The media (and abstinence-only organizations) are atwitter over a study that shows abstinence-only education can delay the onset of sexual activity.
Valerie Huber, Executive Director of the National Abstinence Education Association, for example, was more than a little pleased: "The core teachings of abstinence education include character building, goal-setting and exploring the emotional risks of casual sex. Abstinence education is the only curriculum that offers such a clear, risk-avoidance approach to sexual health."
But here's the thing: not all abstinence-only programs are created equal. And this program - which showed success in very young students (the average age was 12) delaying sex for up to two years - is nothing like the abstinence-only programs that were widespread under the Bush administration. This program didn't lie, shame, or even tell students to wait until marriage to have sex.
In fact, this program that abstinence proponents are falling all over themselves to tout, wouldn't have been eligible for funding under the Bush administration.
James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, has more:
The abstinence-only program in this study would not have been eligible for federal funding during the Bush years because it did not fit the "8 point definition." The program goal was to help early teens avoid sex until they are ready--a totally different objective than the federally funded abstinence programs already proven ineffective by the long-term Mathematica study "which showed no impact on teen behavior."In the [researchers'] own words: "It [the abstinence-only intervention] was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected." (Emphasis mine)
In fact, the researchers behind the study, Loretta and John Jemmott, are well-respected advocates of science-based sex education - so it's no surprise that their version of abstinence-only education would be so different from what most ab-only proponents are pushing for.
Even though this program was successful to a degree, however, we still have a moral responsibility to teach young people about contraception. Teenagers deserve the truth about sexual health - and as much information as we can possibly provide.
Related: The Guttmacher Institute has more (pdf) info about this study, and how the program differs from most abstinence-only education, and from Heather Corrina of Scarleteen: What's the Typical Use Effectiveness Rate of Abstinence?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Successful abstinence-only education? .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classic.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/18151
the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex.
That seems like a much more realistic approach than typical abstinence-only programs - and it sounds like it takes into account that different people will be ready at different ages and points in their lives.
Like Jessica, I still would put my support behind more comprehensive programs that include information about contraception and STIs, but it is refreshing to be reminded that abstinence doesn't have to be taught in a judgmental and moralizing way.
I like this program simply because- its (according to what I'mr eadin anyway) been successful. No shaming, no false information and its actually oushing the idea to WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE READY which is an idea missing in so many sex ed programs. Most are either saying "have sex- you know you would only say no becaus eyour parents dont want you to" or "never ever have sex, sex is horrble and only bad soulless people have sex before they get married." VERY refreshing to see a middleground, this program seems to be aimed at - "have sex, BUT only when you are ready because waiting until you are ready would increase the value of the experience and when you ARE ready use protection" which is absolutely TRUE.
Most are either saying "have sex- you know you would only say no becaus eyour parents dont want you to" [...]
Which programs are saying that?
In the research I've done about sex education, I've never encountered any curricula, comprehensive or otherwise, that URGE teens to have sex.
Let's see the one in my middle and high schools did that. They told us how abstinence didn't work because we were all going to have sex anyway because at that age (teen years) we couldn't help ourselves. Extremely insulting and in my opinion only served to give guys a reason to be pushy about sex, since well you know we "all were going to do it anyway and really really wanted to" because our bodies really really really want us to. Masturbation was not part of the equation in any type of positive light. The teen mentor group I was involved in and now serve as a mentor to, all of the teens echoed the same sentiment. Being a virgin was something you did because your parents told you to and you were afraid of sex (as if simply not being ready was not a possibility).
And waiting IS abstaining, the issue is how long do you wait and this program says "until you're ready."
They told us how abstinence didn't work because we were all going to have sex anyway because at that age (teen years) we couldn't help ourselves. Extremely insulting and in my opinion only served to give guys a reason to be pushy about sex
This is really interesting, because even though they're coming from a different perspective, abstinence-only curricula communicate that same message - all the responsibility to be "pure" is on girls, because boys are "naturally" more interested in sex and will use any opportunity they can to try to trick you into it.
"all the responsibility to be "pure" is on girls"
I really hate this myth. When I was immersed in evangelical Christian culture, there was JUST as much pressure on the guys to be "sexually pure" as on the girls. Perfectly normal guys thought they were sex addicts because they couldn't quit masturbating and liked porn. Evangelical culture does not allow ANYONE to be sexual before marriage.
