Some conservative activists believe that if “abstinence only” is taught in schools it will eliminate the need for sex education and information on sexually transmitted diseases. After all, if teens aren’t having sex before marriage, then no problem, right?
One problem for gay teens is that it tells them that they can’t have sex before marriage, and that they can’t ever get married. Since “no sex for you, ever” isn’t a very compelling message, the gay community continues to fight the ongoing battle to have inclusive education to reduce misinformation and the spread of disease.
A second problem with the “abstinence only” approach is that it appears not to work.
It is reasonable to assume that the abstinence message would be most effective if backed up by regular church attendance and a religious family that instills you with these values. If the abstinence message doesn’t work for the religious children of Texas Southern Baptists, surely it won’t work for secularly raised children in public schools.
A new study by a Baylor chaplain of newlyweds, all of whom profess faith and 99% of whom attend Baptist churches found that 62% of males and 65% of females had engaged in premarital sex. If oral sex is included, the rate rose to 73%.
Although those individuals who had signed a “purity pledge” were twice as likely to abstain, even 40% of those who signed a formal “purity pledge” had sexual intercourse before marriage. While it is likely that those originally most committed to the idea of abstinence would be the ones willing to sign the pledge, AgapePress chooses to believe that “signing a formal purity pledge seems to prolong abstinence”.
It would seem to me that in the face of this evidence, the church leaders would want to see their children protected and informed about disease and pregnancy – at least until they could come up with something more effective in reducing premarital sex among their parishioners. I doubt, however, that the Southern Baptist Church will let up on its effort to remove accurate, inclusive, and relevant information about sexuality from the public classroom and replace it with religion-based “abstinence only” activism.
UPDATE
Ironically, this also is today from AgapePress:
(AgapePress) – Rhode Island has dumped a federal education program that encourages young people to abstain from sexual activity and other risky behaviors. The state’s education officials are being accused of caving in to the demands of the ACLU.
[snip]The program at issue is an abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum called “Right Time, Right Place,” which, according to Heritage, is a “character-based family-life and sexuality program” designed to work within a school’s already existing curriculum.
As grim as those numbers are, I’m skeptical of any information coming from a Baylor chaplain or Agape Press.
SIECUS probably has a broader range of study data, but I consider SIECUS a bit biased as well.
I wonder what reliable sources perform such studies?
There is one important bit of information missing from the releases — what age were the “no sex until marriage” couples when they got married?Time and time again these couples are shown to marry at a young age… resulting in — eventually — high divorce rates. It would have been more interesing if this survey had actually tracked the history of all those who got married 5 years ago, rather than simply surveying couples 5 years later.I’m not even going to bother with whether such religious-values-base programs help guide young gay men and women. They do not, being either wholly neglectful and/or wholly prejudicial. Accepting that as a given, more debatable is the introduction of any program that refers to people as being either in a “lifestyle of purity and holiness” or (therefore) an unspoke “lifestyle of filth and profanity”.Wondering, too, Mike what you mean by SIECUS as biased? (I’m also particularly picking up on your unexplained use of “grim” here.)I don’t think it’s bias for professionals to refuse to offer support for programs that simply do not work, are designed to inculcate particular religious values and deliberately excludes some young people from important knowledge (actually most young people).I agree the SIECUS does not support school based abstinence-only programs, even though they agree celibacy is a valid choice at any time in someone’s life. But does so at least on those valid grounds, and I don’t see that as being biased per se.(And they “probably” have a broader range of study data — versus a Baylor chaplain or Agape Press??? Woah!)
Australia has a comprehensive sex education system here with discussion on sexual heath and also feelings and attitudes to sex. Abstinence is mentioned but teacher’s aren’t being asked to guilt students into thinking catching an STI is the equivalent of a life sentence.
“Abstinence only” policies in America are a sort of an international joke, especially with the unbelievably high teenage birth rates in some states.
Abstinence is “safe” but it’s not really “sex”. What you end up with is a bunch of kids with hormones going crazy and no idea how to protect themselves when things hit crisis point.
One other HUGE problem with the “abstinence-only” programs – the current US average age of marriage, for both men and women, is in the 20s, and for those who pursue higher education, the late 20s or early 30s. It is completely irrational to believe that people who even wait until 24 or 25 to marry should remain virgins until that time. Whatever one believes is the “moral” approach, millenia of human history have shown this is unreasonable.
Dunks said:
Australia has a comprehensive sex education system here with discussion on sexual heath and also feelings and attitudes to sex. Abstinence is mentioned but teacher’s aren’t being asked to guilt students into thinking catching an STI is the equivalent of a life sentence.
That’s fine but what are the numbers (results) of this program? And I wouldn’t exactly call it guilt – how does one over emphasize the effects of catching HIV or Hepatitis C? Personally, I think both abstinence and safer-sex should be strong components of any sex education program. Kids are not stupid, they understand that people have different value systems and for some it’s going to be no sex until marriage. It’s important to let them know that is a perfectly valid and cool choice. For others, there should be information about how to stay as safe as possible. I know many claim these two send mixed messages, but I don’t think that is necessarily so.
Information should come from the school, but the values and morals should be coming from the parents – and nothing in those programs should try to contradict or override that.
David
CPT_Doom said:
It is completely irrational to believe that people who even wait until 24 or 25 to marry should remain virgins until that time.
That is a value judgment as much as anything is. The point isn’t whether they “should”, the fact is some do. This is very important to some people and I think we should avoid belittling it as though it were impossible or silly or whatever. For some it is virtuous – more power to them. Let’s also try to avoid talking about young adults as though they are all dogs in heat, slaves to their hormones and unable to resist the mating call.
David
I think…It may be best to start with some basic facts: the United States has a dramatically higher rate of teen pregancy versus all other developed nations (no special reason for picking that report, it just popped up first). Twice as high as Canada, for example. STD rates also basically reflect those same relative ratios, as does abortion. One has to wonder why others do very much better than does the U.S.For David: and I realise you just said you think comprehensive education is best, so I’m not picking on you 🙂 — I think any programs that use “pure”, “saving myself”, etc are loading in value judgments. It is possible to calmly discuss the consequences of getting pregnant at an early age, or acquiring an STD at any age, without causing fear of sex itself. And… not let’s forget there are many very enjoyable consequences to a sexual relationship as well — they should also be mentioned (if for no other reason than to help young people identify a good relationship from a bad one).I wouldn’t use “should” either — for anyone. But I do think it is irrational to base sexuality education on a notion that all young people should, must, can, or will remain abstinent until marriage. As a whole “they” do not, regardless. As a whole, it is an impossible expectation. Some individuals do remain adstinent, of course, and that is a perfectly valid decision to make.I think one of the major points of dispute in the U.S. (and elswhere, increasingly) is that while I agree that parents are responsible for passing on values and morals there seems an expectation that any discussion of sexuality — at school in particular — will ensure these values and morals will be mentioned at the same time. That’s what many seem to mean by “not contradict or override”; when homosexuality is mentioned, as example, they not only want the subject described but their own moral opinions to be mentioned. Problem is, those will “contradict or override” the moral opinions of others.So… how to accomodate all? Stick to fact-based descriptions, allow the parents to interpret these at home in context… and, for the parents, recognise that they almost certainly will not be the only source of opinion on matters of values or morals for their children; unless you silence some people, or lock your kid in a box.(Should add here the SIECUS page I was looking for: Yep, abstinence is mentioned, a lot. And in calm and rational ways.)
So many have the mindset that reproductive health education in high school is only about teenage behavior. Far from it. For those who wait till they marry 5, 10 or more years later, what they are presented in a comprehensive sex-ed program in high school may be the only reliable information about contraceptives, etc. that they have.
So failing to provide all the best information available hurts not just those who don’t wait, but also those who do! People are so short sighted it would seem.
When it come to “sex” and public health, they have a completely different attitude on the subject in England I’ve noticed.
grantdale,
I get a page not found (404) error trying to get to your “all other developed nations” link.
Dear friends, it´s my humble opinion that, while the points here are all really important and necessary, the religious right insistence on abstinence, has very little to do with real sex education and protecting the young generations. It´s more about control by making people feel guilty for desiring something that nature designed then to. For a reference, the catholic church insists in the “no sex until marriage” for centurys now, with very little real results among their ranks. But since the point is control and guilty, the outcome is perfectly good for then, as to any religious right person/organization, because the more ignorant people are about sex the more they will face the problems of not protecting themselves properly and will confirm the religious discourse that sex is a bad thing and that they were right all along. As with the gay prejudice, they create the problem, and when people are affected by it, they happily jump in to say: “you see? MY god was right, I told you would have problems.” So don´t ever think they are getting the wrong response to their sex-(un)ed programs, the outcome is exactly what the religious right wants, at least in an unconcious level, the more unwanted pregnancies and STDs, the better to confirm all the religious repressive ethos.
