New Report Slams Abstinence-Only Programs
The Journal of Adolescent Health has an article entitled "Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs" that is stimulating quite a bit of discussion. The article, by John Santelli, M.D., M.P.H., Mary A. Ott, M.D., Maureen Lyon, Ph.D., Jennifer Rogers, M.P.H., Daniel Summers, M.D., and Rebecca Schleifer, J.D., M.P.H., is not online, only the abstract. --Which you can read right here:
In a press release, James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, commented on the review:
I do hope that MCPS is planning to re-issue the condom video that was withdrawn after the lawsuit, or prepare another one. It is important for teens to learn how to use the condom correctly -- it makes the difference between 85 percent and 98 percent success rates. Let's urge Montgomery County to do the right thing, to give our students the facts and the skills they need to live in the real world. It's fine to hope they all practice strict self-discipline and never find themselves facing temptations they can't handle, but it's not a bad idea for them to know what to do when they do decide they're ready.
It seems to be often forgotten, what teens learn in school isn't just for that day, or that week, or that year. They will carry what they learn with them throughout their lives. And as the abstract notes, "Few Americans remain abstinent until marriage." There will be a day when they will need to know what to do.
Abstinence from sexual intercourse is an important behavioral strategy for preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and pregnancy among adolescents. Many adolescents, including most younger adolescents, have not initiated sexual intercourse and many sexually experienced adolescents and young adults are abstinent for varying periods of time. There is broad support for abstinence as a necessary and appropriate part of sexuality education. Controversy arises when abstinence is provided to adolescents as a sole choice and where health information on other choices is restricted or misrepresented. Although abstinence is theoretically fully effective, in actual practice abstinence often fails to protect against pregnancy and STIs. Few Americans remain abstinent until marriage; many do not or cannot marry, and most initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual behaviors as adolescents. Although abstinence is a healthy behavioral option for teens, abstinence as a sole option for adolescents is scientifically and ethically problematic. A recent emphasis on abstinence-only programs and policies appears to be undermining more comprehensive sexuality education and other government-sponsored programs. We believe that abstinence-only education programs, as defined by federal funding requirements, are morally problematic, by withholding information and promoting questionable and inaccurate opinions. Abstinence-only programs threaten fundamental human rights to health, information, and life.
In a press release, James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, commented on the review:
"Abstinence-only is bad science, bad policy, and a blatant violation of medical ethics and basic human rights. Enough is enough. The time has come for Congress to declare an immediate moratorium on federal funding for these programs. It is a national scandal that we have already spent over $1.1 billion of taxpayers' dollars on programs that don't work and that censor vital public health information for young people.
"It is time to restore sanity and common sense to our public health policy. The Society report is not anti-abstinence. It clearly supports abstinence as a strategy to protect young people's sexual health. But the report makes clear that, to be effective, abstinence education needs to be delivered in a comprehensive context along with information on condoms and birth control.
"We have eight million young people under the age of 19 who are sexually active, yet 79 percent of junior high and 45 percent of high school teachers fail to teach about condoms. No wonder we have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease in the developed world." US Newswire
I do hope that MCPS is planning to re-issue the condom video that was withdrawn after the lawsuit, or prepare another one. It is important for teens to learn how to use the condom correctly -- it makes the difference between 85 percent and 98 percent success rates. Let's urge Montgomery County to do the right thing, to give our students the facts and the skills they need to live in the real world. It's fine to hope they all practice strict self-discipline and never find themselves facing temptations they can't handle, but it's not a bad idea for them to know what to do when they do decide they're ready.
It seems to be often forgotten, what teens learn in school isn't just for that day, or that week, or that year. They will carry what they learn with them throughout their lives. And as the abstract notes, "Few Americans remain abstinent until marriage." There will be a day when they will need to know what to do.
posted by JimK at 11:08 AM
22 Comments:
Jim said: "'Few Americans remain abstinent until marriage.' There will be a day when they will need to know what to do."
Exactly. And not only that, married people use contraception, too! Teaching teens about contraception is giving them a foundation of knowledge for the future. Just like any other subject you study in school.
The latest data show the mean age of vaginal intercourse to be around 17 for both men and women, and the mean age of first marriage for men is 27 and women is 25.
