Sex-Ed Programs Work; Abstinence Message Fails By Todd Zwillich WASHINGTON (Reuters Health) - Pregnancy prevention programs that include talking to teens about their sexual behavior and instructing them on contraception use do not increase sexual activity among young people, according to a report released Wednesday. The report, which reviewed 73 controlled studies of over 250 pregnancy prevention programs from across the country, concluded that programs that stress discussions of sexuality with teens may work best at delaying sexual experimentation and ultimately preventing pregnancy. The report further concludes that abstinence-only programs have not shown promising results. ``The overwhelming weight of evidence clearly shows that sex and HIV education programs...do not increase sexual activity as some people have reasonably feared,'' said Dr. Douglas Kirby, who authored the report for the <a href="http://www.teenpregnancy.org/">National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.</a> The report highlighted eight model programs that have successfully lowered teen pregnancy rates. Five of those programs focus primarily on sexual behavior in attempts to convince teens to abstain from sex but to use condoms or other contraception if they decide to have sex. Two others highlighting community service as a confidence building--and even a distracting--influence on at-risk children also made the list of the best strategies. The authors deemed an eighth program combining sexual education with tutoring, work counseling, sports activities, contraception services, and other help for teens as most effective. That project, called the Carerra Program, succeeded in cutting the teenage girls' pregnancy rate in half for up to 3 years, Kirby said. Left off the list were any of the controversial ``abstinence only'' programs that stress avoiding sex until marriage with no talk of safer sex practices for teens. Most of those programs are not large enough or old enough to have been studied properly, though few have shown any ability to delay sexual intercourse in young people or prevent early pregnancies, Kirby said. ``The few early results from abstinence-only programs are not encouraging,'' he said. Such programs came into public focus after Congress passed the 1996 Welfare Reform Law. That law targeted $85 million per year in federal money to teen pregnancy programs that restricted their message to one of abstinence until marriage. Between $200 million and $300 million in other federal money still goes to programs that discuss sexuality with teens. Paul Webster, director of education services at the conservative Institute for Youth Development said that abstinence-only programs have not been given the funding or the time necessary to prove their worth. ``A lot of taxpayers have a moral objection to promoting sexually explicit conversations to school children,'' Webster said in an interview with Reuters Health. Sarah Brown, president of the National Campaign, said that most Americans favor a combined approach and blamed the debate pitting abstinence-only programs against sex education on ``a narrow band of right- and left-wing ideologues.'' Research, Brown said, is useful in deciding what works. But regardless of study outcomes, communities will continue to make their own educational choices based on local values, politics, religion, and economics. The study's most effective program combining sex education with life and work support was by far the most expensive at more than $4,000 annually per teen. ------------------ The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama
The title of the thread is "Abstinence Programs Not Working", yet the article posted specifically states the following: Most of those programs are not large enough or old enough to have been studied properly From where do you draw the conclusion posted in the title?
Maybe from this quote: few have shown any ability to delay sexual intercourse in young people or prevent early pregnancies ------------------ The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama
Jeff, I think it's obvious that programs promoting contraceptives are going to produce results with fewer pregnancies... duh! It's like going into the jungle to do a Malaria study. One group you tell to take this Malaria vaccination, and the other group you tell to just stay away from the river. Which group is going to have fewer cases of Malaria? Not real tough is it. But, contraceptives do not teach our youth sexual responsibility. And, I'm sure some fanatical religious programs don't either, if they just cram the word "NO" down the kids throats. I think sex education is something that should be taught by the child's parents. No, not many parents do it, nor do those who do attempt to do it, do it well. But, does this mean we need someone else telling our kids about that stuff? Not my kids. Why do we need to have "programs"? Why do we, as a society, need someone else to teach our children about sex? Maybe, we should just fix the societal problem (parents not teaching children morals and responsibility) instead of putting the "sex program bandaid" on it. ------------------ DREAMer's Rocket Page
I just don't see sex ed. programs as the answer. Let's just say some sort of governmental standard was adopted and every kid in public school was taught what would nowadays be considered proper sex ed. Do you really think this would lead to some Utopian society where kids were responsible and there were no unwanted teen pregnancies? I just see some widespread program like that leading to more problems than it solves. ------------------ DREAMer's Rocket Page
I'm not surprised at this. On the whole doesn't the public education system fail miserably at preparing the group? When education mimicked the industrial revolution, we were doomed for catastrophe. Our school-factories leave too much to be desired. Most kids are under-educated and a whole bunch are not-educated. Of course, there are a few the excel but the masses are mired in mediocrity or worse. ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils. [This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 01, 2001).]
