Abstinence programs in schools

Khanada Faye · 21-04-07 20:57:41

Hi, everyone. I believe I mentioned in a different thread that I would find an article discussing the results of a study done on abstinence programs. It's a short piece, so I'm pasting it here (this is from the Associated Press as printed in The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, April 14 (AP) — Students who participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study ordered by Congress.
Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes. And they first had sex about the same age as other students — 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc.
The federal government spends about $176 million a year promoting abstinence until marriage. Critics have repeatedly said they did not believe the programs worked.
Bush administration officials cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from the study, saying the four programs were some of the very first established after Congress overhauled the nation’s welfare laws in 1996.
Officials said one lesson they learned from the study was that the abstinence message should be reinforced in subsequent years.
“This report confirms that these interventions are not like vaccines,” said Harry Wilson, associate commissioner of the Family and Youth Services Bureau at the federal Administration for Children and Families. “You can’t expect one dose in middle school, or a small dose, to be protective all throughout the youth’s high school career.”

I've never been a fan of programs that stress abstinence until marriage as their predominant form of sexual education, and our government here in the good 'ol U.S. of A. is insistent upon making this their ultimate goal nationwide (I just have to insert here that I was struck by the irony that an administration known for 'drawing sweeping conclusions' about basically everything that happens has cautioned us against doing just so in this instance... but I'll try to keep my hatred for our current government to a minimum here).

Since this is a pretty international forum, I wanted to posit a question. Is this typical in other nations as well--an increasing focus on abstinence-only or abstinence-centered sexual education? I know that the United States is remarkably puritanical when held up against the rest of the Western world, and I was curious as to whether this was another indication of that. Also, is there anyone here who experienced such kinds of programs? I attended a public magnet high school in New York City, and we were taught largely about how to have safe sex, not told explicitly to wait until marriage. But I've heard all sorts of stories about schools in more conservative parts of the country being given everything from misleading information to almost nothing about pregnancy prevention or STD prevention. These also seem to be the parts of the country with the highest concentrations of teen pregnancies, though I don't know if there have been any direct connections made between these two things. I'll probably do some research on that.

Infamous · 21-04-07 21:41:41

Khanada Faye wrote:

Since this is a pretty international forum, I wanted to posit a question. Is this typical in other nations as well--an increasing focus on abstinence-only or abstinence-centered sexual education? I know that the United States is remarkably puritanical when held up against the rest of the Western world, and I was curious as to whether this was another indication of that.

Hi
As far as I know (it's more than 20 years since I was at school!), it's not a feature of sex education in the UK. Of course, there are members of the church and politicians who would probably love to see abstinence-based sex education given more prominence, but I don't that is yet a mainstream view or likely to be in the near future. (However, there have in the last few years some controversial schools established - with the support of out God-fearing Prime Minister (don't let me get started on what I think of Bliar!) - by someone with a more fundamental Christian agenda - I would expect abstinence to be heavily promoted there).
Hope that answers your question...
Infamous

Desertgirl44 · 22-04-07 05:34:45

There's possibly an odd politician or two, along with the occasional lobby group that would like to see abstinence taught in Australian schools. There's the new Family First party (a church based political party) that probably promotes abstinence but they're in such a minority that I wouldn't really know. Most media, teachers, counsellors and politicians down here regard abstinence programs as not even worth trying because we know they're unrealistic. 25 years ago I received pretty in depth sex education which included contraception advice. My children received not quite so open advice, but contraception and safe sex were on the curriculum.

I work in an industry where we rely on government funding. To continue receiving this funding we have to prove how we have achieved or surpassed our intended key outcomes. So it amazes me in the USA that with the abstinence program not achieving the desired outcomes that the government will continue to fund such programs. Surely it would be cheaper to teach kids about safe sex, contraception and install condom vending machines in the school toilets?

padraic · 22-04-07 07:20:33

Desertgirl44 wrote:

I work in an industry where we rely on government funding. To continue receiving this funding we have to prove how we have achieved or surpassed our intended key outcomes. So it amazes me in the USA that with the abstinence program not achieving the desired outcomes that the government will continue to fund such programs. Surely it would be cheaper to teach kids about safe sex, contraception and install condom vending machines in the school toilets?

Normally, the Republicans demand 'proof' of efficacy before spending government money. At least they do when it comes to social welfare programs, against which they have a huge bias. Even successful ones are often unacceptable to them, since many conservatives value ideology over compassion. But stopping the abstinence programs, failures though they are, wouldn't go over well with their fundamentalist Christian backers. So they're kept going, and programs that stress safety as well as appropriate decision-making are given short shrift.

