Teens, education, and sex
| By lookatthefacts - Oct 28th, 2005 at 3:04 am EDT |
Facts: Comprehensive Sex Education has been taught in the majority of public schools in WA. for at least 20 years. Teens are having sex. STI's/STD's are on the rise. In WA. state teenage pregnancy has slightly decreased, while abortion has slightly increased. Abstinence-only education has been taught in WA. for about 10 years. Blacks are disproportionately affected by STI's.
Problem: Despite a slight decrease in teen pregnancy it's still extremely high at around 12,000 a year in WA. Teens are not using condoms...they are not having safe sex...despite two decades of education telling them all about it.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Sex Education implemented by the majority of schools is a failure. Legislation that attempts to oust Abstinence-only education is misguided and a waste of time and money.
Thoughts:
I'm amazed at peoples criticism of abstinence ed and it's effectiveness over the past few years; while remaining silent or most likely ignorant of the fact that comprehensive sex ed has been taught in the majority of public schools here in WA. for over 20 years, and has completely failed.
One only need look at the numbers from the Dept. of Health regarding STD's to verify this. Although a number of Seattle schools have exclusively taught comprehensive sex ed STD's have continued to increase in the area year after year with no sign of slowing down. Slight decreases in teenage pregnancy that get brought up are simply the result of teens engaging in other forms of sexual expression such as anal/oral sex.
The fact is all over the US schools that have taught comp. sex. ed. have had no results. Even in a recent report done by Europe in 2003 indicates that despite decades of comp. sex. ed. an alarming rate of students were not using condoms and as a result STD's (STI's) such as Chlamydia, Herpes, HPV and HIV were on the rise.
Why continue to implement something that doesn't work?
I'm not saying abstinence-only educ. is the answer. I'm saying open your eyes and look at the facts. Schools will never be effective in getting teens to do the right thing when it comes to sex.
This is about wanting the best for teens. I don't think abstinence-only or comp. sex. ed is the answer. I think if both can be presented at separate times would be the best solution. Even with that I don't think anything will change. The issue is much larger than education. So much divorce, so many broken families, an abundance of sexual messages being tossed at teens; they want to feel loved, feel safe...education won't give them those things.
Students know about condoms, they know were to get them, they know how to use them, and if they don't there are instructions on the box.
Almost a year ago I developed a friendship with two teenage guys who were seniors in high school. Both of them were sexually active and I was interested to hear from them what they thought about some things. One of the students had slept with over 10 girls. I asked him if he used a condom and he said only a few times...I asked why not all the time? Don't you know the stats about STD's? He said the reason for not wearing a condom was because it just didn't feel the same...it wasn't as good.
It's no surprise teens chose what feels best especially when the consequences aren't necessarily immediate.
Just to stir things up some more I found a recent book called "Soul Searching" by Christian Smith fascinating. This book presents data from one of the most extensive youth surveys conducted in the US. The findings are, what I believe to be the obvious, that devoted religious teens are better off in areas of life compared to those who have no religion.
Despite some degradation of 'moral values' by fellow bloggers I submit that the US is not in a much dire situation due in large part to those teens who are devoted to their religions which have strong moral values. This is another entry for another day.
Problem: Despite a slight decrease in teen pregnancy it's still extremely high at around 12,000 a year in WA. Teens are not using condoms...they are not having safe sex...despite two decades of education telling them all about it.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Sex Education implemented by the majority of schools is a failure. Legislation that attempts to oust Abstinence-only education is misguided and a waste of time and money.
Thoughts:
I'm amazed at peoples criticism of abstinence ed and it's effectiveness over the past few years; while remaining silent or most likely ignorant of the fact that comprehensive sex ed has been taught in the majority of public schools here in WA. for over 20 years, and has completely failed.
One only need look at the numbers from the Dept. of Health regarding STD's to verify this. Although a number of Seattle schools have exclusively taught comprehensive sex ed STD's have continued to increase in the area year after year with no sign of slowing down. Slight decreases in teenage pregnancy that get brought up are simply the result of teens engaging in other forms of sexual expression such as anal/oral sex.
The fact is all over the US schools that have taught comp. sex. ed. have had no results. Even in a recent report done by Europe in 2003 indicates that despite decades of comp. sex. ed. an alarming rate of students were not using condoms and as a result STD's (STI's) such as Chlamydia, Herpes, HPV and HIV were on the rise.
Why continue to implement something that doesn't work?
I'm not saying abstinence-only educ. is the answer. I'm saying open your eyes and look at the facts. Schools will never be effective in getting teens to do the right thing when it comes to sex.
This is about wanting the best for teens. I don't think abstinence-only or comp. sex. ed is the answer. I think if both can be presented at separate times would be the best solution. Even with that I don't think anything will change. The issue is much larger than education. So much divorce, so many broken families, an abundance of sexual messages being tossed at teens; they want to feel loved, feel safe...education won't give them those things.
