Abstinence education still doesn't work

Wait, what? You mean telling kids not to do something they're already really curious about DOESN'T prevent them from doing it?! o_O

Reply

If I read this correctly, it could also be stated as: traditional sex ed courses don't work any better than abstinence-only education.

Which might further suggest that abstinence PLUS birth control / STD protection education may be the best solution.

Reply

Tsk... Kids today. They have absolutely no self-respect and/or willpower *eyeroll*

This whole abstinence touting is getting really old, when study after study shows that it simply doesn't work like intended (or, at all for that matter).

I don't see how combining abstinence and other sex education together is going to make abstinence education work, unlike it is now.

I guess some people are just stuck on WANTING it to work that they're willing to throw money at the cause, just so they can.. what? Sleep better at night?

Talk about wasted tax dollars!

Reply

This is never going to stop kids from doing what they are going to do. You have a lot of girls out there that are raised with a single mom and crave the attention from a male (i.e. 3 of my younger cousins which I don't know if they are virgins or not, but they're terriby clingy to any new boyfriend). You also have a bunch of boys out there that think nothing is cooler than checking out nude magazines or drinking alcohol while they're still in high school. Sex to them is something else 'grown up' they can do. My 14 yr old cousin just admitted to me last month that he's already had sex. I about fell off of my chair, I used to change his diapers when he was born! The only thing we can do is teach them about free birth control for kids under 18 and tell them that there are places that will not call your mom or need any adult permission. At least my cousin knows not to be messing around unprotected, it's bad enough he's so young.

Reply

Well, we have no problem teaching kids that they shouldn't smoke (for example), period. We could be instead teaching them what smokers should do to reduce the bad effects on their health. Fact is, there are lots of things smokers can do to mitigate the effects of smoking, but you will never see them in the high school curriculum. And besides that, we could be giving the kids classes in how to get over a tobacco addiction before they ever start one. So why don't we? Why is it we support abstinence-only education when it comes to smoking, drugs, etc., but are against ANY abstinence education when it comes to sex?

The only reason not to encourage abstinence in a teen / preteen sex ed class would be if we believe it's perfectly OK for all young people to be having sex, or we believe young people have no ability to abstain. However, I think most people believe young people can and should wait at least until they are old enough to independently deal with the consequences, which means they have at least graduated from high school. Just because many don't wait doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage abstinence. (Do we stop discouraging smoking because many kids smoke anyway? How much money have we spent on abstinence-only tobacco education and is it worth the mixed results?) And frankly, I think quite a few adults would be wise to abstain. Like many indulgences and addictions, sex puts many adults, as well as youngsters, in a more vulnerable position than they would be in if they abstained - whether or not they get pregnant or get an STD. We all know people for whom this is true. I don't see what's wrong with being honest with young people about that.

I honestly don't understand the militancy against encouraging abstinence when discussing healthy choices about sex. You all say you want kids to have accurate and complete information, but it seems you really don't.

I suspect you are just rationalizing your own past sexual behavior. Even those of you whose early sex led to significant problems. "I had sex against my parents' and teachers' will, I'm a great person, therefore it's unreasonable to hope others will abstain." But that is self-serving and irresponsible. As parents and educators, we owe our children better.

Reply

You guys might be in need of some new image searching. This condom picture has been used so many times it is irritating.

Reply

SKL,

The success of abstinence only education in regard to smoking may be able to chalk most of its success up to the fact that it is illegal to provide a minor with tobacco products. And because it's a law that can be enforced at point of sale, it has a chance at being enforced. The abstinence only education is more for the adults charged with limiting the youth's access to cigs. Unless chastity belts come back into fashion, I doubt abstinence only sex education will ever be as effective.

Reply

It's illegal to sell cigarettes and alcohol to minors!!! (*slapping hand to forehead*) THAT'S why we never, ever see ANY kids smoking or drinking!!!

Face it. SKL makes an excellent point. We teach kids to 'just say no' to drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, peer pressure. All the 'bad stuff' that kids can get into. We dump hundreds of millions of dollars into these programs every year, and yet, at least here in Iowa, I see news story after news story about kids as young as 7th grade sneaking off to get drunk. Farmers around here have to double-lock their storage facilities to keep the anhydrous ammonia away from the meth producers. Kids walk down the street smoking cigarettes. There is a high margin of failure in those abstinance-only programs, and yet nobody wants to eliminate them.

