Abstinence-Only Education vs Sex Education

[kainedamo]

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9831189

AIDS
Time to grow up
Sep 20th 2007
From The Economist print edition

“Abstinence only” education does not slow the spread of AIDS

THERE can be no surer way of averting a sexually transmitted infection such as AIDS than avoiding sex. That much is obvious. And it is also convenient for religious lobbyists who believe that premarital sex is a sin. But is it realistic? Those lobbyists argue that a popular alternative—known in the jargon as “abstinence-plus”—which recommends chastity but also explains how to use condoms, is likely to make things worse by encouraging earlier intercourse. “Abstinence-only” teaching, they reckon, should be more effective.

That, of course, is a possibility. But it is a testable possibility. And Kristen Underhill and her colleagues at the University of Oxford have, over the past few months, been testing it. Their conclusion is that it is wrong. Abstinence-only does not work. Abstinence-plus probably does.

Last month Dr Underhill published a review of 13 trials involving 16,000 young people in America. The trials compared the sexual behaviour of those given an abstinence-only education with that of those who were provided with no information at all or with whatever their schools normally taught. Pregnancies were as numerous in both groups. Sexually transmitted diseases were as widespread. The number of sexual partners was equally high and unprotected sex just as common.

Having thus discredited abstinence-only teaching, Dr Underhill and her colleagues decided to evaluate the slightly more complicated message of “abstinence-plus” using 39 trials that involved 38,000-odd young people from the United States, Canada and the Bahamas. Their results are published in the current issue of Public Library of Science MedicineThis tuition—compared, as before, with whatever biology classes and playgrounds provide—reduced the number of pregnancies in three out of seven trials (the remaining four recorded no difference). Four out of 13 trials found that abstinence-plus-educated teenagers had fewer sexual partners, while the remainder showed no change. Fourteen studies reported that it increased condom use; 12 others reported no difference. Furthermore, in the vast majority of cases, abstinence-plus participants knew more about AIDS and HIV (the virus that causes the disease) than their peers did. And the tuition often reduced the frequency of anal sex (which brings a greater chance of passing on HIV than the vaginal option). In contrast to the fears of the protagonists of abstinence-only education, not one of the trials found that teenagers behaved in a riskier fashion in either the long or the short term after receiving abstinence-plus instruction.

Unfortunately (and surprisingly) only two of the studies addressed the question of disease transmission directly, and the numbers involved were too small to find a statistically significant difference between groups. Nevertheless, Dr Underhill's pair of reviews should make informative reading for policymakers. America's government earmarks money for abstinence-only teaching, which is matched by individual states. It should review that policy—which is clearly no better than the alternatives, and is probably worse. Its generosity to needy foreigners is similarly prescriptive. Of the $15 billion promised over five years by PEPFAR, President George Bush's personal anti-AIDS initiative, $1 billion is reserved for groups that intend to fight AIDS without mentioning condoms. Though Dr Underhill's results apply only to North America, they do suggest a need to investigate what happens elsewhere, in case PEPFAR's policy, too, needs to be reviewed.

A dose of prevention

Teaching people about what they might wear during intercourse is an important way of reducing the chance of them catching HIV. But teaching them, in addition, about what drugs they could take to reduce that risk may be added to the syllabus in the future. A vaccine is still a long way off, but four clinical trials—in Peru and Ecuador, Thailand, Botswana and also America—are assessing how well daily anti-retroviral pills, which are normally prescribed to control established HIV infections, prevent the virus infecting healthy people who do dangerous things. The results of these trials will be plugged into epidemiological computer models to assess the likely effect of various drug-distribution policies.

One model intended to do exactly that has already been built, by Ume Abbas and John Mellors of the University of Pittsburgh. It is designed to mimic a mature HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa—which it did rather well when the researchers tested its output against data from Zambia, a country in which the epidemic has remained stable for a decade.

Writing in PLoS Medicine's sister journal, PLoS ONE, Dr Abbas and Dr Mellors describe what happened when they added prophylactic anti-retroviral drugs to the model. They experimented with different measures of drug efficacy and with different groups of people taking the pills.

Assuming that anti-retrovirals work 90% of the time and are taken by three-quarters of sexually active people, their model suggests that new HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa would be cut by 74% over 10 years. Unfortunately, the idea of providing and delivering so many drugs to so many people is logistically implausible. And even if it could be done, it would cost about $6,000 per HIV infection averted—a lot of money in Africa.

However, giving the drug to the 16% of Africans who behave most riskily would be easier and could lead to a 29% reduction over a decade at only a tenth of that cost. A harsh calculation, but a realistic one—unlike expecting teenagers to give up sex because you tell them to.

States Refuse Abstinence Ed. Grants

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1817663,00.html

Skeptical states are shoving aside millions of federal dollars for abstinence education, walking away from the program the Bush administration touts for slowing teen sexual activity. Barely half the states are still in, and two more say they are leaving.

"Thanks for making it out on a rainy Saturday, kids. Slippery out there, huh? Let's get started. We're gonna have some fun today!