So does the CRC really believe human being should be abstinent until marriage? Or even can be abstinent until marriage?
"Jim said: "'Few Americans remain abstinent until marriage.' There will be a day when they will need to know what to do."
Exactly. And not only that, married people use contraception, too! Teaching teens about contraception is giving them a foundation of knowledge for the future. Just like any other subject you study in school."
Is there any reason that kids can't be taught about contraception and be taught that it's something for married people and that extramarital sexual activity is traditionally considered immoral.
That seems to cover everyone's bases to me except people who want to encourage premarital sexua activity.
Anon, I used this list in the previous comments, but look at this and think about it:
* The curriculum talked about how being sexual active can lower your self-esteem. Remember? CRC was horrified by that
* Sexual activity for teens can lead to disappointment. Yes, that's what the school was going to be teaching eighth-graders
* Being sexually active in your teen years can lead to depression and even suicide -- this is what they would have been taught in eighth grade
* You might lose your friends -- the schools would be teaching them this fact if the curriculum had gone forward
* Kids were going to be taught that promises made before sex are often forgotten afterwards
* Being sexually active can damage your self-concept: MCPS was going to teach that
* They would have been taught that the "negative results" of sexual activity for teens "far outweight the positive"
* Abstinence, they were going to be taught, enables you to preserve your self-esteem, and is the best choice "before marriage and for teens" -- this is what MCPS was going to teach eighth-grade students
* Tenth graders would have been taught about date/acquaintance rape, statutory rape, sexual harassment and sexual assault -- good stuff to know about, don't you think?
* They would be taught that abstinence "permits relationship to develop without sexual pressures" -- a good thing
* Students would have learned a lot about the responsibilities and lifestyle changes that accompany pregnancy and parenthood, and they do not look sweet for unwed teens
* Tenth graders were going to be encouraged to make a "commitment to chastity"
Those who try to make you think the proposed curriculum encouraged sexual activity are flat-out lying.
JimK
"Those who try to make you think the proposed curriculum encouraged sexual activity are flat-out lying."
You agree, then, that the new curriculum should do what I just suggested?
Here's something of interest to anyone who posts here (or anywhere else)anonymously. Apparently, anyone who reads your comments and finds them annoying can have you arrested. If anyone knows the effective date, let me know:
"Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.
The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."
That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.
In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.
"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"
Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.
"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."
He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.
It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.
If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.
And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.
Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion."
You agree, then, that the new curriculum should do what I just suggested?
No, Anon. It would be wrong to teach them that extramarital sex is usually considered immoral, because it isn't usually considered immoral. Almost no one is a virgin when they marry, and nobody makes a big deal out of it.
What I am saying is that the curriculum as it was proposed went to a lot of trouble to give students a framework for considering the risks of having sex, not only pregnancy and disease but how it would affect their consciences, their friendships, their self-esteem, their relationship with the other person. But no, the schools should not lie to the kids and tell them that something is usually considered immoral, when hardly anybody really thinks that.
JimK
Jim said: "Tenth graders were going to be encouraged to make a "commitment to chastity"
Really? Would this be a public thing, a written thing, or just something that teens keep in their mind? It makes me think of those creepy abstinence promise ring ceremonies ala "The Education of Shelby Knox."
Jim, I don't think the question of how many think pre-marital sex is immoral, or amoral, is really at issue here. I think the schools telling students what is immoral is at issue.
As a mom, I don't want the schools telling my children what my family's moral values are or ought to be. That is my job as a parent. One of the common complaints I have heard and read from the opponents of sex education is that it is an example of schools undermining parents' authority and taking over the parents' job. Then they go and complain that the school isn't teaching about morals and values.
It's like saying, "I am angry that the school is trying to do my job and the reason I am angry is that the school isn't doing my job."
Teaching my kids what is and is not immoral is my job, not the schools' job. I do not think my young sons will be any more or less moral for knowing about sexual orientation and contraception. I know that my adult daughter is not immoral; she is well-informed.
Andrea, I don't think it was any written pledge or anythihng, just a recommendation in class.
Tish, of course I agree with you, but the easier point to argue is the popular norm -- Anon said sex outside of marriage is 'traditionally" considered immoral. The fact is, almost nobody actually disapproves of sex among unmarried couples. There may be some eyebrow-raising, but people who wait until marriage to have sex are more of a curiosity than reality. As Dana points out, the gap between first sex and marriage is something like ten years in our society. It would be wrong to teach otherwise.
So not only are schools not the place to teach about arbitrary moral judgments based on scriptural authority, but the statement he proposed woud be incorrect -- almost nobody really considers sex outside of marriage to be "immoral."
JimK
And I will come at Anon's statement from the other side, with the proper qualifier -- IN THE DAYS WHEN MARRIAGE ROUTINELY OCCURRED AT PUBERTY, most people believed sex outside marriage to be immoral.
Today sexual beings often wait as long as twenty years to get married, and a significant number of people choose not to get married yet also not to enter a convent or monastery.
Not putting it historically and factually is simply misrepresentation. I can understand why this may be difficult for many people, but our civilization has changed radically, and we need to adapt to it.
"The fact is, almost nobody actually disapproves of sex among unmarried couples. There may be some eyebrow-raising, but people who wait until marriage to have sex are more of a curiosity than reality. As Dana points out, the gap between first sex and marriage is something like ten years in our society. It would be wrong to teach otherwise."
You don't really have to blatantly teach it. Just imply it by teaching all the same stuff but in the context of marriage. To the few who pay attention, it would save lives.
By the way, does anyone know of any data that show that "almost nobody actually disapproves of sex among unmarried couples"?
"So not only are schools not the place to teach about arbitrary moral judgments based on scriptural authority, but the statement he proposed woud be incorrect -- almost nobody really considers sex outside of marriage to be "immoral.""
There really is no way to be neutral. When kids are taught "here's how you and your friends can protect yourself while having sex", they'll assume society is approving. Restoring the support of traditional morality to society would save lives. Traditional morality is not arbitrary and is consistent in most civilized societies not just in certain religious doctrines. Indeed, it always makes for a healthier and stabler society.
Anon, if I may remind you, morality involves distinguishing whether things and actions are right or wrong. Sex itself is neither right nor wrong. In the context of marriage or committed relationship, there are moral issues having to do with keeping promises and maintaining trust, but for a single person the "morality" of sexual behavior is arbitrary.
You can tell everybody it's a moral issue, and you and your church group can make it one, and that's what I mean by "arbitrary moral judgments based on scriptural authority." There are important guidelines and common-sense policies to follow regarding sexual behavior, but to call these guidelines "morality" is simply to assign to yourself and your belief system authority that you haven't earned.
As far as consistency across cultures, of course every culture has rules regarding marriage and kinship. There are norms, and there is often social monitoring and enforcement of those norms. Many of the norms have to do with regulating sexual behavior, it's an important function of a community. If one New Guinean refuses to bow to the giant yam (all dressed up in bra and panties), his society may judge him harshly, and will say he is immoral. In the aftermath of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment that followed it, most of our society has learned to see beyond that. Promiscuity, for instance, is stupid for many reasons, but to deem it immoral is an error.
JimK
"Anon, if I may remind you, morality involves distinguishing whether things and actions are right or wrong. Sex itself is neither right nor wrong. In the context of marriage or committed relationship, there are moral issues having to do with keeping promises and maintaining trust, but for a single person the "morality" of sexual behavior is arbitrary.
You can tell everybody it's a moral issue, and you and your church group can make it one, and that's what I mean by "arbitrary moral judgments based on scriptural authority." There are important guidelines and common-sense policies to follow regarding sexual behavior, but to call these guidelines "morality" is simply to assign to yourself and your belief system authority that you haven't earned.
As far as consistency across cultures, of course every culture has rules regarding marriage and kinship. There are norms, and there is often social monitoring and enforcement of those norms. Many of the norms have to do with regulating sexual behavior, it's an important function of a community. If one New Guinean refuses to bow to the giant yam (all dressed up in bra and panties), his society may judge him harshly, and will say he is immoral. In the aftermath of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment that followed it, most of our society has learned to see beyond that. Promiscuity, for instance, is stupid for many reasons, but to deem it immoral is an error."
Your view of sexual morality is recent and provincial. It's not held by most of the world today and hasn't been held by the rest of the world through most of history. Your view has generally been held by societies in decline.