As part of my thesis last year, I read six or seven Christianity-based advice books for teen boys and girls. The pressure is there, but the nature of it is different. Girls have boys' purity and morality to account for too - you wear the wrong shirt, you hug him the wrong way, according to the book Technical Virgin: How Far Is Too Far?, you're responsible for making him sin in his head. Boys aren't pressured in that way.
Gah-
I still feel like comments such as "character building through abstinence" is sooo damaging. The connection between sex, morality and 'character' is something our society has created, but not real in my opinion.
I am firmly in the camp that teaches safe sex. I think providing condoms and increasing access to birth control and other methods of contraceptives is crucial.
-S
Everytime I hear "goal setting" I think about those silly "decision making" outline you read about in those crappy health or life skill textbooks.
weird how my Linked user name is linking to some other website that has been deleted :( oh well.
I 100% agree with you though, character building steps are ridiculous.
-Sophia at www.womenundefined.com
My issue with this study is the way they're defining "success." According to this, having 20% of students who have had sex by the age of about 14 is a success. True, this was statistically less than the one third of students who took the comprehensive sex ed which is very interesting.
However, these students' ages are still around 14. I am curious to know what the statistics will be when they're 15 and 16.
I think it's too early to call this study "successful" in its goal.
but the whole point is "wait til you're ready, wait til later" the point is not to make these teens not ever have sex. so, assuming that more of them are ready at 14 than at 12(I don't think this is unreasonable) they have succeeded if those that aren't ready at 14 are the only ones that haven't had sex.
What I wanted to know was the rates of unplanned pregnancy and STI transmission between the students who did choose to have sex within two years of the program. I'm really concerned about teens having information about how to be safe (emotionally and physically) when they are ready to engage in sex.
I am wondering about the motives of this study in the first place because I can't figure out for the life of me why an "abstinence until you're ready" program could possibly be any better than comprehensive sex ed that includes frank discussions about reasons to wait until one is ready. Schools teach kids skills they'll need later all the time. So why not emphasize waiting until they're ready, but teach them about STI's, condoms, etc. so that they'll know how to be safe when they do decide they're ready?
This whole thing just really annoys me because of how it's going to reinforce the typical abstinence-only folks in their fight to keep vital health information from teens.
And when you have quotes like THIS :
"Among teens that have had sex, 55 percent of boys and 72 percent of girls say they wish they had waited, reports The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy."
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=7855464&page=2
(emphasis mine) That makes me wonder why they wished they had waited? Why did they rush into sex?
At a guess - maybe the way they learned that perhaps it would've been better to wait was by going ahead and having sex, and it seemed like a good idea at the time?
Which to mean relates to what we know of the relatively high degree of teenage dating violence, and why OH why don't we teach proper consent skills and non-violent communications skills in sex ed???
Also, I really hate how most programs don't teach masturbation. Kid's want to know what it feels like, so why can't we encourage them to masturbate??? (oh wait, I forgot it was sinful).
I can't wait to buy my future teenagers vibrators and sex toys.
Even though this program was successful to a degree, however, we still have a moral responsibility to teach young people about contraception. Teenagers deserve the truth about sexual health - and as much information as we can possibly provide.
That is the most vital point to this whole abstinence vs. comprehensive sexuality education debate. Children, teens, and young adults require and deserve the truth about sexuality and sexual health. It sounds like this abstinence program in particular was more successful than Bush-approved programs because the moral posturing, glaring inaccuracies, and rampant slut-shaming are absent. Good. But this doesn't sound much like an abstinence-only program IMHO, because they seem to be pushing "wait until you're ready," which is the same message comprehensive sex ed provides.
What upsets me the most about sexuality education (no matter how comprehensive) in the U.S. is how heteronormative it is. That is something we should be addressing in concert with abstinence-only education.
"I am wondering about the motives of this study in the first place..."
From a social scientist's perspective its a great experiment. Let's see, 1 set of people say only comprehensive sex ed works, another group says only abstinence ed works. On paper strong cases can be made for each. Let's put it to a test!
I think its a great experiment & since it reportedly does not negatively impact condom usage I'd love to see if the results can be replicated. IF in fact it works, and does not lead to a rise in STD infection I think its a great, great step forward in the culture wars!
This would be great news for the abstinence-only camp...if this program were actually abstinence-only. But given they provide information about contraception and espouse the idea that one should wait until one is READY (which I obviously think is great), it, well, isn't.