Why, then, when it comes to an abstinence program even being incorporated into a wider sex-ed course, do we have people coming out of the woodwork screaming that "kids will be kids - shower them with free condoms"?

Reply

It's illegal to sell cigarettes and alcohol to minors!!! (*slapping hand to forehead*) THAT'S why we never, ever see ANY kids smoking or drinking!!!

Face it. SKL makes an excellent point. We teach kids to 'just say no' to drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, peer pressure. All the 'bad stuff' that kids can get into. We dump hundreds of millions of dollars into these programs every year, and yet, at least here in Iowa, I see news story after news story about kids as young as 7th grade sneaking off to get drunk. Farmers around here have to double-lock their storage facilities to keep the anhydrous ammonia away from the meth producers. Kids walk down the street smoking cigarettes. There is a high margin of failure in those abstinance-only programs, and yet nobody wants to eliminate them.

Why, then, when it comes to an abstinence program even being incorporated into a wider sex-ed course, do we have people coming out of the woodwork screaming that "kids will be kids - shower them with free condoms"?

Reply

SKL does it again. Those good points are such a conversation stopper, though.

We'll never be able to stop people from doing stupid, dangerous or unhealthy stuff. Never. That doesn't mean that we should just throw our hands up and pretend that the behavior is good or desirable. Put the truth out there (how many abstinence programs have you really looked at? Do you just let others find the really outrageous ones and pretend that those are the only abstinence programs out there? I'd place money that there are quite a few extremely accurate programs out there) and tell the kids that it's *not* easy, but it's certainly not impossible.

Our unmarried sex problem isn't going to be fixed by any sex ed course...whether it's "don't, but if you do, here's how", "why not? As long as it feels good, do what you want" or "don't ever do it until you're married". If there is no value placed on chastity, very few are going to choose it.

What is our goal? Do we just want kids to not have sex? Do we want them to enjoy sex but not suffer from the usual effects of it? What's the number one reason that sex outside of marriage is a bad thing? For some, it's STDs. For some, it's pregnancy. For others, it's the emotional turmoil. Still others focus on the spiritual aspects. There are a bunch of other reasons, too, I'm sure.

Is there a reason why we can't incorporate all of these into a program? Are our kids too stupid to process all of this information? Are they too morally corrupt to consider the emotional and spiritual downsides?

It's hard for parents who think sex outside of marriage isn't wrong to convey to their kids that it *is* wrong or that the kids should be waiting until they're older. I get that. I just don't want my kids being told that it's ok, as long as (fill in whatever requirement suits you).

Reply

I think comparing sex to smoking is argument by way of distraction. They really don't have anything to do with one another when it comes to the process of growing and becoming an adult. We expect that almost everyone will eventually become sexually active and most people agree that at some point in our lives, when exactly this is can obviously be debated, but at some point, sex is a healthy and valuable part of the human experience. That is not in any way transferable to smoking, which almost everyone agrees is never healthful or valuable and which can be avoided without much trouble for one's entire life. That is the difference between the two and that is why we teach our children to abstain from smoking but we need a more nuanced approach to sexuality. Our kids are going to have sex someday if everything goes according to plan; meaning they will grow up, find a partner, experience love, and have sex. I believe we need to guide them about the time and circumstances that we consider sex appropriate but beating them about the head and shoulders with a heavy "no sex" message is clearly insufficient for their needs.

Whatever an individual family believes about sexual activity for teens, the information very clearly shows that abstinence only education is not serving our children in the sense that it is not preventing disease or pregnancy and it is not equipping them for life. Isn't preparing them for their world and teaching them how to make informed decisions based on good information the whole point of teaching and parenting?

Miss Chris

Reply

OK, I probably should have used alcohol instead of cigarettes in my example, because most people will eventually drink alcohol and they need to learn to do so in a healthy way. Yet the healthy way to drink alcohol isn't taught in schools; it's abstinence-only for school-age kids. Though that hasn't prevented all kids from drinking, nobody is suggesting we ought to stop teaching kids not to drink alcohol. (Which, by the way, is legal if done in one's parents' house, or if the substance is cough syrup, etc.)

I agree that it's a good idea to prepare teens for the time when they need to make healthy decisions about sex, and this includes when, how, and why to say "no." I think it's a big mistake to ignore the fact that there are times when sex is healthy, and times when it is unhealthy - regardless of whether various "protection" is used. A young person should know the problems that early "protected" sex causes and why they will most likely have healthier relationships in the long run if they don't take sex too lightly or do it for the wrong reasons.