I have often wondered why ‘abstinence only’ is touted, but the history behind such teaching and it’s failures, can be traced back to pre-Kinsey sex education.
Back in the day, sexual issues were gender driven. GIRLS were expected to be chaste, and boys experienced and expected to be the girl’s ‘teacher’.
In a way, having an ignorant sex partner helped males MANIPULATE girls easier.
Even now, oral sex isn’t considered sex among the young. Avoiding vaginal intercourse, is not only a means to avoid pregnancy, but also a verdict of non virgin status.
However, it’s still a matter of manipulation and ignorance on the part of all the youngsters involved.
And another, more deeper and important issue that MUST be taught, is the notion of ‘sexual detachment’.
That a person could have sex without any emotional feeling for their partner.
Girls often are more victims of this. They know that the guy will have sex with them, but tenderness, affection, open socializing with or peer support of their relationship doesn’t happen.
And certainly not preparing gay youth for emotional and physical issues around their sexuality is the shame of ‘abstinence’ i.e. faith based sexual discipline.
It’s so prejudiced against females it’s not funny. No, it’s DEADLY and our country better get it together and face reality, instead of living in the dreamy, faith based idea that keeping kids in the dark is a way to keep them safe and responsible.
The dark is a state in which people stumble and fall too.
Roger…you make and excellent point as well.
Ignorance will and does fulfill a prophecy for religious conservatives.
I think the saddest thing about abstinence education is that it is so extremist, absolutist, and irrational that it does harm to the value of abstinence.
Though it may make me seem a prude to say, there are some wonderful things about abstinence. It is true that sex with only one person does eliminate some problems like “I love him but the sex sucks” (it’s the best you’ve ever had). And it is true that you will be hurt if you are used for sex by someone who doesn’t care at all for you. And it is true that sex between virgins does eliminate the concern about SDIs. And it is true that sex really is more meaningful and fulfilling if you’ve not lived like Slutty McSleaze.
Unfortunately, absolutists ruin all these good messages by their hardcore black and white approach. By making things either evil or pure, they lose the ability to add value to increments.
An insistence that abstinence is the goal, an all or nothing approach, makes little distinction between safe sex within a long-term relationship and being the recipient of a bareback gang bang. Both are “impure” and “premarital sex” and evil. And to tell this to a kid while you’re working on marriage number four isn’t convincing.
It’s like anti-drug education. They equate all drugs equally as BAD and DANGEROUS and ILLEGAL. Marijuana, ecstasy, heroin, and meth are all portrayed as equal. And when some kid takes a puff of pot and still gets his homework done, or goes to a rave and tries E and doesn’t fall over dead, he doesn’t have any faith in what you’ve said about heroin or meth. Especially if you’re holding a Martini while calling him a druggie.
So the emphasis becomes “you had premarital sex – that’s a sin” rather than “you had sex with someone and didn’t call her – that makes you a user and a creep”. More concern is placed on “you took a drug – that’s evil” than on “you let your mind become altered around people you can’t trust or who were high – that’s endangering yourself”.
It isn’t being pro-drugs or pro-premarital-sex to provide truthful accurate non-reactionary information. It’s just being realistic and smart. This puritan, moralistic, all or nothing approach we have in this country almost always returns the opposite results of what is wanted.
If those Baptsits are all having so much sex, I guess that dancing can’t be far behind.
ReasonAble (david) said: “And I wouldn’t exactly call it guilt – how does one over emphasize the effects of catching HIV or Hepatitis C?”
I watched a documentary about religious-based sex education in virginia. (I’m sorry i don’t know what it was called)
The pastor in charge of the program used qualifying statements like “I have changed their names to protect the guilty”. His line of arguement was essentially condoms do not protect you from ALL STI’s, therefore they are invalid. He failed to mention that the two examples he gave (bacterial infections, Syphillis and Gonorrhoea) are easily detectable and treatable. The line of arguement was clearly designed to shape thinking by withholding information. I’d certainly say it was heavy on the guilt-based approach!
