Amanda Paulson, “Abstinence-only study could alter sex-education landscape,” The Christian Science Monitor, 2Feb2010.

Stephen Smith, “No Sex” (a case for abstinence education), The Boston Globe, 15Feb2010, pp. G6-7. “The best way to keep kids from having sex may be (surprise): Just tell them not to.”

OVERVIEW

When you preach abstinence, you sound like a parent. I feel like my mom’s talking to me and saying, “Abstinence is the only way. You shouldn’t have sex.” That’s so unrealistic. People are going to do it.”
(street-savy, 17.yr.old Hillary Little, who grew up in Boston and
attends Worcester Academy, Globe, G6)

Professor John Santelli, of Columbia Univ.’s Mailman School of Public Health echoes the sentiments of this teen and takes aim at “conservative” use of previous studies and statistics:

They just didn’t get their scientific facts right. Or they had a very strong moral tone that the world of ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ from the ‘50’s was right for everybody.

Yet according to The Christian Science Monitor’s report on a new study from the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine (pub. 1Feb’10) “young teens given an abstinence-only message were significantly more likely to delay having sex than those receiving more comprehensive sex education…. Abstinence-only education does work. Sometimes.”

Bill Albert, chief program officer for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, a non-partisan organization recognizes how controversial this issue is.

It is a mini culture war, no doubt about it. The reason why this is so fraught with controversy and elicits such passion is because it touches on some primal issues that people care deeply about—education of our children, when and under what circumstances to start a family, sex.

About this Pennsylvania study, Albert says:

This is really game-changing research, because it provides the first strong evidence that abstinence-only education can help very young teens delay sex. The menu of proven options just got larger, and that’s good news.

“The study used randomized trials with a group of 662 African-American 6^th and 7^th graders. Groups were assigned to one of the following four programs:

1. An 8-hour abstinence-only program.

2. An 8-hour safer-sex-only program.

3. An 8- or 12-hour program that combined both.

4. An 8-hour control group that just focused on non-sex health issues.”

The Results:

1. Among those in abstinence-only, 33% began having sex over the next two years.

2. Among safer-sex only group, 52% began having sex over the next two years.

3. Among those in comprehensive group, 42% began having sex in the next two years.

4. Among those in control group, 47% began having sex in the next two years.

Not surprisingly abstinence-only advocates welcome this study as another validation of what they have been promoting and practicing. On the other hand, critics caution conclusions drawn from this study for several reasons:

1. The average age of subjects is very young, 12 years of age.

2. The abstinence program did not insist in postponing sex until marriage but just “until they are ready.”

3. And this program avoided “a moral tone” and did not disparage condom use.

Content of the Abstinence-Only Program (according to the Globe article):

1. Students attended two four-hour classes on Saturdays, with six to eight students per class.

2. The adolescents were advised on how to avoid being pressured into having sex, including specific things they could say. Role-playing reinforced the lessons.

3. Groups discussed the benefits of abstinence vs. being sexually active, and made lists comparing the two.

4. Students were asked to think about their goals for the next 5 or 10 years, leading them to think about potential consequences of sexual activity such as pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

5. Students were asked to agree or disagree with statements such as “it’s impossible for a boy to say no to sex.” They were then instructed to stand under signs saying “agree” or “disagree”—an exercise intended to address peer pressure.

6. Morality issues were kept out of the instruction. If students asked about condoms, for example, answers were limited to scientific findings about condom use.
   
   “The new research was robust. The scientists were fastidious. The findings were statistically significant.”

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

1. What questions or comments do you have about this article and the study described?

2. From just this article, do you tend to be satisfied with this research and its conclusions?

3. What limitations does this one study pose for you, and what more do you want to know?

4. What, specifically, is inadequate about this one study and the conclusions drawn from it regarding sex education for early teenagers?

IMPLICATIONS

1. Rates of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea among 15-19-year-olds are rising in this decade, and are far higher than for the rest of the population (according to the Boston Public Health Commission). Teen pregnancies continue to be a concern for U.S. society.

2. Religious and Christian standards cannot be imposed on our society. Personal sexual morality can hardly be legislated.

3. Religious and conservatives of all types have a right to have their moral opinions respected and even to be an influence in the public place.

4. Similarly, secularists and those indifferent to religious principles, or with more liberal religious moralities, need also be respected. Their claim (according to several studies) that our best abstinence programs only postpone sexual activity for many or most teenagers should be taken seriously.

5. Taken together, these considerations may suggest abstinence-only programs in middle schools and more comprehensive programs (including abstinence) in public high schools.

Dean Borgman cCYS