Can You Hear Me Yet?
Today's Washington Post features yet another article about the failure of abstinence-only sex education programs, which have been one of the best-funded far right programs under the Bush administration. At last count, the US government has spent more than $1.5 billion on programs that promote "abstinence only until marriage."
A new report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics, and features a study on the "virginity pledge," comparing the health outcomes for young women who pledge to remain virgins until marriage (news flash: they backslide) as opposed to young women who don't pledge. The data indicates that 82 percent of young women taking a pledge of virginity end up breaking the promise, making them no different then their peers for engaging in sexual activity. The study analyzed data collected by the federal government's National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, using detailed information from a representative sample of about 11,000 students in grades seven through 12 in 1995, 1996 and 2001,
The bottom line? "Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, However, there were significant differences in risky behavior among the "pledge" takers. The percentage of students who said they used a condom was about 10 points lower for those who had taken the pledge, and they were about six percentage points less likely to use any form of contraception.
At this point, it's hard to imagine how much more data the government and Congress need to collect to come to the conclusion that just telling kids to not have sex isn't working. The more that abstinence-only programs stress the failure rates of condoms and contraception, the less likely young people are to protect themselves against pregnancy and infection. What the vast majority of parents will tell you is that they want comprehensive sex education for teens in school, that includes abstinence but also information about birth control and preventing STDs.
Last spring, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that one in four teenage girls in America has a sexually transmitted infection -- and one in two African-American teen girls. That should be reason enough for Congress to end funding for a program that promotes far right ideology and at the same time gives bad or no information to help teens protect their health.
Any parent with teens (I have two myself) knows that too many young people are seeing teenage sex on every mainstream television show marketed for their age group - just watch Gossip Girl if you think I'm kidding - and yet we are pretending in the classroom that its enough to tell them 'just say no'. We'd all like our teens to delay sexual activity until their ready - and from our point of view that's probably still a long way off! But no one wants their teenager to become pregnant or a parent before they are ready to have and support a family.
We can't expect our teens to make responsible decisions unless we are prepared to give them the guidance and health information that helps them do so. Abstinence-only has been an unmitigated disaster -- our New Year's resolution as a country should be to take teens' health seriously and to invest funding in comprehensive sex education that teaches teens about abstinence as well as contraception, healthy communication, responsible decision making, and prevention of sexually transmitted infections.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Newsflash: telling kids to say no to drugs doesn't work either. Neither does telling them to clean their rooms. How about we give them "safe drugs" like pot so they'll quit the meth, and hiring maids for the kids.
Yeah, it's funny, how you never hear about how the real reason for the meth boom, is the unavailability of safer drugs, isn't it? The mainstream media never flashes the headline, "BORED AMERICAN YOUTH FORCED TO TURN TO BATHTUB CHEMISTRY FOR KICKS BY BAD DRUG POLICY."
The other trail of tears in this story is exemplified by a familiar name - Rick Warren.
His church has received kudos for their HIV/AIDS work in Africa. THIS is a Travesty. Saddleback Church denies condoms to the people of Africa, with the assistance of the current administration in the White House.
'Abstinence Only' has been well funded while NGOs in Africa have not been allowed to distribute the cheapest and most effective HIV transmission tool - condoms.
How many millions have been infected as a result of this irrationality? How many of millions will die?
Some simple math, HIV/AIDS rates have doubled in many African countries while Saddleback has been on their AIDS mission. It's called P.E.A.C.E. and it's helping destroy a continent.
Thank you! I've seen GWB hailed in recent days for his HIV/AIDS prevention efforts in Africa. The media has drunk the Kool Aid.
I get mailings from agencies that promote womens' health around the globe. They report that the Bush administration has done more to hurt women than help them because they have denied them funding for condoms.
The problem here is that the Bush administration equates condom use with allowing homosexuality when it actually does more to prevent the spread of AIDs to women than anything else besides abstinence. Most of the women who are getting AIDs get it from their HUSBANDS!
1.5billion down the drain. Get a clue Repubs and stop thinking normal human behavior is bad. We can't go back in time to the Puritans and the with trials. Face it
I always knew I was going to have sex before marriage. It never occurred to me to wait. And I had a mother who was not about to raise any more children. So she told me if I have sex I'd better be protected otherwise I'd go straight to the clinic to have an abortion.
That may sound harsh, but I am one of the few women I know who has never had unplanned kids, an STD or an abortion. I'm 30. The only other women I know with the same stats at me have waited until marriage to have sex. There is something to be said for telling kids they HAVE to protect themselves if they are going to have sex.
I blame God for this mess.
He or She created humankind with sexual desire.
He or She did likewise with all the other members of the animal kingdom.
Birds and Bees - similarly afflicted.
And with humans, God make an incredibly stupid mistake:
He/She provided them with the capacity to procreate at the age of 13.
Everybody in his/her right mind knows that eighteen is the proper age for that sort of thing.
What was God thinking?
It is up to all of us right-thinking humans to correct God's blunder and get us back on track.
If only God would get christians to listen to the teachings of that Jesus guy...
Richards makes some very good and valid points: "pledges" don't work.
However, Richards believes that the answer is a more comprehensive program, funded by the government. What she fails to address here is the "heat of the moment." How many people are prepared with artificial birth control, but when it comes down to it, wind up not using it?
The second, and most important thing, is this: it is not the federal government's job to be involved with education. PERIOD. All other subjects are bound to local, county and state governments. The FEDERAL government has no business being in education, let alone sex education. That determination needs to be done at the lowest level, ie, the level closest to the student population, which is certainly not the federal governments job. The Bush Administration was wrong for getting involved in ANY sex ed program, whether it be abstinence only or something different.
I will also say here that it is NOT the school's job to even TEACH sex education. THAT responsibility lies squarely on the parents shoulder and THEY should be the one's determining what their children are taught on the issue. This means that parents need to educate themselves.
The community needs to decide if it's children will be taught sex ed in the classroom or not. This means the community should VOTE on it. The school boards are (or should be) beholden to the local taxpayers, who are the one's that should be deciding this issue.
I would have to disagree. I think most people would agree that parents have the biggest influence on whether their children grow up to be contributing members of society or not. I also believe that most teenagers, not all of course, who get pregnant are not ready to have children and are not able to properly raise them. This, in my opinion, has a huge impact on society and should not be left up to one community or another to decide how they want to handle it. There are plenty of parents that couldn't care enough to teach their children or parents that don't want their children to know anything but the mistakes these children could make do not just effect them or their parents. Their babies and society at large also have to deal with the consequences. I think a basic level of preparedness if they decide to have sex benefits themselves, their families, their communities and society as a whole.
I agree that a basic preparedness is in order, but again, that is not the school's job to prepare them, and it is certainly not the federal government's job. It is none other than the parents job.
If, however, parents choose to not do this, then they should at the very least have the responsibility of voting whether or not the schools will do it.
And I just want to add here, too, that while the whole of society greatly benefits from good education, the federal government does NOT get involved with education in the areas of science, math, history, languages, literature, etc. Unless of course we are talking about that stupid NCLB Act. And yet, if a child is not well educated in these areas, he can be a far bigger "drain" on society than anything else.
The data doesn't back you up. The pledge kids are just as likely to have sex, but are more likely to go without contraception.
The kids who receive sex ed are more likely to use contraception when they have sex. Clearly something is different. Both sets of kids have "the heat of the moment," but one set uses it.
And kids are still having sex. So, to my mind, neither "program" works. All the more reason it should not be taught in schools.
And here's another reason why parents need to be better educated and more involved in what their kids learn.
My friend taught in an ELEMENTARY school. When she was teaching there, a school aid or someone investigated why there was a frequent long line for the BOYS bathroom.
Turns out there were 5th and 6th grade girls in it performing oral sex on the boys, also 5th and 6th grade for $$$$.
It's a school DISCIPLINARY problem, but it is much more a parental problem.
There's nothing in the data that says the kids that took the pledge didn't know what birth control is or how to use it.
Based on this would you also say that the best way to prevent AIDS is Safe, monogomous heterosexual sex as that is what almost every study says also
So safe, monogamous homosexual sex leads automatically in your mind to AIDS? What, by virtue of it being homosexual?
Funny thing about this whole farce of abstinence only.
It's not that the rightwingers or the religious right doesn't know that abstinence doesn't work it's that they are anti science.
Just like they don't want to believe in Evolution.
They don't want to believe in sex education.
They don't believe in Global Climate Change.
They believe that kids getting dressed up for Halloween and gong out for candy is really a secret way for the Devil to control their kids. I met a family with little kids who were obviously heartbroken about seeing all these kids dressed up as all sorts of things and the look on their faces was just painful, but mom and dad said that this was a form of devil worship.
You cannot beat ignorance with a stick.
They just keep fighting science for one reason and one reason only.
Control of the little ditto heads out there.
An ignorant populace is an easily led around by the nose populace.
A well educated one cannot be so easily led around.
And anti-full sex education is just another further attempt to push science into the dark ages.
You said:
It's not that the rightwingers or the religious right doesn't know that abstinence doesn't work it's that they are anti science.
Just like they don't want to believe in Evolution.
My answer:
You are confusing the evangelical religious right with the regular religious right and conservatism in general. The religious right who are, say, Catholic, Episcopalian, etc. DO believe in Evolution.
You said:
They don't want to believe in sex education.
My answer:
Perhaps some don't. But many believe in some sort of sex education: just not done in the schools.
You said:
They don't believe in Global Climate Change.
My answer:
Perhaps some don't. But that has nothing to do with this thread.
You wrote:
They believe that kids getting dressed up for Halloween and gong out for candy is really a secret way for the Devil to control their kids. I met a family with little kids who were obviously heartbroken about seeing all these kids dressed up as all sorts of things and the look on their faces was just painful, but mom and dad said that this was a form of devil worship.
My answer:
You are WAY off-base with this one. Perhaps there are a FEW people who feel this way, but not most of the religious right, nor even most of the rightwingers or conservatives.
More continued
My answer to this one?
According to more than a few recent polls almost HALF of American religious people DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. I'd go get all the links but they are all out there.
The same amount believe DINOSAURS and man co-existed together and there is even a "museum" dedicated to that belief showing dinosaurs with SADDLES ON THEM.
ANTI SCIENCE.
Global Climate Change DOES have to do with this tread and I noticed you did not deny it.
There are NOT just a few extremists who believe Halloween is evil, once again those numbers are in the millions. Once again you can go look it up.
As far as sex education goes. I suppose that if parents didn't believe in math that would be okay as well?
Sorry but an uneducated child with regards to sex ed is an Ignorant child especially if you have backwards parents who also believe that there is no such thing as evolution and sex is evil and nasty.
You can believe what you want but more so called religious Christians REFUSE to believe in most scientific matters because they have been led around by their clerics to be anti science and they are not some small minority.
You said:
You cannot beat ignorance with a stick.
My answer:
No, you can't. I hope I have helped learn a little more about conservatism. We do not deserve to be lumped together with the far extremists.
You said:
They just keep fighting science for one reason and one reason only.
Control of the little ditto heads out there.
An ignorant populace is an easily led around by the nose populace.
A well educated one cannot be so easily led around.
My answer:
It seems to me that you might be equating liberalism with independent thought. As I've seen on this site, this is not necessarily the case. I am a conservative and very few people I know, both conservative and liberal would even THINK about accusing me of being led around.
The first thing liberals and conservatives need to do is to stop stereotyping each other. I know plenty of liberals in real life who are not like the liberals on this site who have many, many pre-conceived notions of conservatives.
More Continued
redkim: "No, you can't. I hope I have helped learn a little more about conservatism. We do not deserve to be lumped together with the far extremists
I disagree. Conservatives have been letting the extremists maintain control of their party and our government for the last 8 years. By providing assistance to and cover for the extremists in the Bush administration, they have become one in the same. Rush and other mouthpieces like Bill O'Reilly never get any serious critiquing from Conservatives, anyone who questions them or the Bush administration is instantly labeled in derogatory terms. I agree that there are valid ideas on the conservative side but they have all been drown out by the extreme ones and until the right distinguishes between them by themselves (no outsiders can make the necessary changes), the ultra rich and powerful are going to continue to use the conservatives to maintain their control and influence.
You wrote:
And anti-full sex education is just another further attempt to push science into the dark ages.
My answer:
Only to those who have an agenda. Usually the one's who push for abstinence only. It is not the federal government's job to force any type of sex education down our throats.
Those of us who are against sex ed in the schools (I can't myself among that number) have varying degrees of affinity toward science. Some might be afraid of it, I don't know. But others, like myself, believe that it is NOT the school's job to teach sex ed. It is the parent's job.
Be more general - they're not just against science: they're against evidence, thought and knowledge too, in all their forms.
When I walked into Planned Parenthood in 1961, the whole idea of planning, and perhaps preventing pregnancy was new to me. The goal of PP: that every pregancy should be expected and wanted was strange and worrisome. I knew that a woman should be able to plan for sex, and it too was strange and worrisome. I was unable to talk about this to my husband. I simply didn't know how to put the idea into words without seeming to be freaky.
Skip to today; Confusion, shame, guilt and fear split this young generation from parent's wishes to keep the discussion from happening. PP still has a lot of work to do, and thank you.
It's denial. Total denial.
Parents don't want to think that their children will make the same mistakes that they do. Some try to create a fantasy world where everything is perfect and their children are like the prince and princesses in the fairy tales.
When confronted with reality (ie scientific data) they go into denial or get angry. Nothing can disturb their creation of reality.
This new study won't change anything. It's going to take a jolt to wake people up. A huge jolt.
Culture meets biology, and biology wins hands down.
Biology always wins. Nature always has the last word.
They don't give a flying F about the "data". Or common sense.
They just care about the data in their ledgers from all the contributions from the psycho religious right.
This whole issue of abstinence not working is a bit misleading. When actually used, abstinence is the only form of contraception that is 100% effective. No other form of contraception can boast that. When it comes to STDs, once again abstinence comes out on top as the most effective. With this in mind, abstinence should be taught when it comes to sex ed.
With that out of the way, not all will practice abstinence. Most kids, and I mean likely more than 95% will learn about condoms and other forms of contraception prior to becoming active themselves. The remainder that don't are the ones that make basic instruction in other methods needed. Otherwise, we have given our children freedom. We cannot make their choices for them. Even the educated will choose to ignore what they have been taught, whether it is abstinence or any other form of contraception. This issue is neither left or right, but cuts right to the core of freedom and responsibility.
How dare you make sense? Of course you are correct. There are many things that aren't taught when it comes to sex ed. For instance, let's face it, who (from a man's perspective), would rather wear a condom than not wear one? Anyone? That's one of the problems, especially when dealing with kids. Those young boys want to experience sex in all its glories. Not like, as one wag once said years ago, eating a steak with a mouth full of Novocain. Then, of course, you have the adult examples. I''m not convinced that there is 100% agreement with adults who don't want the kids to be sexually active. But good points about responsibility for one's choices. Not enough said about that today.
"Not like, as one wag once said years ago, eating a steak with a mouth full of Novocain. "
LOL! Thanks for the good laugh loaded in a good comment! There is definitely not enough talk about personal and individual responsibility.
Work on your reading comprehension. I dare your to find me someone who speaks for planned parenthood that says that abstinence is not safer then having sex! You can't because there isn't anyone. All of your arguments are strawmen because no one is fighting to get rid of abstinence education. People are fighting so that these teenagers are ALSO taught about safe-sex practices. Take your disingenuous clap-trap elsewhere, no one is buying it here.
Well golly gee. "Just say no" worked for Reagan with drugs.... you mean it doesn't work for everything???
Hormones will overrule the teenage brain everytime. To think a pledge will counter that is naive.
Great article. Thank you. Can we tattoo it on someone's ass(es) so they get the message?
Keep up the good work, Cecile.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