Then again the documentary didn’t say if this approach was representative of school-based programs so we might just be talking about entirely different things.
Im not sure what you mean by numbers (?). If you are after teen pregnancy rates I’m sure these are available on the web.
I think in virginia the only response a teacher can give to questions about STI’s is that “abstinence until marriage is the only 100% effective way to prevent catching an STI” which may be true but isn’t particularly useful information to someone who is currently having sex.
Ideally red tape should not prevent teachers from answering students questions. If students are asking questions like “can I catch HIV from oral sex” they need to know the answer is “probably not, unless you have cuts in your mouth.”
Dunks,
I was assuming that we don’t have pastors teaching sex education in public schools, but who knows.
Ideally red tape should not prevent teachers from answering students questions. If students are asking questions like “can I catch HIV from oral sex” they need to know the answer is “probably not, unless you have cuts in your mouth”.
Students should be told the truth. However, if the student asking that question is 7, I think it should be handled differently than if they were 14 (for many reasons). That sums up my opinion on sex education in a nut shell.
David
Sorry about that broken link Bill. But it’s not actually a broken link or unicef’s fault…http://www.unicef-icdc.orgThe IRC web server is moving to our data center in New York City. Since you reached this page it seems that your DNS server does not reflect this address change, yet. We are sorry for the inconvenience.The link should come good (eventually). But as you can see, it’s via unicef and gives a good breakdown of various international stats. You’ll find comparable info elsewhere: google, ummm, “international teen pregnancy rates” or something 🙂
grantdale, thanks, it will be worth waiting for.
I was able to get a copy of the report. It is definitely an eye-opener.
Grantdale said “the United States has a dramatically higher rate of teen pregancy versus all other developed nations (no special reason for picking that report, it just popped up first). Twice as high as Canada, for example. STD rates also basically reflect those same relative ratios, as does abortion. One has to wonder why others do very much better than does the U.S.”
Between that and the Baylor chaplain’s study I am just floored, certainly not the outcomes I would have expected given that Canada is a much less religious nation than the United States.
Posted by: Roger at March 30, 2006 10:30 AM
Roger that was a fascinating comment. Ditto for Timothy, Dunks, Regan, CPT_Doom and all on this thread. I’m going to be thinking about this one all day.
A teen (age 17) girl friend of my best friend had a similar experience that’s mentioned happened in Virginia.
This young lady had just started having sex. But it wasn’t so satisfying, and she was worried about pregnancy and her bf wasn’t very skilled or informed about condom use, and neither was she, so they opted not to use them.
So, she asked a question as a hypothetical in her health class…and rather than being provided with information about condom use, or other birth control options…she got a sermon on abstinence and it’s 100% effectiveness and the 80% failure of all methods of birth control.
And that’s another tactic of the abtinence only crowd, saying that contraception has a high failure rate, as do condoms.
She also didn’t want just the cold facts regarding biology, she was also looking for emotional counseling regarding her feelings and how she may have been used by her boyfriend.
I wrote to her personally on what her school OWED her and her fellow students by way of confidential help and information. Whether the kids are gay or not.
It occurs to me, that a teacher who can’t leave their pulpit at home, and teaches in that way is a menace to young people. Deliberately spreading misinformation should be actionable.
And a teacher that ignorant of facts, shouldn’t be teaching anyone.
And last night, FoTF was talking about foreign aid for HIV prevention/AIDS care. They were absolutely outraged that the use of condoms was being funded! Called the program an EVIL program. Claimed that only abstinence was 100% effective.
If you claim “effectiveness” is measured by ACTUAL, not theoretical outcomes, it proves that Dobson is again lying. As an outcome, based on the prevalence of Abstinence Only education in the USA, an impartial observer would have to declare that AO is a spectacular FAILURE! Only an iconoclast, impenetrable by truth, could claim otherwise.
I’d love to see the CDC do a study on “Outcomes of Abstinence Only Education, STD and pregnancy prevention: An Abysmal Failure,” but with the administration holding science hostage you know the chances of ~that~!
ReasonAble (david) said:
“Students should be told the truth. However, if the student asking that question is 7, I think it should be handled differently than if they were 14”
Absolutely.