Abstinence-only sex ed defies common sense

Arthur Caplan, Ph.D. • E-mail

There may be a sillier strategy for dealing with sex among teens than promoting the choice of "abstinence-only-until-marriage," but I am not quite sure what it is. Not only is such an approach contradicted by everything that medicine and science know about teens and sex, but it flies directly in the face of everything all ordinary Americans know about teens and sex.

Recent surveys show that 70 percent of U.S. teens have engaged in oral sex by the time they reach 18, and more than 45 percent have had intercourse at least once. More than 70 percent of young women and 80 percent of young men approve of premarital sex, according to a study published recently in the Review of General Psychology.

In addition, studies show sexually transmitted diseases are spreading at an alarming rate among young people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that nearly half of the nation's new cases of STDs each year occur among adolescents and young adults. A recent study found that teens who took pledges of virginity as part of abstinence-only sex ed classes ultimately had STD rates similar to other young people and were less likely to use contraception or other forms of protection when they did become sexually active.

In short, the idea that teens will remain celibate until they marry — and that they don't need information about sex — says much more about the values and fantasies of the people who are promoting these policies than it does about teens.

Confusing messages
So what should we teach our kids about sex? Most Americans want young people to be taught about sexuality as part of their junior high school and high school education, but there is almost no agreement on what the content of sex education should be. Popular opinion ranges from telling kids to "just say no" to how to find a woman's "G-spot." And since sex brings out our sense of morality like almost no other subject, science and the facts about sexual behavior tend to get lost in a lot of finger-pointing and teeth-gnashing.

For instance, in North Dakota, sex education is encouraged but there are few guidelines about what should be taught. In South Carolina, state law severely restricts sex education. There can be no discussion of contraception except with reference to marriage, no discussion of abortion, and nothing said about homosexuality except with reference to preventing sexually transmitted diseases. And in Texas, at least since the days when George W. Bush was governor, sex ed classes almost exclusively espouse abstinence-only messages.

In contrast, Oregon, California and New Jersey mandate that if a school does teach about sex it must provide medically accurate information, and age-appropriate and respectful discussion of the diversity of relationships, including those involving people with disabilities.

Your tax dollars at work
I am completely against abstinence-only sex ed programs for three reasons: there is no evidence at all that they work; common sense says they have no chance of working; and it is not clear that ethically they send the right message to young people.

But under the Bush administration, the federal government has planted itself firmly in the abstinence-only camp. More than a billion dollars have been spent to support these programs.

To make matters worse, the administration and Congress have played favorites with your tax money, with abstinence-only money going disproportionately to Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Texas. In contrast, Vermont received the least amount of federal funding. Maybe the kids in Vermont cannot hear admonitions to remain chaste amidst the sound of falling snow?

Eleven states have tried to evaluate their abstinence-only programs and the results have been dismal. In Kansas, the evaluators stated that "no changes [were] noted in participants' actual or intended behavior." Evaluators of the Texas program found the same thing — no change in the number of students pledging to remain celibate until marriage. In fact, more students reported having had sex after taking an abstinence-only sex ed course then they did beforehand.

There is no evidence at all that telling kids not to fool around has any more impact when the message is promoted by schools than it does when parents say the same thing at home.

MORE FROM BREAKING BIOETHICS

Breaking Bioethics Section Front

Opinion: Superfood surprise? The dish on gene foods New IVF dilemmas make old fears seem quaint Opinion: Medical road trips not worth the cost Opinion: Save your hide — skip the tanning bed Opinion: 'Blade Runner' ruling subverts nature of sport Opinion: Intelligent design film worse than stupid Opinion: Children's health can't be left to faith alone Opinion: Transplant list numbers raise doubts Opinion: Don't ask, don't tell? The dish on clones 2008: A year already worth forgetting Breaking Bioethics Section Front   Add Breaking Bioethics headlines to your news reader: