Shocked! Shocked, I say! Who could have known that teaching only sexual abstinence, that is not giving teenagers any information whatsoever on birth control (other than failure rates), can lead to more sexual activity by these very same teenagers. No, they aren't saying there is a cause and effect relationship, only that rates of intercourse go up immediately after this educational effort (see the Texas study here). As with all studies, replication is required to confirm the results but it seems like common sense to me.
I've said this before and I'll say this again, this is a public health related subject. Schools should teach how not to get sexually transmitted diseases. How not to spread such diseases and how to detect if they have such diseases and where to go to get medical treatment.
From a religious point of view, parents and their churches are free to teach only abstinence but religious points of view like this should not eliminate public health education classes, which is what is happening in Red States like Texas.
My guess is, rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases may increase in such states and this is something that can and should be studied. If it (abstinence only education) works, great! But if it doesn't, then from a practical and pragmatic point of view, we should try adding something that does.
Aloha!
Comments (3)
Maybe they should also teach abstinence to the priests. Could be positive for the health of choir-boys. ...
If it works.
Posted by sjon | February 1, 2005 9:51 PM
Posted on February 1, 2005 21:51
There's no question that abstinence is the best preventative for sexually transmitted diseases - including but not limited to pregnancy.
There's also no question that if abstinence is not going to be adhered to - a strong possibility with horny young 'uns - then something that falls between that and totally unsafe sex is better than the either/or option some espouse.
Informed decisions are always better than ignorance, whether the ignorance is enforced or just 'appened. I also mislike the fact that enforced ignorance tends to ignore subjects altogether. For instance, it ignores the fact that HIV can be transmitted through blood, needle-sharing, unsafe tattooing, kissing, heterosexual sex, any exchange of bodily fluids - as well as homosexual sex.
Posted by Don Armstrong | February 1, 2005 9:56 PM
Posted on February 1, 2005 21:56
"...the study lacks a comparison group..."
It's logical that sexual activity would go up as they get older, so having no comparison group sadly proves little, if nothing. Unless you go waaaay out on a limb, you can only safely say that this was a data collection venture.
I would rather have seen a test done with a much larger scope, that looked at teens who were in group A)an abstinance program, group B) a sex-ed course, and C) a group with neither course. If you get ambitious, you could even do public, private, home schools, or distinguish between schools with religious affiliation or not affiliated (ie private and home schools vs public and private schools).
Posted by Chris | February 2, 2005 5:50 AM
Posted on February 2, 2005 05:50