Infamous · 22-04-07 08:40:01

Desertgirl44 wrote:

Surely it would be cheaper to teach kids about safe sex, contraception and install condom vending machines in the school toilets?

Whilst abstinence is not promoted as official policy in the UK, many people here feel that sex education is woefully inadequate - leading to the UK having the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe. The general attitude seems to be that if you don't talk about sex then teenagers won't know about it and won't want to do it... Suggestions about making condoms, etc., more readily available in school are usually shouted down as encouraging teenagers to have sex.

Last edited by Infamous (22-04-07 11:59:27)

Khanada Faye · 22-04-07 16:52:11

padraic wrote:

Desertgirl44 wrote:
I work in an industry where we rely on government funding. To continue receiving this funding we have to prove how we have achieved or surpassed our intended key outcomes. So it amazes me in the USA that with the abstinence program not achieving the desired outcomes that the government will continue to fund such programs. Surely it would be cheaper to teach kids about safe sex, contraception and install condom vending machines in the school toilets?
Normally, the Republicans demand 'proof' of efficacy before spending government money. At least they do when it comes to social welfare programs, against which they have a huge bias. Even successful ones are often unacceptable to them, since many conservatives value ideology over compassion. But stopping the abstinence programs, failures though they are, wouldn't go over well with their fundamentalist Christian backers. So they're kept going, and programs that stress safety as well as appropriate decision-making are given short shrift.

Indeed. Fundamentalist Christian groups are for more vocal and widespread here than, it seems, they are over in Australia, based on what you said, Desertgirl. It's remarkable the power that they've garnered over the last decade to actually influence policy--or at the very least, threaten their representatives enough that they fear a diminished possibility for reelection. We've seen it manifested in the creationism debate, in the push for an actual amendment to the constitution speaking to marriage, in the continued discrimination against gay people in the military (or anywhere else, for that matter--we've yet to make discrimination based on sexual orientation against federal law), in the extraordinary amounts of money given to programs such as the abstinence teaching or other faith-based initiatives who go abroad to "help" nations dealing with, say, the AIDS epidemic but won't distribute condoms... the list goes on, and I know no one wants me to keep rambling, so I'll end it there. Logic, rationality, evidence, common sense--all of this goes out the window in the face of a president who rules, or tries as hard as he can to rule, according to American evangelical-Christian doctrine. Really, in the face of organized religion in general--since so much of what organized religion teaches goes against human logic, and trying to start a rational debate with religion over, say, why condoms should be available to teenagers is usually clipped shut with, essentially, "It's not what God wants." End of discussion. I've come up against this wall so often with my relatives (I was raised Catholic, though my mother is remarkably open minded on a number of things, and I commend her for that) that I've basically ceased trying to engage in any sort of discussion with them that doesn't involve the weather.

Padraic, I agree with you. Republicans have demanded solid proof for a lot of things (well, except for going to war, but hey, that's not as morally threatening as giving teenagers condoms!), and that "proof" has manifested itself in rather frightening ways. One "study" in particular appalled me: it claimed that allowing same-sex marriage would actually increase the spread of HIV/AIDS, and this is something that groups like Focus on the Family and nutjobs (excuse me, but I do have to use that word here) like Fred Phelps have used to promote their continued and outspoken hatred of basically anyone who isn't heterosexual, married, and breeding like rabbits.

Sorry, I'm trying to keep my hotheadedness to a minimum, but it's difficult. I truly apologize if I've offended anyone with what I've said above. I'll stop here before I allow the rant to get out of hand .

blissed · 22-04-07 21:21:02

The President wrote:

I'm not offended Faye, and I want you to know, there ain't no onions sittin in my top pocket either, those are real tears. I hear you, I feel your pain, your frustration and I'm with you, I'm with you all the way. For too long theres Americans who suffered, who try to change the world. They have the best intentions, but you know, there ain't always a right and a wrong. Whats right and whats wrong have to be decided by us all, as a community. Thats what democracy's all about.