Perhaps we have a problem with sex ed is because we OK premarital sex (speaking more towards casual sex) I overheard a statistic on the radio that the magazine Seventeen has twice as many articles about sex than Maxim. ------------------ If Bill Gates had a dime for every time Windows crashed... Oh, Wait!! He Does!
Maybe, we should just fix the societal problem (parents not teaching children morals and responsibility) instead of putting the "sex program bandaid" on it. The big question is how do you accomplish the above? I'm sure everyone would agree that would solve a bunch of problems, but its far more easily said than done -- especially when some of the parents don't have morals themselves. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
The fact is most people use sex as a release. It obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with love. Areas, urban areas especially, are becoming more and more crowded and therfore there is less and less space. One thing that is essential for humans to have is space. And without this we become more and more frustrated like a pile of cramped rats, and we become entraped and agressive and sex becomes a release and a avenue of escape. Actaully it's the great escape, you can lose yourself, whether it be for 5 minute or and hour, but in this time we can forget about our petty problems through sex. We can form all kinds of opinions and concepts about sex, political or religous, it doesnt matter, they are all stupid, but the fact is this great urge in our society to have sex is there. Theres obviously way too much importance and energy placed on sex, which is silly, imo. look around there are sexual images everywhere. Look around scantily clad women on billboards, every tv show is decorated with sexual invites. The teachers teaching these programs are probably having inummerable affairs, are probably fantasizing about some other person than their wife or husband, which is the same thing. Theres a lot of hypocrisy in this world, man. ------------------ [This message has been edited by ROCKETBOOSTER (edited June 01, 2001).]
If you notice, the article didn't say that the programs that worked were simply "contraception programs". They incorporated a wide variety of activities and support. I wish we could wave a magic wand and fix all the problems in the world, but we can't. There is a point where you have to stem the tide. Five of those programs focus primarily on sexual behavior in attempts to convince teens to abstain from sex but to use condoms or other contraception if they decide to have sex. Two others highlighting community service as a confidence building--and even a distracting--influence on at-risk children also made the list of the best strategies. The authors deemed an eighth program combining sexual education with tutoring, work counseling, sports activities, contraception services, and other help for teens as most effective. That project, called the Carerra Program, succeeded in cutting the teenage girls' pregnancy rate in half for up to 3 years, Kirby said. Note that even the first group listed abstinence as it's FIRST message with contraception support if needed. This group works on just the sex part. The second group includes community service to help get kids involved. The third, most effective, program included tutoring, counseling, etc. I don't think anyone would suggest an effective teen pregnancy solution is just hand them some condoms and let them go. But, telling them to "just say no" and letting them go won't fix it either. There has to be a combination of approaches to fix the problem, not the least of which is dealing with the fact that the less your education and the lower your income, the more likely you are to get or get someone pregnant. ------------------ The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama
I, for one, view abstinence programs as morally wrong. They teach children, generally speaking, that their body is a dirty, naughty, forbidden thing. This societal fixation with sexual purity has led to feelings of guilt and self-loathing among millions of children. The fact is, we're sexual creatures. Sex is healthy. We need to teach children how to handle their sexuality responsibly, instead of denying it's existence. It didn't work for Catholic nuns, and it won't work for teachers. Teaching them how to handle sexuality responsibly isn't saying: go sleep with everyone you can! It's merely making what they're going to do anyway safe. Little boys shouldn't fear hell every time they masturbate. Teenage girls shouldn't feel like the w**** of Babylon after they finish having sex for the first time. In fact, it's a very beautiful activity that should be handled with care. I don't see any compelling reason that people *should* wait for marriage. I think love is important, and I wouldn't want to have sex without love... but that, again, is a personal decision. Abstinence programs impose a moral vision on the children that many people no longer find viable. I don't believe there's anything wrong with abstinence... but I think that's an individual choice, and it shouldn't be rammed down someone's throat in a classroom or program. Programs are good. Without them, more kids would be pregnant . Many parents suck, which is why we need them. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 01, 2001).]