Students know about condoms, they know were to get them, they know how to use them, and if they don't there are instructions on the box.
Almost a year ago I developed a friendship with two teenage guys who were seniors in high school. Both of them were sexually active and I was interested to hear from them what they thought about some things. One of the students had slept with over 10 girls. I asked him if he used a condom and he said only a few times...I asked why not all the time? Don't you know the stats about STD's? He said the reason for not wearing a condom was because it just didn't feel the same...it wasn't as good.
It's no surprise teens chose what feels best especially when the consequences aren't necessarily immediate.
Just to stir things up some more I found a recent book called "Soul Searching" by Christian Smith fascinating. This book presents data from one of the most extensive youth surveys conducted in the US. The findings are, what I believe to be the obvious, that devoted religious teens are better off in areas of life compared to those who have no religion.
Despite some degradation of 'moral values' by fellow bloggers I submit that the US is not in a much dire situation due in large part to those teens who are devoted to their religions which have strong moral values. This is another entry for another day.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
You have a case study here that might support the claim "comprehensive sexual education has not succeeded in Washington," but you're far from being able to make that claim nationwide.
Plus, there's no evidence here that abstinence-only education works any better, or even as well. You need to compare multiple case studies to make the claim that comp. sex ed is ineffective on a broad scale. Teen pregnancy and STD rates comparing, let's say, Washington to Georgia, would be more effective and, I daresay, more illuminating.
You also leave out some key info: are condoms made available to teens (in GA, where I went through high school, condom access is pretty restricted, even at drugstores)? Access is not discussed in your piece.
And considering that you've read the Smith piece, let me ask you: how is it possible for you to claim that religion and not conditioning are the cause of lower (reported!) sexual activity among church members? Smith goes out of his way to point out that these teens for the most part know absolutely nothing about their faith, and interpret God as whatever best fits their personal needs:
Link
And never unquestioningly trust a poll without a margin of error--just as a basic rule.
I don't see the evidence yet for your claims. My experience was almost the diametric opposite of what you report: I was at an overcrowded, working-class high school in Smyrna, GA where sex ed was a joke, mixing the least useful parts of a comprehensive course with pounding the abstinence message into kids' heads. Condoms were not available, nor were we propoerly instructed in their use. As to their effectiveness, NOTHING except what the churchgoing children (including our student government president) told their friends, including that condoms don't prevent HIV or other stds. And they were still just as likely to get their freak on as the next guy.
This is my experience, we have your experience, find some more data and see if the arguments hold. But, as it is, this post isn't making the case.
any better? If abstinence and safe-sex are both taught in comprehensive programs, then does splitting them up temporally make that much of a difference? Consider drug education: we indoctrinate young kids, then start providing actual education much later on which undercuts the credibility of the initial indoctrination (or, in other words, at a certain point people just believe what they want to believe).
I look forward to your later entry promised at the bottom, especially as it seems to contradict the Christian Smith study's findings. Glad to have you here!
I believe there is more than enough evidence to clearly show that comprehensive sex education has not succeeded nationwide. Having said that I do not believe that abstinence-only education will necessarily be any different. However, I find it ironic that those who criticize abstinence-only say nothing regarding over 20 years of comp. sex ed and its failure to reduce STI's and teenage pregnancy.
I don't understand your logic. If comp. sex ed. failed in one of the most liberal city's in the US why do you think it would work somewhere else? My point in saying liberal is students ability to get condoms and contraceptives for free is extremely easy and nonchalant.
Given the logic some purport that if only there was more education, more acceptance, more accessibility, more willingness to talk about it, more medically accurate information then things wouldn't be as bad as they are. Seattle is all of these and still things are bad.
In 2001 King County, which is Seattle for the most part, had 244 cases per 100,000 whereas all of WA. only had 228 per 100,000. If the theory purported by those who support comp. sex ed. was accurate then they shouldn't have the highest rates of Chlamydia per 100,000. In 2003 this increased to 290.5 placing them in the top ten out of 39 counties.
I'm not sure how many students graduate every year from Seattle schools but it seems to me, given they've been teaching sex ed for 20 years, that it would be a large enough test group to get a good idea about what does and does not work.
Nationwide only 12% of the schools have been teaching abstinence-only and this for only the past 10 years. From 1988 to 1995 Chlamydia went from 157,807 to 478,577. Abstinence-only was just getting started during this time. The issue is not about education, availability of contraceptives or condoms. It's much more complex than this.
I've got to go now. I'll respond to the rest later...thanks for your response...they've been thought provoking.
You think only liberals have sex? Seriously, you think Conservative-raised kids are less likely to get their freak on? Maybe they're less likely to admit it, but you certainly need to put meat on that bare-bones argument.
Teen pregnancy nationwide is at an all-time low. Link Look at the facts, lookatthefacts! Your claim that sex ed isn't reducing teen pregnancy is the exact opposite of what I've linked to, so I hope you've got something to support your claim.