Car accidents are a leading cause of death for teenagers. The school board and your elected representatives want to make sure that you and your families are spared from such a tragedy, which is why the money for driver's ed was eliminated from the budget. Whereas last year I was teaching your older siblings how to shift and brake and three-point-turn during a six-week course, it has since been decreed that I actually need just one afternoon to tell you the only piece of safety information I'm permitted by law to share:

The ONLY 100 percent effective method for avoiding car accidents is to ABSTAIN from driving until marriage."

"Abstinence-Only Drivers' Ed" by Suzanne Kleid on McSweeney's.

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2008/2/22kleid.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...med.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

PIP: In Georgia, in the US, students who take part in a sex education program for eighth-graders called "Postponing Sexual Involvement" are 5-15 times less likely than their peers to start having sex in the ninth grade. In the US, 30% of babies born are born to unwed mothers, and 80% of the children born to unwed high-school dropouts grow up in poverty. This fact takes a great toll on the children and on society. The new sex education program began when its director, Dr. Marion Howard, realized that the traditional method of disseminating birth control information in sex education classes resulted in students acquiring a great deal of knowledge about contraception but not using it. She then noted the success of an antismoking program which used older teenagers as role models, and she learned that the young mothers wanted to know how to say no to sex without hurting a boyfriend's feelings. The new program, which reaches all eighth graders in Atlanta, begins with discussions of anatomy and contraception and then focuses on the risks of sexual activity, sexual pressures in society, and peer pressure . Older teenagers help the students discuss some of the "lines" that boys and girls use to pressure each other and help the students practice how to resist this pressure. Both the students and the teen counselors have benefitted from their involvement with this course.

A popular defense for abstinance only education is that nobody ever got pregnant through not having sex. Except the Virgin Mary.

The argument is not whether abstinance works (it didn't work for Jesus' mom), the real argument is whether abstinance EDUCATION works. And It. Does. Not.

It didn't work for Bristol Palin, and it doesn't work for thousands of other teenagers, and it doesn't work for the millions of AIDs sufferers in Africa.

It's time to grow up about sex education and give people the knowledge they need.

A system that depends on keeping teenagers ignorant is insane.

 

[Tron5000]

How about, "No sex in schools...Let the schools deal with actual school subjects and let the parents deal with sex"? If you're turning your kids over to the government to learn about sex and the consequences thereof, you have failed as a parent.

 

[The Senator]

Considering many parents don't actually teach their children about sex, or leave sex talk up to the Bible, or have faith that their children might actually listen to them, I believe schools should teach sex education. These kids need to know about the dangers of STDs, teen pregnancy, and how to prevent them from happening. Abstinence should only be a part of that lecture and should be driven harder than discussions on safe sex.

I agree that sex education should be a parent's responsibility but parents often avoid having such discussions... and kids don't want to have the sex talk with their parents anyway and would most likely find it far more awkward than if they learned about it in school among their peers...

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Sex Education is a must.

 

[Marx]

I believe that sex education has to be taught.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Wonder if her daughter's predicament has changed Sarah Palin's mind on this issue...

Sex education is important.

 

[danoyse]

Sex education should absolutely be taught in school. If they're going to do it anyway (which obviously they do), they should at least know everything they need to know about it and the possible consequences.

Teaching abstinence is fine as a method of birth control. But they can't act like if they don't talk about sex, these kids aren't going to be doing it.

 

[Oriin]

Palin loves this and she knows it works, she said it works.


...Just ask her daughter

 

[C.F. Kane]

Abstinance only Sex-ed makes as much sense as Taking the Bus-only driver's ed.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

How about, "No sex in schools...Let the schools deal with actual school subjects and let the parents deal with sex"? If you're turning your kids over to the government to learn about sex and the consequences thereof, you have failed as a parent.

Let's just do away with all the child care agencies and abuse laws then.
Let's make school voluntary and not have truancy laws.
A burden on the taxpayer I say. Who cares if the country is full of unwanted ,unneeded,diseased and uneducated kids?

/sarcasm

It is unfortunate that not all parents are good parents. but should the child suffer? Are we not to look out for the least among us?

But that spirit can’t just be restricted to moments of great catastrophe. Because as I stand here today and look out at the thousands of folks who have gathered here today, I know that there’s some folks that are going through their own quiet storms.
All across America there are quiet storms taking place. There are lives of quiet desperation. People who need just a little bit of help.
Because if there’s a poor child out there, that’s my child. If there’s a senior that’s having trouble, that’s my grandparent. If there’s a guy who’s lost his job, that’s my brother. If there’s a woman out there without healthcare, that’s my sister. Those are the values that built this country. Those are the values we are fighting for. -Barack Obama Sept 1 2008

​

 

[lazur]

Considering many parents don't actually teach their children about sex, or leave sex talk up to the Bible, or have faith that their children might actually listen to them, I believe schools should teach sex education. These kids need to know about the dangers of STDs, teen pregnancy, and how to prevent them from happening. Abstinence should only be a part of that lecture and should be driven harder than discussions on safe sex.

I agree that sex education should be a parent's responsibility but parents often avoid having such discussions... and kids don't want to have the sex talk with their parents anyway and would most likely find it far more awkward than if they learned about it in school among their peers...

You're making a lot of generalizations here. First, your first paragraph is riddled with suppositions that the only people who don't teach their kids about sex are religious people. Are you seriously going to claim that most non-religious people DO teach their kids about sex? Let's hope not, because the level of irresponsibility in non-religious parents is probably greater than in parents with 'faith' and a 'moral foundation.'

Second, you're making more generalizations about the relationships between most parents and most kids. How do YOU know if kids 'don't want to have the sex talk with their parents' ... where's the data?

Of COURSE it's awkward, but that doesn't mean kids avoid it, or that kids are justified in being hesitant to discuss such things with their parents.

Parents are the #1 influence in the life of a child. Rather than teaching kids about sex in school (which I'm not completely against given just how many parents are complete losers), the schools should be instead sending booklets home to the parents and requesting that they instruct their kids. They could do a follow-up and quiz the kid on his or her knowledge, and then fill in the gaps where appropriate.

Point being, it's a shame that a lot of parents use a government school as the means for educating their kids about sex, but the school should be taking more steps to keep parents involved.

 

[Darthphere]

You're making a lot of generalizations here. First, your first paragraph is riddled with suppositions that the only people who don't teach their kids about sex are religious people. Are you seriously going to claim that most non-religious people DO teach their kids about sex? Let's hope not, because the level of irresponsibility in non-religious parents is probably greater than in parents with 'faith' and a 'moral foundation.'

Second, you're making more generalizations about the relationships between most parents and most kids. How do YOU know if kids 'don't want to have the sex talk with their parents' ... where's the data?

Of COURSE it's awkward, but that doesn't mean kids avoid it, or that kids are justified in being hesitant to discuss such things with their parents.

Parents are the #1 influence in the life of a child. Rather than teaching kids about sex in school (which I'm not completely against given just how many parents are complete losers), the schools should be instead sending booklets home to the parents and requesting that they instruct their kids. They could do a follow-up and quiz the kid on his or her knowledge, and then fill in the gaps where appropriate.
Point being, it's a shame that a lot of parents use a government school as the means for educating their kids about sex, but the school should be taking more steps to keep parents involved.

Ridiculous.

 

[IrishFightin]

I think you should do both.

Get the oldest teachers in the school, cover them in astroglide, shove them under hot lights, and let them go at it infront of the kids.

You learn about sex, and seeing something like that will make you never want to bump uglies.

 

[Zen]

I think you should do both.

Get the oldest teachers in the school, cover them in astroglide, shove them under hot lights, and let them go at it infront of the kids.

You learn about sex, and seeing something like that will make you never want to bump uglies.

Thanx , mental image

 

[IrishFightin]

See, it works.

 

[Zen]

i dunno, i think i need a nice piece of A to wash the taste out of my brain.

it may force me to have more sex.

 

[lazur]

Ridiculous.

Yes, it's ridiculous to think that the school system would at least try to involve the parents...

 

[Zen]

so i can find absolutely no proof that abstinence programs do anything other than to make the parents feel like they did alright by their lil snowflakes.

Sex ed these kids with the force of RA. show them how NOT to have babies, and avoid STDs... Abstinence education has done nothing. what other choice is there?

 

[IrishFightin]

Well, it wont work for everyone.

For some people, the thought of the sounds of your old teachers fat flapping against the other teachers pelvic area, the guttural moans that are usually reserved for a perfect english paper.

It doesnt work for everyone.

 

[Darthphere]

Thats why they get them to sign those permission slips silly.

 

[IrishFightin]

Yes, it's ridiculous to think that the school system would at least try to involve the parents...

Personally, I never wanted my parents involved in educating me about sex. We had cable.

 

[Zen]

i think get the parents involved, but sex ed in school is a must.

 

[lazur]

Personally, I never wanted my parents involved in educating me about sex. We had cable.

That's a shame, but it's not the norm.

 

[DBryan]

Texas decides to teach 'abstinence plus' after abstinence only proves inneffective.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/texa...lum-after-abstinence-only-proves-ineffective/

 

[Schlosser85]

I don't believe in abstinence only education. I think it's naive and unrealistic.

Studies have shown that schools which only teach abstinence actually have higher rates of teen pregnancies.

If kids are going to have sex, they're going to have sex, so they should be informed of safe sex practices. People saying this will encourage them to have sex are being naive. Their own overactive hormones are doing all the encouraging they need. That's like saying watching Glee makes your son gay. Your son is gay because he's gay, whether he watched Glee or the 700 Club, and kids have sex because they're maddeningly horny 24/7, not on the basis of whether or not adults say the word SEX around them.

You can encourage abstinence, if that's your belief, but I think, no matter what your personal beliefs are, we need to be realistic, especially educators. You cannot stop kids from having sex, anymore than you can stop them from drinking. All you can do is make sure they have accurate (and complete) information, and hope they're sensible enough to make safe choices.

Withholding information is never the answer. All it does is A) make sex more taboo, and therefore more appealing and exciting, and B) ensure that when some of your students do inevitably have sex (and some of them will, no matter what you say, so there's no point pretending otherwise), they don't have a clue what they're doing and get pregnant and/or stds.