Dan Savage has a good take on what that much-talked-about so-called “abstinence only” study really says:
…the abstinence-only classes in the Jemmott study centered on people with an average age of 12 and that unlike the federally supported abstinence programs now in use, did not advocate abstinence until marriage. The classes also did not portray sex negatively or suggest that condoms are ineffective, and contained only medically accurate information.
I would have to know more details to say anything conclusive here, but I wonder if it’s really accurate to call the classes in the study “abstinence only” rather than “abstinence also”.
I anxiously await Ross Douthat’s column on this subject. If Chunky Reese Witherspoon had been an abstinence only girl, she might be Mrs. Ross Douthat right now!
MikeJ
CRW certainly dodged a bullet. A very small calibre bullet.
Sorry, I can’t resist the easy joke.
DougJ
@MikeJ:
Ha.
Midnight Marauder
No, you really don’t, and no, it’s not accurate at all. That’s one of the main reasons wingnuts championing these results this week has been so infuriating. People slap a headline on the article saying “Abstinence Education Actually Works?”, when in fact, the details included in the study (and subsequently, the article) document a radically different approach to teaching abstinence in sex education. It’s a pretty big deal that the folks running the study “did not portray sex negatively or suggest that condoms are ineffective.” That’s a primary flaw in the “abstinence only” model, which is the one conservatives mistakenly think was used in the study.
They’re completely and utterly wrong in their “vindication.” But then again, when has this ever stopped these clowns before?
Never. The answer we were looking for is never.
Zifnab25
The conservatives are going to use this study to sell “business as usual”. That’s the bottom line. No one has been suggesting that an abstinence message be left out of the ciriculum. The abstinence only folks are – by contrast – have absolutely been demanding the education system undermine all faith in contraception.
That’s the cause of a high teen pregnancy and STD rates among abstinence only teens.
Even if this study did prove abstinence education delayed teen sex, so what? At 21 or 25 or 30, when you are finally sexual after education inspired celebacy, how does it help spreading a lie about birth control ineffectiveness, condoms breaking, and Plan B killing baby Jesus?
Josh Huaco
I’m afraid he already has.
GeneJockey
IIRC, the other umpteen studies also show that AO reduces the number of teens having sex, compared to their peers who get proper Sex Ed. But those AO teens who DO engage in sex are less likely to take precautions, so their rates of STDs and pregnancies are at least as high as their peers.
So, I’d hazard a guess that in the minds of the Right, that’s ‘working’ – it reduces teen sexual activity, and makes the punishment of those who indulge that much more certain.
See, it’s a mistake to think they measure success the way rational people would – reduction in disease and unwanted pregnancy.
YellowJournalism
@GeneJockey: I’m curious as to how “sex” is defined in the study. Does it include oral/anal sex? It’s my understanding that while abstinence-only programs and promise ring programs may delay intercourse, the numbers of teens engaging in other risky sex acts goes up.
parksideq
This sounds like a Palin-ism, where she tries to explain the merits of remaining abstinent till marriage but quit halfway. Just like everything else she’s ever attempted, including remaining abstinent till marriage.
Seriously though, this hits close to home for me. My brother’s still in high school, and the fact that my mom is socially wingnutty (we were raised Seventh Day Adventist, but we’re better now) makes me tell him constantly about condoms and how to use them, seeing that she won’t. If he chooses not to have sex that’s cool, but if/when he does, it’s only fair that he knows how to minimize his risk of starting a pregnancy or catching an STD.
Sadly, there are millions of kids that aren’t being educated; abstinence-only sounds well and good till you realize that in the real world it’s not the only choice, and keeping that fact from kids doesn’t stop them from finding that out, often to their detriment.
MTiffany
Holy shit! Educating people with facts and sound science allows them to make better choices! Someone oughta tell people!
Gregory
I’ve been hearing that the so-called “liberal media” is reporting on this study as it’s being spun, not as what it actually shows. I don’t remember where I read that the modestly successful program — which really, after all, says that if you encourage students to think before having sex, they’re less likely to start as early, which is common sense enough — wouldn’t be eligible for federal “abstinence only” funding.
TooManyJens
@Gregory: The federal guidelines for “abstinence only” education do specify that the programs must teach that “Abstinence from sexual activity until marriage is the expected norm for all people” or something very like that. So no, this wouldn’t qualify. Even if it did, a significant number of abstinence-only proponents aren’t going to like the “no slut-shaming” aspect of this program, or the medically accurate information.
Edit: found the actual guidelines. Pretend that everything after this is a blockquote, because FYWP.
THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION
An eligible abstinence education program is one that:
A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;
C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
E) teaches that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;
G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances; and
H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.
daveX99
I know it’s unfair of me to presume, but I’d bet that rather than being “Mrs. Ross Douhat”, she would simply be his kid’s mom.
Henry
@GeneJockey: Exactly. No one (other than you) seems to mention that the success metric for this experiment was age of first sexual activity, rather than the things we actually care about (or at least ought to) – STDs and unwanted pregnancies. The whole focus of this has been whether it’s really “Abstinence Only”, where the focus should be on the fact that this doesn’t tell us anything we couldn’t already have guessed. Do we know if they actually took data about pregnancies and incidents of STDs? That would make this a much more useful study.
hilzoy fangirl
Abstinence also, too.
hamletta
Yeah, their hothouse AO programs were nothing like the ones in the wild, which are more like abstinence-only + slut-shaming + LIES.
Lex
This ain’t the difference between apples and oranges, it’s the difference between apples and horseapples.
wag
I could actually get behind the idea of Abstinence Also sex ed. Makes sense to encourage a delay in the behavior while educating what to do if/when you begin to have sex. Abstinence Only is a total fail.
silentbeep
I think Abstinance Also education is a no-brainer, because the truth is, not every teenager is going to be sexually active nor wants too (hard to believe folks! it’s true). I will use myself as an example: I chose to be abstinant as a teen(made the deciscion at 13) because of the risks involved in possibly contracting STDs and in getting pregnant. I knew a condom would greatly reduce my risks for such scenarios but as a teenage girl, I was not ready to take on even the smallest possiblity of those things happening, especially pregnancy. I also felt I wasn’t emotionally ready for a sex life, so I abstained. Abstinance Also education is scientifically accurate: if you want to avoid STD’s and pregnancy completely, just don’t have sex, it’s true. So let’s give our kids the truth. And if they have sex they are educated correctly on how to best protect their health.
I was lucky: I was basically given an Abstinance Also/ scientifically accurate/ no moralizing sex education. I knew the risks of different sexual behaviors and about birth control options. I was not prosleytized to and was not talked down to: I figured it out for myself that abstienance as a teen, was for me.
SRW1
I’m totally for ‘abstinence also’. I mean, there are occasions when you just can’t find another person to fool around with. Sure, you and your willie could just do a solo, but I think it would only be fair if in such a situation an ‘abstinence only’ option would be available.
SRW1
Damn it, messed it up. The option that should be available is of course an ‘abstinence also’ option.
slightly_peeved
@TooManyJens:
Looking at points (D) and (E), maybe they should start running some abstinence-only programs for the Republican party.
dr. bloor
If Douchehat is the exemplar, all you need to do to stay abstinent is to tell a Republican guy that you’re on the pill. Talk about a placebo effect.
Sasha
Or, more likely, she might be the ex-Mrs. Ross Douthat.