“Abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work” has been repeated so often that it’s become holy writ. Now comes a little good news for the much maligned program.
A two-year National Institute of Mental Health-funded “randomized trial of several interventions, including abstinence-only” showed “a “statistically significant benefit” for the abstinence approach: it was more effective in delaying sexual initiation.
John Gever, senior editor of MedpageToday, summarizes:
An education program for middle-schoolers promoting chastity significantly reduced their self-reported sexual activity two years later, compared with other sex education approaches, researchers conducting a randomized trial said.
The number of adolsecents reporting they had lost their virginity was cut by one-third with an abstinence-only program delivered in sixth and seventh grade, according to John B. Jemmott III. PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and colleagues in the February Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine.
The proportion of teens receiving the abstinence-only program who reported they had had intercourse at least once was 32.6%, compared with 41% to 52% among participants assigned to other interventions. These included comprehensive education covering both abstinence and methods to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), as well as a program focusing on “safer sex.”
At least superficially, the findings contrast with earlier studies in which abstinence-only interventions appeared ineffective.
The abstinence-only program used in this trial of 662 middle-schoolers was unusual in that it “did not rely on moral principles, nor did it criticize condom usage.”
Speaking of condom use…
Jermmott and colleagues said the findings could help dispel one criticism of abstinence-only education, which is that it may discourage condom use among teens who choose to have sex anyway. Although their study found no improvement in condom usage among those in the abstinence-only group, it also showed no reduction, they pointed out.
Taking a scientific rather than moralistic approach in abstinence appears to be the right track, as this video news clip of the story points out.
And the other sex-ed programs?
None of the other sex education programs showed any advantage over the general health promotion instruction in any outcome, with one exception: the 12-hour comprehensive intervention slightly reduced the risk of having multiple sex partners.
The site’s informational pages, specifically the FACTS pages, are based on pure science compiled by a physician. In contrast (and as with most blogs), the Sense and Sexuality blog is pure commentary (opinion), news and discussion related to the broader topic of sexuality in our culture and time.
I like this site but there is something I don’t get. It says on the homepage, “It is pure medical science – about you and your body – compiled by a physician”, but I haven’t seen anything here written by a physician. And many of the blog entries are opinions about cultural issues, not science at all. Could someone please explain that?
“Taking a scientific rather than moralistic approach in abstinence appears to be the right track”
Exactly. I am a feminist and usually find abstinence education to be backwards, ineffective and sexist due to the morality based programs. However the idea of an abstinence program, that still discusses condoms and safer sex, doesn’t bother me because it’s not passing moral judgement on teens for having sex.
In any case, abstinence education that’s being taught it schools currently, and for the large part touted by this blog are more worried about the “morality” of sex then protecting teens. And that is a large part of why they don’t work.