I've been writing his speeches for a while now and dropping in the odd deliberate mistake just for laughs, I hope you appreciate that :)

.

padraic · 23-04-07 06:40:26

Khanada Faye wrote:

Padraic, I agree with you. Republicans have demanded solid proof for a lot of things (well, except for going to war, but hey, that's not as morally threatening as giving teenagers condoms!), and that "proof" has manifested itself in rather frightening ways. One "study" in particular appalled me: it claimed that allowing same-sex marriage would actually increase the spread of HIV/AIDS, and this is something that groups like Focus on the Family and nutjobs (excuse me, but I do have to use that word here) like Fred Phelps have used to promote their continued and outspoken hatred of basically anyone who isn't heterosexual, married, and breeding like rabbits.
Sorry, I'm trying to keep my hotheadedness to a minimum, but it's difficult. I truly apologize if I've offended anyone with what I've said above. I'll stop here before I allow the rant to get out of hand .

You certainly haven't offended me, Khanada Faye. I didn't know about the above 'study'. But in a sense, though this kind of thing is infuriating, it has nothing to do with what Bush, Rice, Cheney, and the other morally superior warmongers will actually do. As with global warming, even if a thousand studies showed that tolerance of diversity will lower the HIV rate and promote happiness, they'd still find some moron of a 'scientist' to back their retrograde point of view. Suffering means nothing to these people. They have already taken the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people. But anyone not American, or at least Western European, isn't even fully human to them. Their deaths bother our 'leaders' about as much as killing a few thousand termites bothers an exterminator.

blissed · 23-04-07 11:42:20

I think the point I'm making above is that living under a regime that is at odds with your hopes and desires for a prolonged period (7 years) where you see the things you care for getting worse and no real hope of seeing your world the way you would like it to be, can sink your heart and over 7 years help wear you down emotionally.

There's hope tho, theres a Democrat senate and all you have to do is elect a Democrat president, and nobody lives in a perfect world, the pres always has to steer the country through hassle, but the emotional distress is then relieved and you can join the rest of the world again.

.

Khanada Faye · 23-04-07 15:31:47

blissed wrote:

I think the point I'm making above is that living under a regime that is at odds with your hopes and desires for a prolonged period (7 years) where you see the things you care for getting worse and no real hope of seeing your world the way you would like it to be, can sink your heart and over 7 years help wear you down emotionally.
There's hope tho, theres a Democrat senate and all you have to do is elect a Democrat president, and nobody lives in a perfect world, the pres always has to steer the country through hassle, but the emotional distress is then relieved and you can join the rest of the world again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/documenta … and203.jpg
.

We're certainly trying, Blissed! But ever since the Republicans co-opted religion, we're in a situation where large portions of this country (such as the working-class and often poverty-stricken South) will vote Republican, against their own interests, simply because of that, even though the Republicans are opposed to such things as raising the minimum wage (federal currently set at $5.15 an hour--can you imagine that??). They'll sometimes vote democrat for local government but always Republican for president because they have been tricked into thinking that the Republican party will uphold their moral beliefs. It's a sad situation (it's also sad to note that the South turned Republican over civil rights--once staunchly Democratic for economic reasons, the South didn't like the fact that the Democrats were actively taking on the cause of the civil rights movement).

But I'm not going to lose hope (yet) for the 2008 elections. Barack is cool--I'm more of a John Edwards camper, myself, even though I know he's a little more pro gun than I'd like. But he has more experience with the law. I'd love to see Barack run again after he's had a little more time in the Senate. I was once fond of Hillary Clinton, but I have no clue what's up with her lately. She used to be so openly liberal, fighting so hard for things like nationalized healthcare and education, but lately... well, just not sure what's going on there.

And abstinence-only or abstinence-centered education is, of course, a by-product of the rising power of the conservative right. It's the democratic process, of course (though Bushie tends to ignore the minority vote and has made multiple statements indicating that he is only ruling for those who voted for him--his track record supports this).

#1 21-04-07 20:57:41

Abstinence programs in schools

#2 21-04-07 21:41:41

Re: Abstinence programs in schools

#3 22-04-07 05:34:45

Re: Abstinence programs in schools

#4 22-04-07 07:20:33

Re: Abstinence programs in schools

#5 22-04-07 08:40:01

Re: Abstinence programs in schools

#6 22-04-07 16:52:11

Re: Abstinence programs in schools

#7 22-04-07 21:21:02

Re: Abstinence programs in schools

#8 23-04-07 06:40:26

Re: Abstinence programs in schools

#9 23-04-07 11:42:20

Re: Abstinence programs in schools

#10 23-04-07 15:31:47

Re: Abstinence programs in schools

Board footer