This is only, what?, the 873rd report that abstinence-only education doesn't work?

I wonder at what point people will acutally, I dunno, listen to these reports.

Interesting. But this study only establishes that abstinence only education doesn't work any better than the status quo (no sex ed or minimal sex ed). What I want to see is the study comparing abstinence only to a truly comprehensive sexual health program that includes access to free birth control.

in other news, when it rains, you might get wet.

*gasp, head shake*

WHAAAA?!?!

In other news: Ice Actually Frozen Water. Details at 11.

You guys forgot to report the bright side!!! ... abstinence only kids still use condoms at the same rate as "comprehensive" kids, according to the study. Yay lowered expectations.

The reason? Both types of kids don't pay attention in class, and don't care, and listen to their friends say instead.

Now, what we need is a massive condom to surround Washington to protect us from Bush, who is a dick.

Actually Steven, the study did not reach the conclusion you stated. The control group did not consist of people in comprehensive sex-ed classes, but rather students who were not in abstinence-only classes, meaning their sexual education could have ranged from comprehensive on one end of the spectrum to essentially nothing at the other.

The comparison sought was one of abstinence only education to "the absence of abstinence only education" as it is stated on page 17 of the report.

Whoa. I just looked at the report and it says that funding for abstinence-only education was instituted in 1998. I.e., under Clinton?

Maybe I'm the last person here to know this, but, wow, what a disappointment. Not to mention: hypocrisy, anyone?

Not that Clinton wasn't vastly preferable to #41 and #43.

my more liberal friends used to have a saying "Clinton was the best Republican President we ever had." He wasn't nearly as Progressive as many people thought he was, he just kind of hinted here and there that he supported gays, etc etc. But when it came down to it, he didn't do too much on any particular issue.

that being said, he WAS vastly superior to 41 and 43, IMHO. But that's like saying, would you rather have a leg amputated, or have a pike drilled into your head by savage gypsies. Of course you take the amptuation, but you're not proud of it.

ES - that's a really good point, I didn't realize that. Touche.

No problemo, Steve.

If you are hankering for some comparison stats of abstinence only ed vs. comprehensive sex ed, there is some excellent stuff over at the Guttmacher institute, www.gutmacher.org.

Their website is a wonderful way to whittle away a slow afternoon at the office (well, I think so at least).

Oh the shame, the shame. That would be www.guttmacher.org, 2 t's in there. Sorry.

I just started reading the report, so maybe I'll find out as I read more, but one of the programs they looked at is for "high risk girls only." How...how did? How? I am so flustered. How did they decide who were the high risk girls? The ones who dressed the sluttiest?! Ahh!

I just started reading the report, so maybe I'll find out as I read more, but one of the programs they looked at is for "high risk girls only." How...how did? How? I am so flustered. How did they decide who were the high risk girls? The ones who dressed the sluttiest?! Ahh!

This was discussed on NPR today. Some woman, a spokesperson for the Abstinence Clearinghouse (or something like that) made the statement that there wasn't ENOUGH abstinence only education, and that's why there was no difference between the control and test group. She claimed it "wasn't enough" that only grade school and middle school students are educated about the evils of sex.

Whatever, lady. Grade school? Are you serious?

What's 'not enough abstinence only education'?

It's pretty cut and dried, isn't it – sex WEEEEEEEEEEEEL KEEEEEEEEEEL YOU!

How can they drive that point home any more aggressively?

I've only gotten to the executive summary so far, but it was very interesting. My instinct is to feel some relief that, according to these stats anyway, abstinence -only education isn't effective enough to make any real (negative) difference, in terms of teens exposure to STDs, etc. So perhaps we have a little breathing room. Nice to know that our own doomsday predictions about the effects of right-wing activism don't always come true :).

One of the frustrating things to me about the way sex ed has been politicized into a left-right struggle, is that it pretty much reduces the discussion to "should they be taught that condoms are useful in protecting against STDs or not?" When we can't talk about human sexuality without having a major collective freak-out (and I'm talking on multiple sides here, not just the religious right), then the people who really lose in this scenario are the teens, and pre-teens. They miss out on an opportunity to talk through these complicated and incredibly important aspects of their lives with adults who listen to them, rather than talk AT them.

Our current models for sex-ed seem pretty paltry to me. The abstinence-only model relies on social convention and morality to protect students, and the public-health model relies on medicine and information (never a bad thing, but they only go so far . . .) to protect students. Both of those models perpetuate the idea that, first and foremost, sexuality=danger. That's a sad and simplistic message for adults to be passing along to the next generations (and they're going to get that it's B.S. pretty fast, which won't enhance the educators credibility).

Does anyone more involved in this area than I am know of more holistic sex ed curriculums out there, and how they might be received by students and the communities in which they are used?

I've only gotten to the executive summary so far, but it was very interesting. My instinct is to feel some relief that, according to these stats anyway, abstinence -only education isn't effective enough to make any real (negative) difference, in terms of teens exposure to STDs, etc. So perhaps we have a little breathing room. Nice to know that our own doomsday predictions about the effects of right-wing activism don't always come true :).

