2009.07.31
Editorial: Abstinence-only education doesn't work
The facts of life
Abstinence-only education simply does not work.
For eight years, President Bush pushed abstinence-only education. States that wanted federal money for sex-ed, for instance, could get it only for programs that taught teens not to have sex and did not mention birth control or methods of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases. Most studies have shown such an approach to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.
Read more.
RSS feed 
Are you referring to abstinence from smoking education or abstinence from drugs education or abstinence from bullying education? Which one of those abstinence programs should we cut out?
Comment by Henry — July 31, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Today 40% of births in the US are out of wedlock. 60 years ago, the figure was only about 4% for both white and black populations.
Now that's the kind of progress any liberal socialist can be proud of!
Comment by John R — July 31, 2009 @ 9:30 am
While I agree with the statement that abstinence-only doesn't work, it should be the parents' decision how or what they want to teach. But, the problem now is that there are so many absent parents who aren't teaching ANYTHING to their children about sex and the dangers associated. I have no problem with a school teaching BOTH, but if the parents object, they should have the right to pull their kids from that portion of the program...
Comment by Danny — July 31, 2009 @ 9:30 am
Abstinence-only education. Giant shrimp. Freezer burn.
That the point this writer is making still has to be made in 2009, in a supposedly modernized industrialized country, is disappointing.
Comment by Kristen — July 31, 2009 @ 10:17 am
It's like saying "We tell people not to drive drunk but they drive drunk anyway so let's just quit telling them. "
With sex, we tell them to use a condom but if the guy refuses to wear a condom, then what? You've already told us that "saying no" is out of the question. I guess you just have sex anyway.
Comment by Henry — July 31, 2009 @ 10:47 am
John R, especially since liberal socialists push for gay marriage to no end. It becomes increasingly difficult for a couple to have a baby biologically together in a gay marriage.
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — July 31, 2009 @ 10:51 am
MM...
What does gay marriage have to do with it? There is no question that a gay couple can't biologically have a child together. No one has even intimated that could happen. Did you just happen to come to this conclusion? If so, you need to get out a little more.
As is typical, the right wing fringe is trying to mix issues that are totally irrelevant to the point at hand.
Whether my partner and I decide that one of us should father a child and raise it has absolutely nothing to do with teaching or not teaching abstinence. The decision to father and raise a child will have been made with considerable dileberation and consideration for circumstances and situations regarding schooling, care and most importantly, discipline...before the first sperm could hit the egg. Its a shame more straight couples don't do the same.
It's no wonder the right wing is becoming even more compartmentalized into an ever shrinking box that fewer and fewer are identifying with.
Comment by Will — July 31, 2009 @ 11:06 am
Forget math and science! We need to throw more federal money at condom ed! Abstinence works ever time it's tried.
Comment by John R — July 31, 2009 @ 11:12 am
Yes, indeed, abstinence works great every time it's tried. It's just not tried often enough by teens.
Comment by Luanne T. — July 31, 2009 @ 11:22 am
Will, I was also unclear how gay marriage fit into a discussion of out-of-wedlock births (presumeably caused by heterosexuals who are unmarried, hence the out-of-wedlock part).
Comment by Kristen — July 31, 2009 @ 11:25 am
Perhaps Will, if gay marriage is being pushed down our throats more today, than it was 60 years ago, then young people today place less of a value in the sanctity of having babies while married because there are so many more people pushing for marriage to include people that, by their own eyesight, they know cannot biologically have babies together?
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — July 31, 2009 @ 11:47 am
The right-wingers' argument seems perfectly clear to me:
Sex education has to do with sex.
Gayness has to do with sex.
Therefore, sex education has to do with gayness.
In fact, everything has to do with sex.
Therefore, everything is liberal, and socialist, and biased.
Comment by Ed H — July 31, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
Well, Kristen, I was about to answer your query how gay marriage fits into this discussion by stating the obvious: those propounding it are absolutely starkers.
Then comment 11 made my answer totally unnecessary.
BTW, MM, gay marriage isn't being "pushed down our throats". If you don't want one, by all means don't get one.
Comment by Painless — July 31, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
MM...
I guess in your eyes, gay marriage is the root of all the ills of heterosexual couples being able to stay married.
I'll say this as politely as I know how...What a crock of (opposite of shinola)!
Having babies isn't purely about marriage. If that's the only reason, then stop the intercourse now. There better be a lot more consideration given before having a child and I'll bet the farm that gay couples give it infinite more consideration than do hetero couples.
Ed...
Not everything is about sex for me these days. At 53, it's not quite as high on the radar as it was when I was in my 20's or 30's. It's still there...but you know what I mean.
