isn't), and whether or not it is as productive at targeting the rates of things that matter more, such as std transmission rates and teenage pregnancy (it fails to mention).
Right now, all we've got is 'this program seems to be the best option for people who refuse other options,' something I'm not about to pat it on the back for.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Most programs like this have no illusions that their goal is to eliminate teen sex."
So I should just consider them abominably evil, along with the people who advocate for their implementation, on the grounds that they are willing to put the lives of children in danger?
I'm ok with saying that the program and its implementers are evil, instead of saying its a failure.
But I don't see a third alternative, and I'd rather say that the program is a failure than that its advocates should be locked away.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:"Most programs like this have no illusions that their goal is to eliminate teen sex."
So I should just consider them abominably evil, along with the people who advocate for their implementation, on the grounds that they are willing to put the lives of children in danger?
Um, no? The worst that people who implement this program could be considered is misguided, if they're passing up better programs in order to stick to the principle of this one.
Not having the pretense of claiming that they could ever have the capacity to eliminate a behavior does not make efforts to reduce that behavior evil, or anything like that. If I have a program that is designed to curb teen violence, I'm not evil by not having the delusion that I am going to eliminate violence for all kids enrolled in it. I'm just not deluded.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Well, no, because they are actively making the decision not to try to protect students who do have sex.
I consider that on the same level as a school teaching kids not to drink, but not telling them that they shouldn't go home in a car with someone who is drunk or that they shouldn't drive if they do get drunk. That is, the school is actively and knowingly choosing to put kids at higher risk.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I do sort of think the abstinence-only approaches reflect the belief that less harm is done by failing to achieve 100% abstinence, than by allowing a greater amount of premarital sex but preventing STDs and pregnancies relative to the amount of sex.
Like Samp said, they might not be under the delusion that they can 100% prevent premarital sex, but they also aren't actively choosing to cause greater harm, in their own minds. It's just a different evaluation of the harms. (One I would probably disagree with strongly.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Well, no, because they are actively making the decision not to try to protect students who do have sex.
This is in no way the active concluding process. There are other options.
- the assumption that it is a more viable process to omit contraceptive information in terms of keeping the kids safer
- the assumption that it is a more viable process to omit contraceptive information in terms of keeping the program cost effective
Both can be adequately described as potentially misguided, not 'evil.'
![[Wink]](wink.gif)