Abstinence Education Works After All

[Shootafish2]

http://www.creators.com/conservative/linda-chavez.html

From the article:

Two-thirds of the students who received an abstinence-only message had not become sexually active two years later. These students were provided information on HIV and were given medically accurate information on sex. Students were encouraged to remain abstinent and were given advice on how to resist pressure to have sex.

[Bill McIntyre]

Doug,

Here is a slightly different slant.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...3385887.column

The curriculum studied didn't rely on "I'm Saving It for Marriage" pins or make a prize out of virginity.

It was designed to be "not moralistic," its authors said. Aimed at sixth- and seventh-graders, it stressed the health risks of sex and taught students how to resist peer pressure.

That strikes me as a common-sense approach for kids so young they can imagine getting sick better than they can envision getting pregnant.

What shocked me most was not that abstinence classes helped delay the start of sex -- but that it was too late for so many of these middle-school students.
-------
Still, I was shaken to discover that among the study's 12-year-old subjects, 1 in 4 were already sexually active before the abstinence classes even started.

That finding, however, can't be broadly applied. The subjects of this study were all low-income African Americans attending urban public middle schools in Northeastern states.

Still, other research I found into the sexual practices of preteens suggests that 12% to 20% of middle-schoolers around the country are sexually active.
---------
Even the study's author was a bit unnerved by what he found.

John B. Jemmott III is a social psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has spent years studying adolescent sex. He's also the father of two daughters, ages 11 and 13.

He expected that abstinence classes, properly constructed and taught, could help prevent adolescent sexual involvement. And in fact, one-third of the middle-schoolers taught abstinence hadn't had sex two years later, compared to more than half of the students enrolled in other sex ed classes.

That's considered success, he said. "But when we began with these young adolescents -- sixth- and seventh-graders -- 25% of them had already had sex," he said. "That means you have to start younger . . . and I'm having a hard time imagining what an intervention would look like for fourth- and fifth-graders."

And I'm having a hard time counting as a victory getting a 12-year-old to put off sex until ninth grade.

[Shootafish2]

Bill,

From the article:

The study followed 662 African-American students in urban schools, a group that, on average-previous research shows-become sexually active at a young age.

[lettersmooth]

From Doug's article- "The study followed 662 African-American students in urban schools, a group that, on average — previous research shows — become sexually active at a young age. " So this is basically a minority group. And they were 12-14 years old at the time, which means they were 14-16 years old when they reported to be abstaining. And most people lose their virginity from 16-21 years of age anyways in my experience.

What's the big deal about sex? Be upfront with kids about it, make them aware of the responsibility that comes with it- responsibility of knowing your partner and the risks. We don't live in Biblical times anymore where girls get married at 9-10 years of age. Sex is normal.

Btw, your title is misleading. I don't think abstinence education is very effective. It depends what your goal is- less HIV? Not letting kids have sex before 18? No premarital sex?

[Shootafish2]

Originally Posted by lettersmooth

From Doug's article- "The study followed 662 African-American students in urban schools, a group that, on average — previous research shows — become sexually active at a young age. " So this is basically a minority group. And they were 12-14 years old at the time, which means they were 14-16 years old when they reported to be abstaining. And most people lose their virginity from 16-21 years of age anyways in my experience.

What's the big deal about sex? Be upfront with kids about it, make them aware of the responsibility that comes with it- responsibility of knowing your partner and the risks. We don't live in Biblical times anymore where girls get married at 9-10 years of age. Sex is normal.

Btw, your title is misleading. I don't think abstinence education is very effective. It depends what your goal is- less HIV? Not letting kids have sex before 18? No premarital sex?

Its not "my title." And you don't have to think abstinence education is very effective. The study shows otherwise.

I thought the article was unbiased. It doesn't mention anything about morals, and does point out the importance of parental influence.

[keezdiver]

in order to determine if it was "effective" you have to have a control....something to compare to.

what percentage of students given normal sex ed had not become active?

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by lettersmooth

make them aware of the responsibility that comes with it-

The problem is the adolescents of that age have no real world experience regarding responsibility and the ramifications of their actions...and so they make bad decisions.

[Slingingsteel]

Originally Posted by keezdiver

in order to determine if it was "effective" you have to have a control....something to compare to.

what percentage of students given normal sex ed had not become active?

true

Dylan

[Bill McIntyre]

Originally Posted by keezdiver

in order to determine if it was "effective" you have to have a control....something to compare to.

what percentage of students given normal sex ed had not become active?

This NYT Editorial does mention a control group.

ebruary 8, 2010
EDITORIAL
Abstinence Education Done Right

The ongoing debate over sex education has been rekindled by a provocative new study suggesting that teaching abstinence can delay the start of sexual activity among inner-city youngsters — if it is freed from the moralistic overtones and ideological restrictions that were the hallmark of abstinence-only programs under the Bush administration.

It would be a mistake to place too much importance on a single study of black middle-school students in Philadelphia, but the study appears to be sound and its findings are worth further exploration.

The study, published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, a journal of the American Medical Association, was led by a husband-wife team at the University of Pennsylvania. They randomly assigned 662 African-American students in grades six and seven to one of four different programs — an eight-hour abstinence-only program stressing the benefits of delaying intercourse; an eight-hour safer-sex program stressing condom use; a comprehensive intervention that covered both abstinence and condoms; and a control group that offered health information unrelated to sexual behavior.

The only program that successfully delayed the start of sexual activity was the abstinence-only instruction. By the end of two years, only a third of the abstinence-only group had engaged in sexual intercourse compared with almost half of the control group.

Advocates of abstinence-only education have seized on the new findings as evidence that their approach works best. Some are urging the Obama administration to reverse course and restore federal support for abstinence-only education. That is a willful misreading of the implications of this study.

Under current federal law, supported by the Bush administration and conservatives in Congress, abstinence-only programs that seek federal support must meet several rigid requirements that essentially make them abstinence-until-marriage programs.

They must teach, for example, that abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage is the “expected standard” for all school-age children. This new study would have failed that test. It did not advocate abstinence until marriage but urged students to wait until they were more mature. It encouraged abstinence as a way to eliminate the risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, had youngsters draw up lists of the pros and cons of sexual activity, and taught strategies for resisting pressure to have intercourse.

The Obama administration, with Congressional acquiescence, has wisely eliminated funding for abstinence-only programs that meet the old ideological criteria and is supporting a range of programs to prevent teenage pregnancy, provided they are based on rigorous science. This study fits the new rubric, not the old.

The new study will need to be replicated in older teenagers and other ethnic groups to see if the findings are broadly relevant, and teenagers will need to be followed long enough to measure the effects in avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. No single approach will suffice to reduce sexual activity in all teenagers, but the new study suggests that there is a sensible, effective way to teach abstinence.

[Aaron Proffitt+]

Originally Posted by lettersmooth

What's the big deal about sex?

Sex is alot like air .... it's not a big concern until you're not getting it.

[keezdiver]

Originally Posted by Bill McIntyre

This NYT Editorial does mention a control group.

than in my scientific mind....that 2/3rds number is a completly ficticious number.

[spearstudtx]

Originally Posted by lettersmooth

From Doug's article- "The study followed 662 African-American students in urban schools, a group that, on average — previous research shows — become sexually active at a young age. " So this is basically a minority group. And they were 12-14 years old at the time, which means they were 14-16 years old when they reported to be abstaining. And most people lose their virginity from 16-21 years of age anyways in my experience.

Exactly what I was going to point out.

Also from the NYT article:

The ongoing debate over sex education has been rekindled by a provocative new study suggesting that teaching abstinence can delay the start of sexual activity among inner-city youngsters — if it is freed from the moralistic overtones and ideological restrictions that were the hallmark of abstinence-only programs under the Bush administration.

DELAY. Abstinence does not work. Education works.

"Advocates of abstinence-only education have seized on the new findings as evidence that their approach works best. Some are urging the Obama administration to reverse course and restore federal support for abstinence-only education. That is a willful misreading of the implications of this study.

Once again, "abstinence" as in waiting until marriage does not work. This study didn't preach that, see below:

It did not advocate abstinence until marriage but urged students to wait until they were more mature. It encouraged abstinence as a way to eliminate the risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, had youngsters draw up lists of the pros and cons of sexual activity, and taught strategies for resisting pressure to have intercourse.

This is education that told kids to wait until they were more mature. I am 100% for that. But don't read too much into it.

[Shootafish2]

Quote:
The ongoing debate over sex education has been rekindled by a provocative new study suggesting that teaching abstinence can delay the start of sexual activity among inner-city youngsters — if it is freed from the moralistic overtones and ideological restrictions that were the hallmark of abstinence-only programs under the Bush administration.
DELAY. Abstinence does not work. Education works.

Yes, education works. Nowhere in the original article does it state or imply that abstinence means waiting until marriage to have sex. In the context of the article, delay and abstinence means the same thing.


Originally Posted by lettersmooth View Post
From Doug's article- "The study followed 662 African-American students in urban schools, a group that, on average — previous research shows — become sexually active at a young age. " So this is basically a minority group. And they were 12-14 years old at the time, which means they were 14-16 years old when they reported to be abstaining. And most people lose their virginity from 16-21 years of age anyways in my experience.

As is stated above, "a group that, on average-previous research shows-become sexually active at a young age." They are talking about a time span of 12 to 16 years of age. This is apparently the critical time for this group of individuals. They are talking about what works for them. For the sake of debate, your life experience has no bearing on this group.

This is education that told kids to wait until they were more mature. I am 100% for that. But don't read too much into it.

Nathan, I doubt anyone is reading too much into it. The study says it worked for this group. It may or may not work for older individuals, especially in other settings. Obviously a lot of variables would affect the results. Doug

[spearstudtx]

Originally Posted by Shootafish2

Nathan, I doubt anyone is reading too much into it. The study says it worked for this group. It may or may not work for older individuals, especially in other settings. Obviously a lot of variables would affect the results. Doug

Alright Doug, sorry if I came off abrasive.

I thought the title was a little bit misleading as the connotation of abstinence implies waiting until marriage (at least to me). I did find the article interesting, though, and I truly believe asking/showing/teaching kids to wait is a great idea.