Comment by Will — July 31, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
"If you don't want one, by all means don't get one."
And it you don't want a polygamous marriage, don't get one.
And if you don't want to carry a gun, then don't carry one.
And if you don't want to drive drunk, then don't drive drunk.
Etc...
Comment by Henry — July 31, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Will, before you get too bent...
My comment was referencing JohnR's which i will repeat again:
"Today 40% of births in the US are out of wedlock. 60 years ago, the figure was only about 4% for both white and black populations."
I gave a perfectly reasonable excuse as to maybe why this trend is happening:
"young people today place less of a value in the sanctity of having babies while married because there are so many more people pushing for marriage to include people that, by their own eyesight, they know cannot biologically have babies together?"
Thats it. There is no hidden agenda. Im not saying whether im for it or against it or what kind of feelings men have for each other or women for each other. I was offering a possiblility in response to another poster's comment. Sorry, its not ALL about you.
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — July 31, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
Can someone help me make any sense of Henry's remarks?
Comment by Painless — July 31, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
Painless,
I think what MM is talking about by pushing gay marriage down
our throat is laws passed in liberal states.
In california you can not pull your child out of school if they teach
about gay marriage.
The issue I have with that is, if we cant teach scripture then dont
teach something is ok the scripture is against.
I know In bedford county schools you can opt out of any sex ed class, except health, which has its limits there as well.
Comment by HERB KREBS — July 31, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
Its a shame that Sarah Palin didnt teach her daughter about birth control instead of only abstinence and given her daughter an educated chance at not being just another teenage mother.Just more proof that abstinence alone dosent work for everyone
Comment by Jay Phillips — July 31, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
I dont think you guys get it.
The term abstinence does work if it is applied.
The problem is that the left has made this such a free society kids
have the feeling that it is ok to do whatever.
Parents, yes, are the biggest influencer. To bad they arnt
around when needed.
I guess that leaves the kids a hard road to travel with a youngster.
Just like my parents used to say" you can learn the easy way
or the hard way" my choice.
Comment by HERB KREBS — July 31, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
Herb...
I think there is a difference between "teaching" scripture as you put it and "preaching" scripture. I honestly don't think there is anything wrong with teaching people about the Bible, the Koran and any other books that are of religious origins and nature.
My problem is when someone trys to say that one is more correct than the other and that one should be the governing document of how everyone should or must live. Knowledge about the documents and what each one says is not problematic at all.
MM...
The debate of abstinence and gay marriage certainly isn't all about me; however, I find that trying to tie the uptick in child births to parents out of wedlock to the gay marriage debate is a bit like grasping at straws.
Out of wedlock births have been growing long before the debate of gay marriage started and I seriously doubt there are any statistics that could be construed to support such a position.
Promiscuity among heterosexual couples is the only way a child can be concieved and born. There simply isn't any other formula...save to say artificial insemination. On that point, I would say that very careful consideration should have been given before the insemination occurred. (There are always exceptions...the octoMom comes to mind.)
Comment by Will — July 31, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Will, Im just saying that if we are talking about % of births that are out of wedlock today compared to the past, then we must look at what value young people are placing on marriage when it comes to having babies.
Lord knows, two guys cannot get married and have a biological child together, but if they can get married, then young people would look at that and say, "hmmm, well i guess being married isnt really a prerequisite to having babies".
As i said before, i didnt say whether i agree with this way of thinking or not, but in order to look at why things are changing, it certainly warrants looking into.
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — July 31, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
I still don't see why you can't just leave this up to the parents. If they don't want the sex-ed where condoms and birth control are taught, then let them opt out of the class as was stated above.
Comment by Danny — July 31, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
"The problem is that the left has made this such a free society"
Nuff said Herb
Comment by allen bunch — July 31, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Henry, others may have left your post #5 go unchallenged, but I won't.
"It's like saying "We tell people not to drive drunk but they drive drunk anyway so let's just quit telling them.""
You're close, but let me tidy that analogy up. Abstinence-only (and to be clear, we're talking about sexual abstinence, since you seem to have trouble with figuring out which "abstinence" we're talking about) education would be like telling teens "Don't drink, at all, until you're legally old enough to, and then only at home." It's good advice, and it would be great if all teens heeded it.
But responsible parents will make sure their kids know that IF they do drink, they'd better not drive, and give them some options to help avoid driving if they should get drunk.
"With sex, we tell them to use a condom but if the guy refuses to wear a condom, then what? You've already told us that "saying no" is out of the question. I guess you just have sex anyway."