My "view of sexual morality" is enlightened by reason. You are entitled to your view, but I think you should be more careful about how to define it publicly. Using an argument from tradition, you feel authorized to assign arbitrary topics to moral categories. I note that you fail to distinguish between pragmatism and ethics. I agree with you this is a common way of thinking. But clear thinking about morality is not "recent," it goes back to the ancient Greeks at least.
JimK
"But clear thinking about morality is not "recent," it goes back to the ancient Greeks at least."
I wouldn't make the Greeks my standard if I were you, Jim. It was common in their society for teenage apprentice boys to be obligated to have sex with the older men they worked for.
Paul wrote letters to early churches in Greece warning them to avoid the sexual immorality present there.
They had nice statues though. They can be viewed at the British Museum in London.
Sure, Anon, the philosophy of Aristotle, Plato, Heraclitus, the Pythagoreans, and others was nothin' compared to the I-hate-it-because-the-Bible-tells-me-so system you work out of. Those guys were real provincial, the Golden Age of Greece was a real "state in decline."
Because, um, things weren't perfect then, is that your point? Now that we have secret prisons, torture, citizens held without charges and without lawyers, corruption at the highest levels of the State, Americans grabbing teenage boys off the streets of Baghdad and imprisoning and sodomizing them ... you're complaining about the Greeks?
JimK
"Sure, Anon, the philosophy of Aristotle, Plato, Heraclitus, the Pythagoreans, and others was nothin' compared to the I-hate-it-because-the-Bible-tells-me-so system you work out of. Those guys were real provincial, the Golden Age of Greece was a real "state in decline.""
Actually, that Golden Age didn't last too long. If you'll read Aristotle, you'll find he seems to believe in monotheism so he was out of step with the polytheistic mainstream.
"Because, um, things weren't perfect then, is that your point?"
My point was that they didn't have the clear thinking on sexual morality that you suggested they had. Indeed, in Greece, philosophy was a widespread preoccupation and the range of ideas and thought systems very diverse. Out of all that chaos, somebody must have had some clear thinking- just from pure random chance. Their public concept of sexual morality was deficient in anyone's book- except maybe charter members of NAMBLA.
"Now that we have secret prisons, torture, citizens held without charges and without lawyers,"
I think we've gotten a little off track in Iraq but the checks are coming into place now. We're still a model compared to most of the world and most of history. I mean ask yourself would you rather be held by America, Iraq insurgents, Iran or North Korea. I think all rational people would choose Door A.
Socrates, by the way, was arrested without charges.
"corruption at the highest levels of the State,"
how unique we are
"Americans grabbing teenage boys off the streets of Baghdad and imprisoning and sodomizing them
... you're complaining about the Greeks?"
We prosecuted a few loose cannons who did this. They probably learned that stuff from video games that give you extra points for sexually abusing your victims. Their parents probably neglected to monitor their influences or to teach them anything about sexual morality instead letting them learn everything they needed to know in public school.
The Greeks wouldn't have prosecuted anybody. It was a way of life for them.
anonymous said:
"We prosecuted a few loose cannons who did this. They probably learned that stuff from video games that give you extra points for sexually abusing your victims. Their parents probably neglected to monitor their influences or to teach them anything about sexual morality instead letting them learn everything they needed to know in public school."
Yes anon go ahead and use that warped logic and then we can all ask "How is that working for you?"
Cause we know the majority does not think like the "lone you"..thank our lucky stars.
"Yes anon go ahead and use that warped logic and then we can all ask "How is that working for you?"
Cause we know the majority does not think like the "lone you"..thank our lucky stars."
Thanks as always for the thoughtful comments.
"Cause we know the majority does not think like the "lone you"..thank our lucky stars."
Good one. Kay. Where do you come up with this brilliant wordplay?
anonymous said:
"Good one. Kay. Where do you come up with this brilliant wordplay?"
anonymous is paranoid again... focuses on Kay, Jim, Andrea, Christine, Dana and thinking they are all anonymices too..funny how you think...we all get great laughs at your expense. I bet CRC does too in their dismal bigoted days. Keep up the entertainment anon third group as usual.
Post a Comment
<< Home