One of the frustrating things to me about the way sex ed has been politicized into a left-right struggle, is that it pretty much reduces the discussion to "should they be taught that condoms are useful in protecting against STDs or not?" When we can't talk about human sexuality without having a major collective freak-out (and I'm talking on multiple sides here, not just the religious right), then the people who really lose in this scenario are the teens, and pre-teens. They miss out on an opportunity to talk through these complicated and incredibly important aspects of their lives with adults who listen to them, rather than talk AT them.

Our current models for sex-ed seem pretty paltry to me. The abstinence-only model relies on social convention and morality to protect students, and the public-health model relies on medicine and information (never a bad thing, but they only go so far . . .) to protect students. Both of those models perpetuate the idea that, first and foremost, sexuality=danger. That's a sad and simplistic message for adults to be passing along to the next generations (and they're going to get that it's B.S. pretty fast, which won't enhance the educators credibility).

Does anyone more involved in this area than I am know of more holistic sex ed curriculums out there, and how they might be received by students and the communities in which they are used?

I've only gotten to the executive summary so far, but it was very interesting. My instinct is to feel some relief that, according to these stats anyway, abstinence -only education isn't effective enough to make any real (negative) difference, in terms of teens exposure to STDs, etc. So perhaps we have a little breathing room. Nice to know that our own doomsday predictions about the effects of right-wing activism don't always come true :).

One of the frustrating things to me about the way sex ed has been politicized into a left-right struggle, is that it pretty much reduces the discussion to "should they be taught that condoms are useful in protecting against STDs or not?" When we can't talk about human sexuality without having a major collective freak-out (and I'm talking on multiple sides here, not just the religious right), then the people who really lose in this scenario are the teens, and pre-teens. They miss out on an opportunity to talk through these complicated and incredibly important aspects of their lives with adults who listen to them, rather than talk AT them.

Our current models for sex-ed seem pretty paltry to me. The abstinence-only model relies on social convention and morality to protect students, and the public-health model relies on medicine and information (never a bad thing, but they only go so far . . .) to protect students. Both of those models perpetuate the idea that, first and foremost, sexuality=danger. That's a sad and simplistic message for adults to be passing along to the next generations (and they're going to get that it's B.S. pretty fast, which won't enhance the educators credibility).

Does anyone more involved in this area than I am know of more holistic sex ed curriculums out there, and how they might be received by students and the communities in which they are used?

I'm still in the executive summary, too, but one thing jumped out at me. According to their citing the Title V regs, one of the goals of abstinence-only education is to "[t]each the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity."

That reads an awful, awful lot like "No sex until you can afford it," which, combined with the other crap these people believe, translates neatly into an attitude that says that social services beneficiaries and poor people shouldn't have sex, because they don't deserve to. (After all, in their world, everyone who is poor is poor because it's their fault, right?)

Yeah, Interrobang, I circled that too, with a question mark. I couldn't figure out what the heck it was code for. I figured that it probably didn't mean teaching kids about masturbation . . . ;)

Anyway, your thoughts on the matter make lots of (scary) sense.

(and a thousand apologies for the unseemly multiple postings earlier--computer troubles!)

WTF?

. . . looks like someone's mommy is letting him use the bigboy internets!

It doesn't matter who did the report or how many reports were submitted, it's just more evidence that "Just saying No" doesn't work.

It doesn't matter who did the report or how many reports were submitted, it's just more evidence that "Just saying No" doesn't work.

It doesn't matter who did the report or how many reports were submitted, it's just more evidence that "Just saying No" doesn't work.

It doesn't matter who did the report or how many reports were submitted, it's just more evidence that "Just saying No" doesn't work.

Really, any educated adult should acknowledge that the more information a person has on a subject the better they can make an educated decision. Are they scared that letting teens know what they could be getting into will make them more likely to have unprotected sex??

Lilams, unfortunately, I think it's more that they're scared that if they teach kids how to safely have sex they might go out and, uh, have sex.

The fact that they're having sex anyway, and getting pregnant and STDs from not using condoms seems to be a price they're willing to pay.

It's sad because in the end, everyone loses, but especially the kids.

And the thing is, they never really go on to define "self-sufficiency." I mean, if they're using it to mean "having a strong sense of self and self-worth such that sex will not be had out of a misguided search for affection or affirmation or a sense of duty," I'd support that. But something tells me they're not for that.

And I can't think of any other sense of "self-sufficiency" outside of the economic sense. Don't have sex until you know you can afford condoms? Don't have sex until you can afford to have a baybee? Huh?

And the thing is, they never really go on to define "self-sufficiency." I mean, if they're using it to mean "having a strong sense of self and self-worth such that sex will not be had out of a misguided search for affection or affirmation or a sense of duty," I'd support that. But something tells me they're not for that.

And I can't think of any other sense of "self-sufficiency" outside of the economic sense. Don't have sex until you know you can afford condoms? Don't have sex until you can afford to have a baybee? Huh?

As far as I know sex-ed programs are not an entire year long. I think that if it were an entire year long more information would be covered and more would be learned. Also, I think that there should be a manditory circulum for sex-ed so that all of the schools teach the same things and so they cannot skip out on things they do no want to talk about or do not think are important enough to talk about.

As far as I know sex-ed programs are not an entire year long. I think that if it were an entire year long more information would be covered and more would be learned. Also, I think that there should be a manditory circulum for sex-ed so that all of the schools teach the same things and so they cannot skip out on things they do no want to talk about or do not think are important enough to talk about.