Sh*t tv teaches your kids that sex is the END ALL BE ALL from the time they can say H B O or SYN-A-MAX [or Skinamax] we expect a semester course to counteract all that. There 2 thoughts on this 1. By saying hey they gonna do it anyway . . yadda yadda yadda [the softline don't do this but if you do blah blah blah] 2. DON'T DO IT!! more and more we are going for option 1 whereas in the past option 2 was the thing . .. . May have something to do with the move from the old testament to the new kinder gentler testament Rocket River Don't kill . .. unless it's for passion, war or physcotic episode ------------------
i had to go through one of those classes and it was just bs. do u think that teenagers really are going to listen to anything they have to say about not having sex? nope. ------------------ i am my own worst enemy!
Can sex be a spontaneous action and not something thats mulled over day after day? Sex is just and action, right? Or is it's the images, concepts, and ideas that must form first to fuel the action, which is not action at all, but a reaction, right? So is suppressing, putting these images away in a little corner of a mind going to make the urge of sex go away? Maybe but it'll just be replaced by another urge and pleasure will be sought elsewhere. Maybe intead of sex, it'll be drugs, or one may take up some new religon or something. Maybe sex is not the issue at all, perhaps something much, much, more deeper is involved. ------------------
For God's sake, haven, what kind of abstinence programs are you talking about? The made-up kind? I don't see how anyone with a modicum of intelligence would infer that sex is dirty and shameful from the message, "Don't have sex until you are married, because that's the only way you can guarantee that you won't wreck your life by getting an STD or by getting pregnant". You're broken new ground, though. I've never heard abstinence-- refraining from sexual activity outside of marriage-- described as "immoral" before. You are not doing your argument much good by trying to turn the lexicon 180 degrees. I don't think demonizing the concept of abstinence is intellectually honest. If you can't come up with a compelling argument against the concept without attributing to it things that it doesn't include, then you probably should tear up the argument and start again. So, tell me then: if we can agree that teaching abstinence means explaining that it's the only way you can surely avoid pregnancy or STDs, why do you oppose teaching it? It seems to me that you have a rather low opinion of the ability of people to control their base desires-- that a LOT of people are led around by their genitals. Am I wrong about that? If not, why don't you think that teaching the best method for prevention is the best answer? [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited June 01, 2001).]
My kids go to a small, private Catholic school and sex education began, surprisingly enough, in third grade for my 4 daughters. Naturally, it's taught in the context of love between husband and wife and it doesn't include birth control. Parents are required to review the materials with their children. It does stress abstinence before marriage, but in no way does it teach that the human body is a dirty, naughty, forbidden thing. I know of no responsible abstinence program, religious or otherwise, that still teaches that old "sex is dirty" viewpoint. ------------------
BrianKagy: I've never encountered someone preaching abstinence that did so purely on the grounds of safety. I would still find such a program problematic, because I don't think it would work, but I wouldn't have an ethical problem with it. It's when sex starts being categorized as immoral that I have a problem with it. And you've already betrayed your true feelings on the subject, when you called sex a "base desire." Programs preaching abstinence may be presented nice, but the core is uniformly "sex is wrong, the body is dirty." I don't have a low opinion of people. I just see individuals as a unified whole of mind, body, and spirit. I believe that sex is a natural, biological function that has become spiritual because of our amazing capacity to love. Look at it this way: sex was demonized for hundreds of years by Christian theology. Despite this, it's historicalknowledge that little boys still masturbated, girls still got pregnant, and sex was common. Can humans "control" it? History isn't with you. But I don't think they should. I think, rather, they should be educated about their bodies, and safety. I would call traditional abstinence education unethical. I suppose an ethical one is possible... but given the teachers available, I don't see it happening. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
Abstinence, sex education, blah blah blah... The fact is this: the only way to truly keep kids from having pre-marital sex is to lock them up in individual jail cells 24 hours a day. What I feel children need to be taught is good judgement. Good decision-making. Right vs. wrong. Show them the ramifications of bad decisions and how one bad decision can screw up your life forever. Teach them as best you can. That's all anyone can be asked to do. How do you do it? Unfortunately, I haven't a clue. I'm single and childless. ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
Mmmm, cunnilingus. ------------------ www.swirve.com "Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin
