Thursday, April 19, 2007

Abstinence-only sex education programs don't work

A national study that followed 2,000 students from elementary or middle school to high school found that abstinence-only sex education does not prevent teens from having sex. Nor does it increase or decrease the odds of condom use if teenagers do have sex.

The much-anticipated study was authorized by Congress in 1997. Its release comes as questions are being raised as to the effectiveness of the programs. Currently, the federal government spends an annual $176 million on abstinence education, while millions more are spent each year through matching state and local grants. Eight states that used to receive federal abstinence money now decline to accept the funds. A bill introduced in Congress with bi-partisan support seeks to allocate money for sex education that teaches abstinence as well as contraception. In addition, federal abstinence funds are up for congressional renewal under the Title V grant.

The study, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research Inc., surveyed children in four communities -- two urban, two rural. All participants received the family life services available in their community, and slightly more than half also received abstinence-only education. At the end of the study, when the average participant was almost 17, half of both groups had remained abstinent.

The average age of sexual debut for teens in both groups was 15. Of those who were sexually active, almost half said they used condoms only "sometimes" or "never." Less than a quarter of teens in both groups reported using a condom every time they had sex. Students in both groups were knowledgeable about the risks of having sex without using a condom or other means of protection. More than a third of all of the sexually active teens reported having had two or more partners.

The adolescents who participated in abstinence programs did not use condoms less than other kids, the study found. They did, however, show slightly higher knowledge about STD prevention.

To view the report online, visit: www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf.

9 comments:

Bill Baar 2:17 PM  

I think people need to ask themselves if they would have intercourse with a condom with someone HIV+ and feel that's safe. If that risk acceptable.

If the answer is no, I have hard time teaching a condom is any safer with someone who's HIV status is unknown to you.

It's just common sense that you have more sex, your risks for STDs goes up. That shouldn't be a controversy.. it's common sense.

Bill Baar 2:33 PM  

My Church gets wrapped up in this one and a Rev I seldom agree with posted on this study.

I just remember the early 80s and how hard it was to shut down bath houses, etc... The MD who taught my kids Unitarian Universalist class on sexual ethics taught abstinance and felt the public schools were negligent for not being more emphatic about it. He just saw way too many people doing foolish stuff in his practice and felt a clear message of abstinance was the only solution. He said too many kids getting a mixed message.

Extreme Wisdom 2:41 PM  

This is fascinating.

Though I've not yet read the pdf., all the data presented in the post indicates that abstinence education is no worse or better than "regular" sex education.

Couldn't the headlines (all over the nation) have read "Abstinence Education no worse than Alternatives"? Wouldn't that be generally more accurate.

Where was the "control group" of people who rec'd no sex education at all? That would have been an interesting comparison.

This appears to be much huffing and puffing over nothing. If the price is the same, what difference does it make? And what is the big problem with abstinence programs anyway.

If states don't want the Fed money, then let them not accept it. The real agenda here appears to be get Fed$$ with no strings. Typical.

Bill Baar 3:26 PM  

Follow the link I provided and you'll see some comments that the key is the role of the family. Does the family talk about sexual ethics and behavior.

I'll dig around for the research, but when it comes to smoking cessation, I know the key was not what was said to the smoker but how often. If the smoker's every encounter with the provider involved a lecture about quiting, they more inclined to quit eventually. The content of the lecture wasn't too important, it was the frequency of the message.

Anonymous,  3:45 PM  

Bill-

I don't understand the question on your first comment. Studies show that condom usage helps prevent HIV infection in the population as a whole. Why does it matter if an individual 'feels' safer? That is like basing the implementation of seat belts on aircraft on whether wearing a seat belt makes you 'feel' safer during a crash landing. It sure wouldn't make me feel safer but data, instead of my 'feelings' show that it does help on the whole. Wow. That is the same way condom usage works. It may not have helped you but take the data as a whole and wow it does help.

Abstinence education is akin to the airline attendants standing up at the beginning of your flight informing you that the only way to prevent injury during a crash landing was to not have flown at all. Yep. Totally true. The only sure way not to crash and die is to not fly at all but oh some people are flying anyway. Too bad for them. Let's not tell them about seat belts, flotation devices and the crash position (insert appropriate Airplane (the movie imagery)).

Bill Baar 4:46 PM  

Studies show that condom usage helps prevent HIV infection in the population as a whole.

I think we need to get the passed studies and put the risks in human terms.

Condoms reduce your risk.

Abstinance eliminates your risk.

The Doc who taught my kids, and mind this a very liberal place my Church, went through the roof with the words Safe Sex.

He was just seeing way too many people in his practice doing senseless stuff because they thought it was safe. People engaging in far too much sex because they thought it was safe sex.

Bill Baar 4:58 PM  

Try it his way Gish.

We tell the uninfected to reduce their risk of infection by using condoms.

We don't tell the infected to reduce their risks of infecting by using condoms.

But the risks are the same.

The infected we tell to abstain because the risk is unacceptable. The unifected we say well, if you can't help it, the risk is can be mitigated.

That's how I see it. I work with the homeless sometimes and hand out condoms with the packets. I wonder about what I'm doing with that.

Anonymous,  7:13 PM  

Some of our local Christocons would find a way to object to an HIV vaccine.


Good post.

Anonymous,  12:54 PM  

Horny kids don't think with reason. Nor do some horny adults.


The right wing people just marry and remarry and have gay sex within their church. Do they use condoms (the ones having gay sex within the church)

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP