By Jessica • 14 years ago

Successful abstinence-only education?

Tshirt featuring picture of a road sign that reads, Abstinence Ave. Exit When MarriedThe media (and abstinence-only organizations) are atwitter over a study that shows abstinence-only education can delay the onset of sexual activity.
Valerie Huber, Executive Director of the National Abstinence Education Association, for example, was more than a little pleased: “The core teachings of abstinence education include character building, goal-setting and exploring the emotional risks of casual sex. Abstinence education is the only curriculum that offers such a clear, risk-avoidance approach to sexual health.”
But here’s the thing: not all abstinence-only programs are created equal. And this program – which showed success in very young students (the average age was 12) delaying sex for up to two years – is nothing like the abstinence-only programs that were widespread under the Bush administration. This program didn’t lie, shame, or even tell students to wait until marriage to have sex.
In fact, this program that abstinence proponents are falling all over themselves to tout, wouldn’t have been eligible for funding under the Bush administration.
James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, has more:

The abstinence-only program in this study would not have been eligible for federal funding during the Bush years because it did not fit the “8 point definition.” The program goal was to help early teens avoid sex until they are ready–a totally different objective than the federally funded abstinence programs already proven ineffective by the long-term Mathematica study “which showed no impact on teen behavior.”
In the [researchers’] own words: “It [the abstinence-only intervention] was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected.” (Emphasis mine)

In fact, the researchers behind the study, Loretta and John Jemmott, are well-respected advocates of science-based sex education – so it’s no surprise that their version of abstinence-only education would be so different from what most ab-only proponents are pushing for.
Even though this program was successful to a degree, however, we still have a moral responsibility to teach young people about contraception. Teenagers deserve the truth about sexual health – and as much information as we can possibly provide.
Related: The Guttmacher Institute has more (pdf) info about this study, and how the program differs from most abstinence-only education, and from Heather Corrina of Scarleteen: What’s the Typical Use Effectiveness Rate of Abstinence?

Read more about Jessica

Join the Conversation