Your Chlamydia statistics are intriguing, but you left out one VERY important piece of data: straight from the CDC's 1993 report on STDs nationwide
And here's 1998's quote: The effectiveness of large-scale screening programs in reducing chlamydia prevalence has been
well documented in areas where this intervention has been in place for several years6,7. In 1998,
chlamydia test positivity in family planning clinics increased in nine of ten regions compared with
1997 (Figure 4). However, these reported increases are most likely due to changes in laboratory test
method and associated increases in test sensitivity8; expansion of screening programs to populations
with higher prevalence of disease may have also contributed to these increases. Link
If you ignore the part where the CDC explains that the increase is an increase in reporting (ironically due in no small part to the fact that people learn about these things nationwide and have begun studying them more extensively since the Sexual Revolution) and not an increase in actual infection, then MAYBE you've got a case. But that's a lot of ignorin' we'd have to do.
First I explained what it is that I meant by using the word 'liberal' in the following sentence.
"My point in saying liberal is students ability to get condoms and contraceptives for free is extremely easy and nonchalant." Next time I'll chose a more appropriate word.
I am fully aware of the fact that teens from all walks of life are having sex.
However, the National Survey of Youth and Religion, 2002-3 clearly shows that teens ages 13-17 who are 'devoted' to religious ideal types are less than half as likely to engage in the various forms of sexual expressions.
Yes all teens are having sex but it is clear there is a significant difference in the amount of sexual expression among the devoted and regulars as opposed to those who are sporadic or disengaged.
I believe you missed the point of my argument.
The argument I was making was this:
Proponents of comp. sex ed. say that things wouldn't be so bad if there was more education, more acceptance, more accessibility, more willingness to talk about it, and more medically accurate information. Their solution is more education.
For 20 years Seattle schools have been teaching comp. sex ed. Seattle has an abundance of resources available for students to receive free contraceptives, free condoms, safe environment to talk about sexual issues, and medical info for the various sexual preferences. If education and resources was the solution then Seattle would be the role-model for all schools to follow. The facts however, indicate otherwise.
You said, "Teen pregnancy nationwide is at an all-time low." This is one of the most common fallacies...you mentioned Post hoc ergo propter hoc which I believe applies here. The proof you committed this fallacy is you fail to take into consideration teens have been engaging in other forms of sexual expression such as anal and oral sex; which of course would lower teen pregnancy. The reason we know they're still having sex and not using protection are the increased rates of STI's.
Your point is well taken...the ability to detect STI's has become better over time. However, there are some things you overlooked which prove I've committed no fallacy.
First, "since 1988, Washington has participated in chlamydia screening and prevalence monitoring activities through the Infertility Prevention Project (IPP)." Although screening has become easier it is assumed by those putting together the reports "that the number of cases that would fall into these categories is small and normally distributed, thus not significantly impacting the calculated STD rates." (Washington State Dept. of Health 2003 Incident rates for gonorrhea and chlamydia)
Second, despite "increased screening, recognition of asymptomatic infection (mainly in women), and improved reporting capacity." the CDC estimates there are over 2.8 million new cases of Chlamydia a year.
Conclusion: I concede that if I was to use the CDC report for Chlamydia I would be committing a fallacy. However, after looking at the Washington State Surveillance Report for 2003 it's clear that the increase of Chlamydia cases is based upon trends in disease incidence. Washington state has been actively reporting since 1988. Bottome line Comp. Sex Ed. is not making any significant
impact.
The article you link to says a bunch of stuff but misses some important items. What about oral and anal sex? The recent CDC Sept. 15, 2005 report regarding sexual behaviour and selected health measures, 2002, indicates 40% of 15-17 year old males had received oral sex and 8.1% had had anal sex with a female. The writer implies more teens are using condoms because of the fear of STD's yet he mentions nothing of current STD's rates among young people.
The article was good...interesting his positive mention of abstinence-only programs.
That was you.
That's the article I linked.
The two statements do not jibe.
I understood your usage of "liberal," except I haven't seen anything to make me believe that Seattle, Washington has any more lenient condom access than Smyrna, Georgia. I don't know what the policies are, and until it's shown that condom access is less restrictive than average, I have to assume that they're about what it was like in the Atlanta area when I was attending school (I do know that groups such as Brother to Brother find access difficult enough to warrant special programs for distribution in some areas of King County, though).
As to the Nat'l Survey,
you'll note that while the results you've highlighted are for teens who self-identify as "'devoted' to religious ideals" but also had, in the one-on-one interviews conducted in the same study, little to no knowledge of the tenets of their faith. So we're talking about a societal and not a theological divide: it may affect reporting of sexual activity. It would certainly affect what is considered taboo: I can't verify the anecdotal evidence presented was collected appropriately, and I don't have a margin of error for the other polling results. I'm afraid that does affect how much weight I can give the results considering personal biases from life experience (I've dated a lot of churchgoing girls for a night or two, I'm chauvenistically sad to admit).