No, Henry, nobody has told you that "saying no" is out of the question, so if the guy refuses to wear a condom, you go ahead and say "no" if you want to. Most reasonable people do not advocate not teaching abstinence at all; in fact, most people agree that abstinence is the best way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy and diseases (no, I can't think of any sexual diseases that are wanted, either.)
But most people are aware that children don't always do as they're told regarding such things as drinking and having sex, no matter how much you pray at them. So it's wise to also give them information so that, if they do make the wrong decisions concerning drinking and having sex, they don't compound that error. It's not perfect, but as the article pointed out, it works better than your way.
Comment by Rob Miles — July 31, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
""The problem is that the left has made this such a free society"
Nuff said Herb"
Comment by allen bunch
Whoa, didnt Monsieur Bunch accuse me of quote mining just a week or two ago?
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — July 31, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
Lord knows, a sterile man cannot get married to a woman and have a biological child together, but if they can get married, then young people would look at that and say, "hmmm, well i guess being married isnt really a prerequisite to having babies".
Comment by Rob Miles — July 31, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Danny writes: "I still don't see why you can't just leave this up to the parents. If they don't want the sex-ed where condoms and birth control are taught, then let them opt out of the class as was stated above."
I can think of one very good reason, Danny. Teen pregnancies are society's problem. The young mothers tend to need government assistance with health care, food, shelter and so on. Their education, thereby their job opportunities, are limited. Meaning they take rather than give long into their adult lives. And the children, too, tend more often to need government assistance. Less educated parents are less involved in their children's education, pushing more of a burden onto public schools.
Try not to think of this subject in the terms of just your own children, but of teens in general.
Effective programs that teach teens how to protect themselves from disease and pregnancy saves society in the long run.
Comment by Luanne T. — July 31, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Right RM, and young people walking down the street can see a married man and woman couple and KNOW that the guy is sterile, correct? Just like they see two married men walking down the street holding hands and know that they can't have kids together....
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — July 31, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Luanne, do you support freely distributing condoms to young people then?
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — July 31, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Danny I'd be willing to consider testing the parents who object for just how much accurate information they have.
Actually all parents should be given those tests be the time the oldest of their brood is 7.
Comment by MrRational — July 31, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Yes Mark #16, blaming gays wanting to get married for unwed teenagers reproducing is completely reasonable.
Frankly, I blame the left wing bias of the RTEB for most out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Well...that or the fact that Obama smokes.
Comment by Kristen — July 31, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
Teaching abstinence and calling it sex ed is the same as teaching starvation and calling it a weight-loss program.
Will you lose weight if you starve yourself? Probably. Is it a good long-term game plan? Probably not.
Is abstinence a good long-term game plan for handling sexual responsiblities? Probably not.
Comment by Kristen — July 31, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Sorry Mark. You will have to remind me of what I said. My memory is not that good. And also, you will need to define 'quote mining'. I don't think I have ever heard of it and I don't know what it means.
Comment by allen bunch — July 31, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
"Teaching abstinence and calling it sex ed is the same as teaching starvation and calling it a weight-loss program."
Or teaching abstaining from drugs and calling it "drug education" or abstaining from tobacco and calling it "tobacco education".
Comment by Henry — July 31, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
Henry I find your comparing sex to illegal drugs and tobacco usage to be very telling. In fact, the general frothing and hysteria that the right generates when the dread "S" word rears its ugly head is very telling.
Do you consider "gun education" to mean abstaining from gun ownership?
Comment by Kristen — July 31, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
I was the one who called Mark down for quotemining, here.
Quotemining is taking a portion of what someone has said and presenting it out of context, to make the person appear to have meant something they did not intend. It's a common practise of creationists, global warming deniers, and other pseudoscience promoters.
Comment by Ed H — July 31, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
Luanne T. #28 - You make some very good points in your post. But, when does "parenting" by the government stop? If it is my view (religious or otherwise) that I want to teach my children that sex should wait for marriage, but the government decides it knows better, what is to stop them from saying the I cannot allow my children icecream every night after dinner because it can cause obesity, even though both of my children's weight is exacly where it is suppose to be?
I know that's a stretch, but where does it stop?
I thought we were suppose to have freedom of religion in this country.
What I'm trying to say is that just because some are drag on the rest of us, we shouldn't lump everyone into that category. There are some parents who teach abstinence only to their kids, but wouldn't throw them into the street if they were to become pregnant.
In the spirit of full disclosure: I am not religious what-so-ever. I do intend to teach my children about birth control and condoms. AND, I do allow my children icecream or some sort of sweets almost every night after dinner.
Comment by Danny — July 31, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
Just out of curiosity, How many people who read this blog actually had parents who could talk about sex in some kind of authoritative fashion?
I mean, I got the birds and the bees talk from my dad, but there were sure a lot of details missing. To this day, I think they left the book "Every thing you Wanted to Know About Sex, But Were Afraid to Ask" under the couch so I could find out more than they they were willing or comfortable talking about.
Allen,
Quote mining is using a quote out context to prove a point, often opposite that which the quote addressed. Marked Man thinks you used Herb's quote out of context, I suppose. But I think you do have point. There is more freedom. Freedom from stern societal judgment from procreating outside the bounds of marriage. I like the freedom, but I would very much like for children to be the product of thoughtful consideration between loving, committed and capable parents. Abstinence only education has not served this country well in this regard and I have no idea why anyone with any insight into human behavior would have predicted it would.
Comment by Mike Scott — July 31, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
Danny #38: a comprehensive sex education that includes abstinence and knowledge of birth/disease control would in no way interfere with the parents' message at home of "abstinence only" if they chose to teach that at home. It may interfere with bad information that the parents may want to give their children (like condoms fail 30% of the time, 5-10% of women who have legal abortions will become sterile, or that touching another person's genitals can lead to pregnancy, for instance), but we should be no more concerned about that than we should be about science courses teaching that the Earth revolves around the Sun contradicting those parents who want to teach their children that the Sun actually revolves around the Earth, which is flat.
Comment by Rob Miles — July 31, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
Ed and Mike, I appreciate the replies on quote mining. Now that I know what it is, I will address it. I thought the sentence I quoted would have the same meaning with or without the last half.
"The problem is that the left has made this such a free society kids
have the feeling that it is ok to do whatever."
The part I omitted, "kids have the feeling that it is ok to do whatever", is simply a result of the first half with which I agree. I am not trying to twist his words in any way. I just hoped that he might remember this statement the next time he accuses us of restricting freedom.
Comment by allen bunch — July 31, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
If teen pregnancy fell substantially during the Bush years, by what measure did abstinence-only legislation fail?
Comment by Suzie — August 1, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
Suzie,
The rate of teen pregnancy not only fell substantially during the Bush years, but during the Clinton years as well (So don't be so quick to think that Bush did it all now!) A CDC graph can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120501208.html
Also, toward the end of Bush's administration, the rate increased to its highest point in 15 years.
Here's a Quote from a (god help me, im linking Fox News) report:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380323,00.html
"While teen pregnancy is up, the percentage of teens having sex has remained stable for the past few years at 46 percent, according to the report."
Sex is going to happen no matter what, it's a constant. Your choices are equipping kids to make responsible decisions, or sticking your head in the ground and forbidding it from happening. Which is more likely to end up teen pregnancy?
Comment by scott — August 1, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
Allen,
My words I believe were right on.
60's woodstock was a free era but was a era that changed this country for the worst.
There is no way I would let my daughter or son go to a place like woodstock.
Parents of this era have taught there kids that it is ok to be free and have sex, put down the country and hate govt. There is one thing about being against the war like vietnam and there is another for being for a free sex and spirt society that will do nothing but damage this country.
This is were the radical left was formed and we can see it today in all the crazy ideas that is coming out of congress.
Free is one thing but stupid and free is another.
Comment by Herb Krebs — August 2, 2009 @ 7:40 am
Scott, According to your graph, teen births have dropped 22% since 1991, the year California enacted its abstinence only program. The GOP Congress in 1996 enacted the Welfare reform bill and attached a provision for an abstinence only program. Reports of teenage sexual activity are subjective, but teen pregnancy rates aren't. Regardless of the assumptions you can make about reasons for the drop in teen pregnancy, one conclusion you cannot make from a 22% drop during a period in which correlates pretty closely with AO prgrams is that AO didn't work. Interesting how a little 2% spike experienced when Democrats took over Congress is supposed to negate the previous long trend. (Funny how with global warming, contradicting spikes are irrelevant).
Comment by Suzie — August 2, 2009 @ 7:43 am
Did I not express myself clearly, Herb? Sorry I had to answer with a question, like a typical lefthander.
I said, "The part I omitted, "kids have the feeling that it is ok to do whatever", is simply a result of the first half with which I agree. I am not trying to twist his words in any way. I just hoped that he might remember this statement the next time he accuses us of restricting freedom."
"I am not trying to twist his words in any way."
How should I have said that so that you would understand it?
I think you are going to need to put a little more effort into being articulate. I am having trouble understanding all of this. Maybe I just can not understand proper english. You came back and said, "My words I believe were right on." When did I say they were not?
And then, I do not understand your next post either. See, I didn't make it to Woodstock. Maybe if I had I would understand, but I was busy driving a wrecker at night and going to college in the day time. I wouldn't have liked the music anyway. All I like is old country like Hank Locklin, Norma Jean, and so forth. I guess you would really just have to call me a redneck hillbilly. Now, you say, "Free is one thing but stupid and free is another." Hate to ask another question, but are we supposed to lock up every one you think is stupid? What does it mean?
Getting back to the original point, you cannot have it both ways. One day you accuse us lefties of restricting freedom in this country and the next day you accuse us of promoting too much freedom. Which is it?
By the way, seems to me like it is the conservatives I always hear bad mouthing government.
Comment by allen bunch — August 2, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Suzie,
It's not my graph, its a graph the Washington Post made from CDC data put out of national teen birth rates. Not California Birth Rates. National Birth Rates.
FYI, California's Abstinence Only program was a failure and was no longer in play after 5 years.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/ffyr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=623&Itemid=177
This is a great article with tons of sources if you take the time to read it: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/ffyr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=623&Itemid=177
The Conclusion:
Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth's willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth exposed to the programs or any evidence of success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among participants."
I'd love to live in a world where we didn't have to worry about kids getting pregnant with kids, but that world only exists in our minds. Even in the more conservative 50's and 60's it occurred, however it was much more easily brushed under the rug and hidden from public view then. It's time to embrace the reality and show kids that knowledge is power, not naivete and idealism for a virginal utopian society that unfortunately can never exist due to flaws in humanity.
Comment by scott — August 2, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
Scott, If teenage pregnancy rates had risen 22% during the time abstinence-only programs had been in place, then you might have a case, but since the opposite has happened, the claim that AO has failed makes you and the partisans who say it look silly. If you worked at a corporation that implemented a new production system that increased revenue 22%, then went to the CEO all long-faced and told him the new system had obviously failed and that it should be scrapped, how do you think your judgment would be viewed? Giving me leftwing links like "Advocates for Youth" that have obvious agendas and anecdotal evidence means nothing.
Comment by Suzie — August 3, 2009 @ 8:20 am
If young people have a less than pristine attitude about sexuality, marriage and pregnancy "out of wedlock", it is perhaps the fault of generation after generation not REALLY practicing what they preach and less about any liberal agenda to mass produce baby mamas. The complete hypocrisy of 'the right' and the judgmental "older generations" has come home to roost and while it is easier to blame the liberal society and decry the Godless, wanton, gluttony of Liberalism, it is also dishonest and a complete cop out. Too many "strict" parents relied on the "there but for the Grace of God" form of birth control and avoided ANY honest discussion with their children (the blame is NOT just on the absent. liberal or lazy parents, plenty of "out of wedlock" babies are born in the burbs!), when a parent, ANY parent abdicates their responsibilities in one way or another society suffers. You can happily blame Liberals with your head in the sand, but what will come home to roost for you with that mentality? Do you think that your children do not see the dysfunction in your or others marriages? Do you think that kids cannot see through the "do as I say" hypocrisy? Wake up, blaming the government for the efforts to do what most parents freely abdicate is not the fault of Liberals, it is the fault of us!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 3, 2009 @ 9:23 am
Sandi, Did you miss the bulletin? Liberals are the ones blasting conservative initiatives, saying their AO program didn't work, even though the 22% reduction in teen pregnancy while they were in place suggests that they overwhelmingly DO work. I don't know why you're drifting off into "hypocrisy of the right" and "coming home to roost" and "blaming liberals". The stats say we were overwhelmingly right on this one. It is a jaw-dropping mystery how the left could say AO failed.
Comment by Suzie — August 3, 2009 @ 11:19 am
I ate french fries last week and lost 2 pounds so OBVIOUSLY eating french fries is the way to lose weight. The supposed correlation between AO education and any drop in teen pregnancy is not that cut and dried IMO. Lord knows, you people need something to crow about, but this ain't it. There was also a widely available campaign to end ignorance and spread the word (outside of the school room) about other preventative measures that could easily and even more likely have caused the down trend, especially since more and younger teens are admitting sexual activity. Happy trails to nowhere on this one.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 3, 2009 @ 11:36 am
Sandi, Your side isn't saying "the correlation between AOL education and any drop in teen pregnancy is not that cut and dried." They're saying flat out AO DOESN'T WORK. Aside from the silliness of this claim in light of the statistics, there is no evidence whatsoever for it.
Comment by Suzie — August 3, 2009 @ 12:22 pm