Many young people have sex only because they are pressured to do it by their boyfriends and/or same-sex peers. If the official statement of the school (and other authorities) is "we know you are gonna do it, we don't care about that, here's how not to get an STD," they may not have the motivation to say no. But if the official statement is "we recommend that you don't do it as it isn't healthy until you are much more mature; but if you do it anyway, here's how not to get an STD," this may give them the strength they need to say "no." And since "no" is the most healthy choice for them, we should offer encouragement and support for them to say it.

Reply

I agree that abstinence should be taught in addition to other forms of birth/health control, but again, to SKL's example: if everyone who drank in my suburban, upper-middle class high school (middle school, even) had sex instead, there'd be a lot of babies.

We had D.A.R.E. and other substance classes. We had traditional public school sex ed and a seperate abstinance only class for children of parents so inclined. We had incredibly strict rules regarding extra-curriculars and drugs/smoking/drinking. We had involved parents. We had programs for after dances and sporting events to keep kids entertained and supervised. We had, by comparison to all my college friends and current co-workers, one of the most pro-active school districts ever seen when it came to "adult activities." We also had, by the same comparisons, far more students involved in them and far fewer caught. The highest incidences of participation in sex/drinking/etc came from the strictest households, the abstinence only classes, the "preachers daughters" if you will. In fact, I recall the heaviest drinkers being the student council leaders who set themselve to organizing all the anti-drinking/sex programs and events. A well organized smoke-screen, I suppose.

My point in all this, I think, is that kids are a lot like a wet bar of soap. If you squeeze to hard, they're gonna squirt away. If you don't hang on hard enough, they'll slip through your fingers. You can cup both hands under and support it, but then you have no hands left to tend to anything else and both end up worthless. The best way to deal with both is somewhere in between. (Or to put them on the end of a rope and tie them to the plumbing ;) )

Reply

I think that the alcohol comparison is probably more apt. In my household when I was a teenager there was definitely a difference in the attitude to drinking, which was presented as an enjoyable activity for adults in certain contexts and I was allowed to sample small tastes at appropriately festive occasions.

I'm actually really heartened by your final suggestion for a balanced approach to sex education. I don't think anyone seriously advocates the first position you present:

"we know you are gonna do it, we don't care about that, here's how not to get an STD"

That is an exaggerated position, for effect I imagine, but I think its misleading. I can't imagine any responsible educator or parent would support that statement.

Every opponent to "abstinence only" education I know (I include myself here) more realistically supports exactly the second position you state:

"we recommend that you don't do it as it isn't healthy until you are much more mature; but if you do it anyway, here's how not to get an STD,"

It isn't the "abstinence" portion of "abstinence only" I object to, its the "only". Clearly it is not a good idea to tell kids, "hey, do whatever feels good, have at it". But it also isn't helpful to say "sex is bad for you and also dangerous, don't do it, class dismissed". Unfortunately that second statement more closely describes the curriculum of "abstinence only" (exaggerated for effect ;) ) education and that is the problem.

I think what we need is "abstinence plus" sex ed. Teenagers aren't stupid and I think they can handle the more complicated message that encourages them to wait until they're more mature and to protect themselves, emotionally and physically whatever they decide.

Miss Chris

Reply

For better or for worse, I truly believe that someone choosing to have sex as a teenager has a lot more to do with their family upbringing than any class they may take in school. With that said, I really wish that the classes would be more biology based. Teach girls how to chart their cycle. Teach them exactly how various forms of birth control work (do they prevent fertilization, prevent implantation, etc.?) and the side effects. Teach them how pregnancy happens in relation to a woman's cycle. I would love for the book "Taking Charge of Your Fertility" by Toni Weschler to be required reading for a class like this. Give them facts about STDs, exactly how they are transmitted (and not transmitted), the symptoms, the treatments, the lasting effects. Teach girls how to recognize when something is not right with their cycle and what is actually normal. I know I'm leaning a lot towards the woman's side of things, but I am female. Any guys want to chime in with what they wish would have been (or would be) taught in a high school sex ed class?

Just to clarify where I'm coming from, I will let you know that in our family we teach that sex is reserved for marriage (an "abstinence only" program). Also, my husband is a high school teacher and in his experience parents have a lot more influence on a child than any teacher.

Reply

I find it funny that certain people assume that their kids are going to be EXACTLY like themselves. I'm not saying they won't be good people, but to say with 100% certainty that THEIR children will NEVER do so and so... Talk about naive.

:)

Reply