When someone asked a famous astronomer how our ancestors could have been so stupid as to think the sun was going around the earth, he replied, "Yeah, but I wonder what it would have looked like if the sun had been." When you look at the increased numbers, do you consider the increased reporting that accompanied increased education? We see what we know to look for. If people know what to look for symptomatically, they're more likely to seek help and report infection. The rates would naturally be expected to increase because of increases in education, which is the point the CDC is making. But even granting your point, what you're saying is that there are a lot of new cases per year nationally, not mentioning where those new cases are mostly located.
Fortunately, I found a map for you. Link This covers 1988-2000, and you'll note that reported new instances of infection are highest in the Southern regions, they are lowest in the Pacific Northwest (with its comprehensive sex ed) and New England (ditto).
Here's the CDC interpretation of the findings:
But the kicker is in their appendix:
That seems to counter the Washington State public health citation, in the specific study under question. Plus, anyone else notice that even New York only began widespread screening and reporting five years ago? None of this data is going to possibly be conclusive enough at this early stage to say what the impact of sexual education is going to be because of one method or another--education involves a twenty-year timeline if you want to be able to actually study its effects in certain areas.
But in any event, I don't have a reason yet to think that as goes Seattle, so goes the nation. We need more cases in the analysis to make conclusive statements about what's happening nationwide, and at least some of those cases need to be non-urban for a reasonable comparison.
This is disturbingly fun, I must say.
If you know of a study that can attribute lower teen pregnancy to teens saying no and contraceptives I'll be interested to see it.
Have you ever been to Seattle? A teen can walk into any of the 20+ Planned Parenthood clinics and get a year supply of birth control free as well as condoms.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'lenient'? It seems to me that being able to walk into just about any gas station, grocery store, bowling alley, nurses office at school and get a condom is pretty lenient.
Whatever you want to call it 'societal' or 'theological' the evidence is extremely clear that 'differences between more religious and less religious teenagers in the United States are actually significant and consistent across every outcome measure examined: risk behaviors, quality of family and adult relationships, moral reasoning and behavior, community participation, media consumption, sexual activity, and emotional well-being." (pg. 218-19 of Soul Searching by Christian Smith with Melinda Denton).
I've worked with teens for over 8 years as a volunteer in a youth ministry and almost 4 years as a youth pastor and I was not surprised by the fact that a large group of religious teens have lost touch or are unable to articulate, foundational beliefs. However, despite this inability I've seen that their faith has had an amazing impact in their life. To know there is a God, He has a plan for your life, and has some guidelines for you to try your best to live by is no small accomplishment for a teen.
Lastly this is a quote taken from a PBS interview with Dr. Joseph McIlhaney of the Medical Institute of Sexual Health. You can read the article in it's entirety at Link
"...comprehensive sex-ed programs, are not among the [programs] that have ever lowered HIV rates, STD rates or non-marital pregnancy rates — except for one program in New York (), which did it by becoming basically mothers to the girls in the program there. This program was able to get the girls in to get their Depro-Provera shots every three months. That's the only program that's lowered pregnancy rates in the country that's based on a comprehensive approach, the kind of thing that [Shelby's] advocating.
So what we say and what I believe is that if that's so and those are the programs that have had the majority of the money, the best teachers, the best curriculum writers, the best researchers for years, is that they basically have all failed. In fact, most of them haven't even measured the pregnancy rates and STD rates."
If you know of a study that can attribute lower teen pregnancy to teens saying no and contraceptives I'll be interested to see it.
Have you ever been to Seattle? A teen can walk into any of the 20+ Planned Parenthood clinics and get a year supply of birth control free as well as condoms.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'lenient'? It seems to me that being able to walk into just about any gas station, grocery store, bowling alley, nurses office at school and get a condom is pretty lenient.
Whatever you want to call it 'societal' or 'theological' the evidence is extremely clear that 'differences between more religious and less religious teenagers in the United States are actually significant and consistent across every outcome measure examined: risk behaviors, quality of family and adult relationships, moral reasoning and behavior, community participation, media consumption, sexual activity, and emotional well-being." (pg. 218-19 of Soul Searching by Christian Smith with Melinda Denton).
I've worked with teens for over 8 years as a volunteer in a youth ministry and almost 4 years as a youth pastor and I was not surprised by the fact that a large group of religious teens have lost touch or are unable to articulate, foundational beliefs. However, despite this inability I've seen that their faith has had an amazing impact in their life. To know there is a God, He has a plan for your life, and has some guidelines for you to try your best to live by is no small accomplishment for a teen.
Lastly this is a quote taken from a PBS interview with Dr. Joseph McIlhaney of the Medical Institute of Sexual Health. You can read the article in it's entirety at Link
"...comprehensive sex-ed programs, are not among the [programs] that have ever lowered HIV rates, STD rates or non-marital pregnancy rates — except for one program in New York (), which did it by becoming basically mothers to the girls in the program there. This program was able to get the girls in to get their Depro-Provera shots every three months. That's the only program that's lowered pregnancy rates in the country that's based on a comprehensive approach, the kind of thing that [Shelby's] advocating.
So what we say and what I believe is that if that's so and those are the programs that have had the majority of the money, the best teachers, the best curriculum writers, the best researchers for years, is that they basically have all failed. In fact, most of them haven't even measured the pregnancy rates and STD rates."
Now, kids with a record of church attendance are likely to have this sort of parental involvement. This suggests that, if we want to encourage kids to be more responsible in their sexual decision-making, we shouldn't focus our efforts on church attendance but on home life (a point on which I think you and Joe probably see eye-to-eye).
From that same PBS piece's "Facts & Stats" section Link, I learned that there are not only studies that support the teaching of proper contraception use, but that there's not nearly enough evidence to declare comp. sex ed a failure, and certainly not enough to declare abstinence-only or even abstinence-based programs successful:
Note that the section I just quoted starts out by mentioning the growth in abstinence-only funding. I bring that up because, if we want to be clear about sources, Dr. McIlheney's "Medical Institute for Sexual Health" has a huge incentive to see positive mentions of abstinence-only programs, as it receives mucho dinero for designing materials for those programs:
As long as those federal standards exist, the Medical Institute has a source of revenue (here's their page of teen-targetted materials for sale: Link ). They may be a non-profit organization, but about 32% ($588,544) of their 2003 income was from Federal dollars. So I have to take their director with a grain of salt.
Even so, the only success story THEY trumpet for abstinence-only ed. is in Uganda's HIV rates--and that too is a highly dubious claim to make in favor of abstinence-only, as rates may be higher than reported and since the government was actively encouraging condom use in the same program (called ABC--Abstinence, Be faithful, always wear a Condom outside marriage). See Link for some of the reasons why Uganda doesn't count as an abstinence-only success story. What Uganda DOES show is that when programs are community-directed, comprehensive (in the literal meaning, not the one ascribed to it by McIlheney in the piece) and widespread, as opposed to simply being thrown into a school curriculum, they are more likely to succeed. That model could account for the presumed lower/later incidences of sexual activity in churchgoing teens, as well as Uganda's successes.
Correlation does not equal causality in ANY statistical analysis, so a direct link can never really be shown. However, to see a correlation, check out the differences in teen pregnancy rates between the early nineties and around the turn of the century: In 1991 a survey later published in the journal Public Health Reports indicated 46% of sexually-active teens aged 15-19 reported condom usage; that rose to 63% in 2003's study, with results reported in the Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries. Link During this period, teen pregnancy fell from 117 per 1000 females 15-19 in 1990, to 84 per 1000 females aged 15-19 in 2000. Link That's a pretty interesting correlation.
As a youth pastor (I myself was the Chaplain's Aide in my Scout troop--first one in troop history to be given the post two years in a row, I might add), I'm certain that you've seen faith's transformative power. However, if those transformed by faith have no sense of the theological underpinnings of that faith, then I have to conclude that the majority of the transformative power comes from the societal conditioning provided by the structures of the church. That doesn't mean I consider faith to be less important in someone's life--it would be a little hypocritical of me, seeing as how I have my Jerusalem Bible sitting next to me at present time--merely that we should consider the structural impact of organized religion and not simply ascribe any changes in behavior to "faith" in general. I believe in God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, but I still enjoy sexual activity on as regular a basis as I can get--that suggests to me that one's faith is not the defining characteristic of one's sexual behavior, so analyzing the difference between "more religious" and "less religious" teens should include an appreciation for the structural factors at play (and here I am channelling Theda Skocpol, and she's still alive!).
"Ironically, “Emerging Answers” includes the following statement regarding “Independent External Evaluators”:
Evaluations of impact should ideally be conducted by independent third parties who do not have a direct stake in the results of the evaluation. People who evaluate their own programs are not dishonest, but they sometimes strongly believe in the efficacy of their programs and spend greater effort searching for elusive positive results rather than elusive negative results. Thus, their results may be biased.
“Emerging Answers” lists two evaluations for Kirby’s own “Reducing the Risk” program, and, despite the above-stated caution, Kirby led the first evaluation of his program in 1991.7... Furthermore, when that study appeared in the journal Family Planning Perspectives, it was not disclosed there that Kirby had developed the program he had evaluated. "
Give me the money...
"The Foreword in “Emerging Answers” includes this disclaimer:
Dr. Kirby thought it was important to make clear that ETR Associates, a nonprofit organization that provides educational resources, training, and research in health promotion, developed the Reducing the Risk and Safer Choices curricula, two of the sex and HIV education programs this review concludes have the strongest evidence of effectiveness. ETR Associates continues to market these curricula (emphasis added).2
(Note: When the peer-reviewed journal Family Planning Perspectives published Kirby’s evaluation of his own Reducing the Risk program in 1991, it did not disclose the potential conflict of interest—that is, that Kirby had developed the program.3 In fact, this disclaimer in “Emerging Answers” is the first statement we have found that admits even the possibility of Kirby’s conflict of interest.) Kirby’s ETR Associates continues to market these curricula that Kirby’s report judges to be among the very few in the entire country proven to be effective. In addition, ETR also markets “Becoming a Responsible Teen,” one of the other programs Kirby judged to be effective. That means ETR has a major financial stake in 37 percent of the programs Kirby’s report found to be effective. Does that sound like a conflict of interest to you? It does to Massachusetts physician John Diggs. “His [Kirby’s] conclusions smack of self-interest,” Dr. Diggs said."
Link
Besides, didn't you yourself quote Kirby discussing the programs he designed as unsuccessful? I don't think it's right of you to deputize someone into your argument and then try to undercut his credibility on the very point you tried to make ;)
Further, if you're trying to show someone's analysis is biased and therefore shouldn't be accepted, it's probably not a good idea to source Focus on the Family....
Heh. I probably would have, if I were willing to wade into the numbers with him. :) To your credit, you're often willing to do that when I'm not.
In this case, I think even moreso than his being wrong on the numbers, the issue is he's wrong on the very principles of the thing. His premise runs contrary to the public good.
That said: Abstinence is not a moral value!
It is a religious value, sure, and if it works for you as a personal value, more power to you.
But it is not a societal moral value, in the sense that "Do not murder" or "Do not steal" is.
Being responsible about your sexual decisions is a moral value, just as responsibility in all your affairs is a moral value.
And since abstinence really isn't all that fun, it makes good rational sense to pursue sexual pleasure.
Doing so in a responsible manner is a moral value.
Frankly, I don't think you're a conservative on this issue -- the real conservatives whom I know support the idea that government can't fix everyone's problems and therefore it's best to give people the tools to make good choices, and if they can't handle them, they need to take responsibility for that.
That's not exactly what I believe, necessarily, but it's an accurate statement of a conservative philosophy.
You, on the other hand, are advocating the nanny-state, big-government solution of government preaching abstinence because "people can't handle the facts responsibly", as opposed to putting the facts and tools out there (safe sex education, free condoms) and giving people the opportunity and freedom to use those tools responsibly, with personal responsibility for the results.
People having good, productive lives that aren't sidetracked by STD's and pregnancy is good.
But for most people, having a good life also involves sex. Lots and lots and lots of sex. This is because, wait for it...
...keep on waiting...
...almost there..
...a bit more...
...coming up...
...just a tad more...
...sex is fun!
The central problem here is coordinating the distribution and production of a good -- how do we get sex to the people without getting them diseased or pregnant!
Taken in that light, the government actively intervening to make people feel bad about sex or unreasonably shun them away from it (And yes, abstinence education is unreasonably shunning them so) is against the public good.
I think this is a fair notion of morality, in line with both the most important conservative and classically liberal principles.
Simple get them to abstain until marriage.
Also, I'd like to clear something up...people who abstain until marriage have plenty of sex...once again there seems to be a lot of ignorance regarding abstinence.
Interesting that some opponents of abstinence-only really don't know what it is...sad.
You wrote, "...Taken in that light, the government actively intervening to make people feel bad about sex or unreasonably shun them away from it (And yes, abstinence education is unreasonably shunning them so) is against the public good."
Your logic is absurd. First of all what proof do you have that 'the government' is making teens feel bad about....etc...
And why is abstinence education unreasonable? Have you ever heard an abstinence speaker?
What is unreasonable is the fact that for 20 years comp. sex ed. has failed and yet the government still allows it to be taught...I don't care if it's comp. sex ed. or abstinence-only if its been taught for 20 years and has no significant results why are we still teaching it.
Look, pal, I'm in a long-term relationship. 3 years in, and I think I have it pretty good compared to my friends. And I'd still say I'm not nearly laid enough.
It's even worse for married couples. The only reason the general lack of sex found in marriage is tolerable when you're married is that you're already sexed out from sowing your wild oats when you're young.
Not that I've been doing that (I'm a good boyfriend!), but everyone else should not have to endure my private, un-sexed hell. :)
Your plan is like giving people a drop of water to survive when they need a whole glass of it.
Please revise your plan to include more sex, kthx.
Based upon what you wrote it seems to me you contradict yourself in that abstinence is a matter of 'being responsible about your sexual decisions.'
No doubt sex is fun, it's good...I just believe that sexual expression is most enjoyable and beneficial to both partners in the context of marriage. I'm thinking long-term...I don't need sex to have fun...yes I'm a sexual being but I'm not an animal.
What happens when your personal responsibility costs me money? It is no longer is just impacting you.
I don't advocate anything...I simply believe before legislation is passed that attempts to oust abstinence-only ed. people should look at the facts as I've presented plenty of.
Don't waste tax payers money on comp. sex ed. programs that have had 20 years to prove themselves and have not done so.
Teens have the facts a lot of them however aren't acting responsibly.
What exactly do you consider to be a responsible sexual decision? A teen having multiple partners, a guy not wearing a condom w/ his new sex partner even though he has an STI, raping a girl because it feels good...so relativistic
If you think a public school course taught once every few years for a couple of days is going to have any impact on these, no matter what the course material is I think you're dreaming. These are parenting issues, not educational ones. Please try not to conflate the two.
Wrong. That's only true if abstinence is ultimately what you want, given full knowledge.
Otherwise, you're relying on information asymmetries (in plain english, 'keeping kids in the dark') to coerce the kids at the margins to make a choice they otherwise wouldn't have.
Knowledge is a prerequisite to responsibility.
The number of kids who, knowing all there is to know, select abstinence until marriage as their first choice is really quite small.
Because, as noted earlier, sexual activity is fun.
Okay, so I'm in my late 20's and still choosing abstinence. I am fully aware of what I'm chosing, it's what I want (until I get married of course) and I know all the info I need to know. This is a moral value.
You wrote, "The number of kids who, knowing all there is to know, select abstinence until marriage as their first choice is really quite small."
Okay so once again it is a moral value.
Can you explain what exactly is "knowing all there is to know."
Using your logic I could easily say, the number of kids who, knowing all there is to know, select having sex and using a condom or contraceptive as their first choice is really quite small.
Where's the facts to back up your statement?
Your right sexual activity is fun and I look forward to not having to explain to my wife the history of my sex life and how I received an STI such as Herpes which, even with a condom, can be transmitted and received. (About 1 in 9 people who are sexually active will get Herpes)
Abma JC, Sonenstein FL. Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Practices among Teenagers in the United States, 1988 and 1995. [Vital & Health Statistics, series 23, no. 21] Hyattsville, MD: NCHS, 2001.
Link Whether they know all there is to know or not is pretty tough to say, but according to
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Safer Sex, Condoms, and "The Pill": A Series of National Surveys of Teens about Sex. Menlo Park, CA: The Foundation, 2000. Link
kids are becoming more educated every year and, as a result, are both waiting longer to initiate sexual activity AND using condoms and contraception at a much higher rate that 15 years ago.
First off, assuming the teens involved are mentally balanced, prepared, certified disease-free, and aware of their choices...
...Why just multiple partners?
Why not multiple partners at the same time?
They make videos about that sort of thing, you know.
...Anyways, I think it's telling about the kind of mindset you're coming from that you equate consentual and nonconsentual behavior (your second and third examples).
You may be a relativist in that regard, but I've never been a moral relativist and won't be acquiescing to your equation of behaviors on different sides of that crucial line.
that's on a slightly different topic (public policing of sex, and specifically of queer sex) but the main point is in that second paragraph: the people who are on the front lines keeping sti's from spreading have not only abandoned abstinence ed (in, oh, the early '90s or so) but even pushing condoms in every case. because, well, sometimes people want to have unprotected sex. and there are still things you can do to reduce the risk, and those things are still important and worthwhile to know. telling everyone not to have sex not only doesn't equip them when they do decide to have sex, as the vast majority of teens eventually decide, but doesn't give them any variations in how they might go about it, since the only type of safer sex is no sex. a bad strategy all around.
If teens want to know all the facts then their parents should teach them not the schools. How absurd that we should have the government baby-sit our kids and tell them what is okay.
For those that want their kids to know all the sexual stuff...well first off have some and tell them everything you think they should know.
Procreation and sex are de-linked these days. That's the whole point.
Why does giving people more information make them more likely to have sex?
Let's face it: kids who want to have sex aren't going to think, "oh, if only they'd taught me about condoms in health class! oh well, guess i'll wait til marriage". Sadly, they're still going to do the things they do, but without scientifically backed knowledge regarding protection.
As you put it eloquently (but i'm too lazy to scroll to blockquote), it's a bigger societal problem. If we have abstinence only sex ed in schools, but sex is still portrayed as kick ass in the media that teens are exposed to, there's still going to be a drive to have sex (and yes, superduperficial, the hormones are there too :) ). It seems to me that comprehensive sex ed simply gives them more info about how to reduce the risk of STIs and pregnancy.
It teens are really attached to their religious beliefs, as you've stated, will showing them how to put a condom on shake that? What about telling them where to get the pill? Are people really so lightly attached to their religion that basic health information will change their beliefs?
From my knowledge, even comprehensive sex ed says "hey, the only way to entirely prevent yucky stuff is abstinence".
One more question, which I guess should be in another comment, but whatever - Why do we feel the need to push marriage? Why is marriage inherently different than a long term committed relationship? Why do I need that piece of paper saying that I'm committed to my partner?
Sadly, teens are going to do what they do regardless of what they're taught, as far as Washington is concerned. Provide all the education and free condoms you want, teens in King County aren't using them. (Of course I believe Seattle is an ample test group to make larger claims but I'll refrain as JR has made some good points, although I disagree. Better to be cautious than liberal with the facts)
What I don't get is people think that the magic formula is comp. sex ed.
Do you think we have a problem with teens and STI's?
Do you think that having more comp. sex ed. will make things better? How much better?
There is a serious problem right now in WA., regarding teen pregnancy, and STI's, as many of the politicians in Olympia have discovered these past few years. Of course the increase of STI's among the homosexual population is a whole other issue.
Why not include both comp. sex ed. and abstinence-only ed in the schools? There are several schools that actually do this here in WA. That way everyone's happy. I personally think the issue is much more complex than taking a few days of education to talk about sex...I don't care whether is comp. sex ed. or abstinence-only the issue is much more complex.
No argument here, I agree sex ed give teens more info "about how to reduce the risk of STI's and pregnancy." Once again the problem is not about education.
That's what's so frustrating...the teens have been educated; for 20 years they've heard it. Schools want to keeping teaching it go for it. Here's the thing though---don't slam abstinence-only or try to pass legislation under this absurd premise that comp. sex ed. has made a difference ...here in Seattle it hasn't...maybe else where but not here.
My discussion regarding this topic is not about which is better comp. sex ed. or abstinence-only...both have flaws which is why I believe the best thing would be to allow both in the schools with an opt-in program. Instead of having to opt-out of a sex class parents have to opt students in. Give parents the choice.
Yes, teens may be attached to general religious principles but the 'devoted' I referred to earlier is a small group of teens, which is no surprise.
I have said nothing with regards to the material presented in comp. sex ed. Your making assumptions about my position. My point is simply comp. sex ed., for 20 years, has done little to nothing to get teens to use a condom. Tell them about condoms all you want...pass them out...
I've talked to teen guys and they've made abundantly clear they didn't like the feel of wearing a condom and were willing to take a risk...especially since some of them lie about how many partners they've had.
I don't feel the need to push marriage...I feel the need to present the facts. I understand that people especially those who aren't religious or who aren't married may get somewhat frustrated but they're the facts. The fact is people who are married have lower rates of domestic abuse, alcoholism, suicide, and break-ups than those who live together/cohabitate.
People who live together before marriage are twice as likely to get a divorce than those who don't.
I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't be able to live together with someone...I'm saying study's clearly show it's not the healthiest for families, individuals or society. Of course there are people who can live together and have no problems and of course there are plenty of married couples with serious issues...overall however marriage is the best.
But all that aside, your initial premise is that we've had twenty years of comprehensive sex ed and it hasn't improved the statistics. I don't see the evidence to support that claim--what you have posted are anecdotes that run counter to scientific findings:
Compare that to
Lastly this is a quote taken from a PBS interview with Dr. Joseph McIlhaney of the Medical Institute of Sexual Health. You can read the article in it's entirety at Link
"...comprehensive sex-ed programs, are not among the [programs] that have ever lowered HIV rates, STD rates or non-marital pregnancy rates — except for one program in New York (), which did it by becoming basically mothers to the girls in the program there. This program was able to get the girls in to get their Depro-Provera shots every three months. That's the only program that's lowered pregnancy rates in the country that's based on a comprehensive approach, the kind of thing that [Shelby's] advocating.
So what we say and what I believe is that if that's so and those are the programs that have had the majority of the money, the best teachers, the best curriculum writers, the best researchers for years, is that they basically have all failed. In fact, most of them haven't even measured the pregnancy rates and STD rates."
He was asked, "Over the course of your career, what long-term changes have you seen in sex education programs? What things remain constant?
Kirby: It's not easy to change adolescent behavior, and we've certainly made a lot of mistakes over the years. For the first 10, 12 years that I did work in this field, all the programs we evaluated failed to have an impact on behavior. They did other good things, but they didn't change behavior. It was not until roughly around 1988 or 1989 that we had a good study showing that a particular program was effective."
For the first 10-12 years nothing...it failed...sex ed didn't change a thing. So for 10-12 years we continued with an education program that didn't work. I find it amazing how critical people are about abstinence educ. and the lack of evidence when comp. sex ed failed for so many years.
I'm interested as to how many programs they found that were effective from 88 to 2000. I'll do some research and see if I can get anything.
(sarcasm) So that's not so bad only 10-12 years to find 'a particular' program that worked...I'm assuming this means they found only 1 program that was effective.
How do you explain the rise in teen oral sex in the aftermath of the publicity of Bill Clinton's taboos, then?
(This actually gives me an idea...)
I'll write it up sometime in the next few days, if I have time.
Exactly! Which is where personal responsibility comes in. So well stated! Oh, if I had a tail, I would wag it!
Good thing you've still got the horns, hooves and pitchfork, I guess.... :)