The Associated Pressreports on a study demonstrating that students who took part in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not.
For its study, Mathematica looked at students in four abstinence programs around the country as well as students from the same communities who did not participate in the abstinence programs. The 2,057 youths came from big cities – Miami and Milwaukee – as well as rural communities – Powhatan, Va., and Clarksdale, Miss.
The students who participated in abstinence education did so for one to three years. Their average age was 11 to 12 when they entered the programs back in 1999.
Mathematica then did a follow up survey in late 2005 and early 2006. By that time, the average age for participants was about 16.5. Mathematica found that about half of the abstinence students and about half from the control group reported that they remained abstinent.
“I really do think it’s a two-part story. First, there is no evidence that the programs increased the rate of sexual abstinence,” said Chris Trenholm, a senior researcher at Mathematica who oversaw the study. “However, the second part of the story that I think is equally important is that we find no evidence that the programs increased the rate of unprotected sex.”
Unfortunately, I suspect that the most vocal proponents of abstinence as the Alpha and Omega of sex education are the least likely to pay attention to “science” and “empirical evidence.” They will simply stick their fingers in their ears, yell “la la la la,” and insist that what we really need is more of this program that doesn’t seem to have any effect at all.
Oh, hey, look. Those folks are already on the scene:
[Bush administration] officials said one lesson they learned from the study is that the abstinence message should be reinforced in subsequent years to truly affect behavior.
“This report confirms that these interventions are not like vaccines. You can’t expect one dose in middle school, or a small dose, to be protective all throughout the youth’s high school career,” said Harry Wilson, the commissioner of the Family and Youth Services Bureau at the Administration for Children and Families.
Let’s just figure out what approaches lead us to children who 1) don’t get diseases; 2) don’t get pregnant; 3) have healthy sex lives as adults; and 4) preferably do not have sex too early. And I’d say those priorities are listed in roughly their proper order of importance.
As the father of a teenage daughter, I can say with certainty that #1 and #2 are tied. :)
I don’t think it’s any accident that it is Christian pressure groups who are pushing these abstinence-pledge programs. With this study providing evidence that the pledges have practically zero effect on behavior, leaving the teens no more or less likely to have sex, and no more or less likely to use prophylactics when they do (the “second part of the story” above), this is an early lesson to our young people that what’s demanded of them is genuflection to dogma and rote recitation of creeds.
What Christianism desires is greater religiosity, not improvement in the moral character of actual people. The words and the values are merely tools: clubs to be smashed over the heads of “pluralists”, shackles to ensure adherence to an orthodoxy, and levers by which one can get oneself into power.
From Ted Haggard, William Bennett and Ralph Reed to Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove, we’ve seen consistently that what matters to Christians who politicize their faith isn’t anyone’s immortal salvation, let alone decent conduct. It’s pure self-aggrandizement.
Even Objectivists have more integrity.
That’s similar to one of the arguments put forth by Daniel Dennett in “Breaking the Spell.” Profession of faith seems to be at least as important as actual faith.
Someday I’d like to see Americans non-chalantly using prophylatic dispensers placed on busy street corners along side bus ticket dispensers as is the case in Berlin and Paris. Then we’ll know we have broken the hold of the RW social-religious thinkers. I’ve always been suspicious of public funding of abstinence only programs. I would suggest it’s just a guise to use up tax money,so none of it can to so-called ‘liberal’ programs.Waste is OK if it goes into an approved trash can,and keeps enemy programs unfunded..signed.. very cynical former conservative and continuing faithful church goer.
There are huge pro-secularism demonstrations today in Ankara,Turkey ,estimated over a million.Turks are alarmed by possibity of religious take-over after next Presidential election,where the Islamic candidate is favored to win.Elected democratically followed by rule by Islamic law is the fear and has been a pattern.We Americans simply may not realize how important secularism is to assure democratic constitutional government.Secular government is sworn to serve every faction whereas religion will favor their own,sometimes with a very narrow agenda.
Lou,
Thanks for consistently reminding me that my beef is with only a subset of self-described Christians, and not with the whole lot. I’d break bread with you anytime. (Unlike some of the folks on this blog who have damned you to Hell for your views on Indiana’s time zone, heh.)
Well, one bright spot to all of this is that the pledgees don’t seem to be any worse off than the non-pledgees. One of my fears wrt abstinence education and abstinence pledges was that when the students decided that they *did* want to have sex they would be ill prepared to do it in a responsible manner.
Hey Branden: I like Lou and agree with him most of the time. I just think he’s dead wrong about DST. :)