Abstinence Only program, delays sexual activity
I wonder why we haven’t heard anything about this study from the University of Pennsylvania Med School? Sixth and seventh grade African American students were randomly sorted into a control group, an abstinence only class, a safer-sex class and a combined abstinence plus safer sex class.
an abstinence-only intervention for pre-teens was more successful in delaying the onset of sexual activity than a health-promotion control intervention. After two years, one-third of the abstinence-only group reported having sex, compared to one-half of the control group. The study by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania appears in the February 1 edition of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.
While abstinence-only intervention did not eliminate sexual activity all together, this is the first randomized controlled study to demonstrate that an abstinence-only intervention reduced the percentage of adolescents who reported any sexual intercourse for a long period, in this case two years, following the intervention.
“It is extremely important to find an effective intervention that delays sexual activity; the younger someone is when they have sex for the first time, the less likely they are to use condoms,” said lead author John B. Jemmott III, PhD, professor of Communication in Psychiatry and of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Medicine and Annenberg School for Communication. “Abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in delaying sexual activity until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle to consequences of sex. This can reduce undesirable consequences of sex, including pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections like HIV/AIDS.”…
Researchers determined that none of the interventions had significant effects on consistent condom use or unprotected sex. For those who lost their virginity during the two year study, there was no difference in consistent condom use between the abstinence-only intervention and the control group.
The abstinence-only intervention was based on principles shown to be effective in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV/AIDS, and did not use a moralistic tone or portray sex in a negative light. It encouraged abstinence as a way to eliminate the risk of pregnancy and STIs. During the 8-hour abstinence-only session, study facilitators used brief and interactive small group activities to build the pre-teens’ knowledge of HIV and STIs, bolster beliefs supporting practicing abstinence, and improve skills and confidence to help negotiate abstinence and resist pressure to have sex.
The researchers noted that, in the United States, the consequences of early sexual involvement – including HIV, other STIs, and unintended pregnancies – are especially great among African American adolescents. An effective abstinence-only intervention could stave off unwanted consequences until adolescents mature and are prepared to handle the consequences of sex.
You would think this would make the news, especially since just last week, the Usual Suspects blamed abstinence programs for the slight rise in teen pregnancy in 2006.
Loading ...
The problem isn’t teenagers having sex, the problem is teenagers having unprotected sex. That said, if this program included information about STI’s, it would (logically) included some mention of condoms.
What I find most interesting though is that sex was not portrayed as a negative. Most abstinence education programs pull a moral twist on abstinence, thus adding the forbidden fruit lure to sex. It would be interesting to compare this program to other abstinence programs.
Though keep in mind there’s this study http://www.livescience.com/culture/090916-religion-teen-pregnancy.html that shows a correlation between higher teen birth rates and overall religiousness of a state.
“The problem isn’t teenagers having sex”
No, no moral twist there at all… Meh.
Teenagers having consensual sex is only morally wrong if your religion says it is. Are we in a country with the promise of the separation of church and state to assume everyone is a christian and thus subject to it’s laws? Besides, what happened to “Judge not, yest ye be judged”?
Nerdy girl: these programs are specifically NOT talking about sex being morally wrong. they are making strictly consequential arguments. the difference amongst the types of programs is in whether they make the implied statement of moral approval by promoting contraception.
BTW: what is your moral code that says that all consensual sex is morally acceptable? Prove to me that your moral code is better. And please explain why should we teach that moral code, rather than some other.
Nerdygirl:
I might be tempted to agree with you. But I’m not. Teenagers and other unmarried people having sex has consequences that extend outside the bedroom (or back seat or whatever). Not the least of which include pregnancy, STDs, etc. Other consequences include the changes made to societies by their changing attitudes towards sex (the coming Demographic Winter is chief on that list). So, how we teach young people about sex affects us all. Therefore, you can say it has moral consequences.
Furthermore, we have a governmental system that forcibly extracts money from the people who earn it to give to unwed mothers, to give to the sick, etc. Since that system is in place (and I see, unfortunately, no way of stopping that system) it is ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL for people to add to the burden of that system by acting irresponsible whether it be sexually or otherwise. And you can count on teenagers to act irresponsibly. So, to teach them responsible behavior is absolutely essential.
Ah, that old chestnut. Try reading and understanding the entire verse, in context, before spouting it out again as a substitute for an actual argument.
Every action has a consequence. And this is something teenagers (and many adults for that matter) need to learn. The problem with most abstinence programs is that they fail to properly teach the actual consequences, instead relying purely on fear. This one worked because it taught consequences and not fear. As far as the government giving to unwed mothers, would you rather their children starve? Would that be more moral? Is it more moral for the old and chronically ill to just die then be given treatment? To irresponsibly add to another’s burden is wrong. A teenager having unprotected sex is wrong. A teenager having protected sex is responsible.@Ari
Well obviously a moral code that finds non-consensual sex to be immoral. Moral codes are a personal matter, and schools teaching sex ed is a public matter. I don’t need to prove *my* moral code is better then *your* moral code. For you sex before marriage is a sin, for me it’s more of a grey area, between me, my partner and possibly god. In any case, as stated before our constitution holds the phrase “Separation of church and state” the education system is part of the state. The state’s responsibility is to uphold the law, and prevent the spread of disease. So yes, the state needs to teach contraception methods to teenagers, because it isn’t there to teach religion. It shouldn’t present religious beliefs as bad, just as personal decisions and faith. You wouldn’t want the state pushing Islam or Buddhism on kids, so why is it okay to push Christianity? @Jennifer Roback Morse
nerdy girl, i promise you, these programs are not teaching religion. there are plenty of people who believe that sex outside of marraige has negative consequences taht can’t all be prevented with contraception. what is so wrong with teaching that?
for me it’s more of a grey area, between me, my partner and possibly god. this is a moral statement. it isn’t possible to teach anything about sex, without implicitly taking a moral position. my personal view is that the schools should not be involvde in this area at all. the family should be teaching this kind of stuff.