Facts About
Abstinence Education
by
Robert E. Rector
The Senate welfare reform legislation includes the reauthorization
of the federal government’s main abstinence education program. Despite the
overwhelming popularity of abstinence education, some groups seek to divert funds away
from abstinence and into “safe sex” programs. These efforts to redirect funds
are usually deceptively labeled as support for “abstinence plus” or
“comprehensive sex ed” programs. The following facts are important to
understanding any debate about the future of abstinence education.
Fact: Sexual
activity at an early age has multiple harmful consequences.
The earlier a teenage girl begins
sexual activity the more likely she is to suffer from increased rates of infection with
sexually transmitted diseases, increased rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth,
increased rates of single parenthood, decreased marital stability, increased maternal and
child poverty, increased abortion, increased depression, and decreased adult happiness.[1]
Fact: Most
sexually active teens say they wish they had waited until they were older before having
sex.
Nearly two thirds of
sexually active teens state that they regret their initial sexual activity and wish they
had waited until they were older before becoming sexually active.[2]
Fact:
Sexually active teens are more likely to be depressed and to attempt suicide.
Sexually active
teens are less likely to be happy, more likely to be depressed, and more likely to attempt
suicide. Teenage girls who are sexually active are three times more likely to be depressed
and three times more likely to attempt suicide than girls who are not active. Teenage boys
who are sexually active are more than twice as likely to be depressed and are almost ten
times more likely to attempt suicide than boys who are not active.[3]
Fact: Abstinence
education programs are effective in reducing teen sexual activity.
There are currently ten
evaluations showing that abstinence education is effective in reducing teen sexual
activity. Half of these evaluations have been published in peer-reviewed journals. For
example, “Not Me, Not Now” is a community-wide abstinence program in Monroe
County, New York. The program broadcasts pro-abstinence messages to teens through the mass
media. The program has been successful in changing teen attitudes. The sexual activity
rate of 15-year-olds across the county (as reported on the Youth Risk Behavior Survey)
dropped 46.6 percent to 31.6 percent. The pregnancy rate for girls aged 15 through 17 in
the county fell by a statistically significant amount from 63.4 pregnancies per 1000 girls
to 49.5 pregnancies per 1000.. The teen pregnancy rate fell more rapidly in Monroe County
than in comparison counties and in upstate New York in general, and the difference in the
rate of decrease was statistically significant. [4]
Fact: Abstinence programs dramatically reduce out-of-wedlock
childbearing.
For more than a decade, abstinence organizations such as “True
Love Waits” have encouraged young people to abstain from sexual activity. As part of
these programs, young people are encouraged to make a verbal or written pledge to abstain
from sex until marriage. Young women who take a virginity pledge are about 40 percent less
likely to have a child out-of-wedlock when compared to similar young women who do
not make pledges, according to recently released data from the National Longitudinal Study
of Adolescent Health. These dramatic findings are valid even when background factors such
as socio-economic status, race, religiosity, and other relevant variables are held
constant.[5]
Fact: Government spends $12 to
promote contraceptives for every $1 spent on abstinence.
In
2002, the federal and state governments spent an estimated $1.73 billion on a wide variety
of contraception-promotion and pregnancy-prevention programs. More than a third of that
money ($653 million) was spent specifically to fund contraceptive programs for teens. In
contrast, programs teaching teens to abstain from sexual activity received only an
estimated $144.1 million in the same year. Overall, government spent $12.00 to promote
contraception for every one dollar spent to encourage abstinence. If funding for teens
alone is examined, government still spent $4.50 on promoting teen contraceptive use for
every one dollar spent on teen abstinence.[6]
Fact:
Government spending priorities do not match parental priorities.
Some 85 percent of parents believe that teaching about abstinence
should be emphasized as much as, or more than, teaching about contraception. Only 8
percent believe that promoting contraception is more important than abstinence.[7]
Fact:
“Comprehensive sex education” or “abstinence plus” programs are merely
safe sex programs wrapped in a deceptive label.
In
recent years, a new approach, termed “abstinence plus” or “comprehensive
sexuality education,” has played a prominent role in the public debate over sex
education. According to proponents, abstinence plus or comprehensive sex ed programs place
a strong emphasis on abstinence but also contain information about contraception. This
approach is presented as the middle ground between “safe sex” and abstinence.
In
reality, comprehensive sex ed programs are nothing more than standard “safe sex”
programs wrapped in a new label. These curricula have little meaningful abstinence
content. True abstinence curricula devote, on average, 71 percent of their page content to
abstinence. In contrast, comprehensive sex ed curricula, on average, allocate only 4.7
percent of their content to abstinence; the overwhelming focus is on encouraging teens to
use contraception.
The
brief abstinence message in comprehensive sex ed curricula is weak and equivocal:
comprehensive sex ed does not present abstinence as a goal or standard that teens should
pursue, but merely as a minor option teens may consider. Comprehensive sex curricula never
urge teens to abstain until they finish high school. Even sentences suggesting that young
people should wait “until they are older” before engaging in sex are extremely
rare. The principal message that pervades comprehensive sex ed curricula, through repeated
example, is that it is okay for teens to have sex as long as they use contraception.[8]
Fact: Parents overwhelmingly support the values and messages of true
abstinence education.
Polls show that parents overwhelmingly support the main themes and
messages of abstinence education:
- 79 percent
of parents want teens to be taught that they should not engage in sexual activity until
they are married or at least in an adult relationship leading to marriage.
- 91 percent
of parents want teens to be taught that “the best choice is for sexual intercourse to
be linked to love, intimacy, and commitment. These qualities are most likely to occur in a
faithful marriage.”
- 68 percent
of parents want sex education programs to teach that “individuals who are not
sexually active until they are married have the best chances of marital stability and
happiness.”
- 91 percent
of parents want schools to teach that “adolescents should be expected to abstain from
sexual activity during high school years.”
These themes are central to abstinence education curricula. By
contrast, these messages either do not appear in or are directly contradicted by
comprehensive sex ed/abstinence plus curricula.[9]
Fact:
Parents overwhelmingly oppose the values and messages of comprehensive sex ed curricula.
Comprehensive
sex ed programs teach permissive values that are opposed by nearly all parents:
Comprehensive
sex ed curricula focus almost exclusively on contraception and include little or no
material on abstinence. However, only 2 percent of parents believe abstinence is not
important; only 7 percent believe teaching about contraception should have more emphasis
than teaching about abstinence.
Over
90 percent of parents want sex education programs to teach teens to abstain at least until
they have finished high school. Comprehensive sex ed programs do not contain this message,
and much of their material implicitly undermines it.
In
page after page of text, and through example upon example, comprehensive sex ed
curricula are pervaded by the message that it is okay for teens to have sex as long as
they use contraception. As long as “protection” is used, it is difficult to find
any example in these programs where voluntary teen is criticized or discouraged. Only 7
percent of parents agree with this permissive message.[10]
Fact:
Comprehensive sex ed programs contain sexually explicit material that is offensive to
nearly all parents.
Most comprehensive
sex-ed curricula contain sexually explicit and offensive materials. For example, curricula
have students practice unrolling condoms on bananas, cucumbers, or model phalluses.
Curricula also contain discussions of anal sex and homosexual role-playing and encourage
teens to practice mutual masturbation and watch erotic movies. Much material in
“abstinence plus” curricula would be alarming to parents.[11]
Invite [students] to brainstorm ways to increase
spontaneity and the likelihood that they’ll use condoms…. Examples: …Store
condoms under mattress; Eroticize condom use with partner…Use condoms as a method of
foreplay.… Think up a sexual fantasy using condoms….Act sexy/sensual when
putting condoms on…. Hide them on your body and ask your partner to find it. Wrap
them as a present and give to your partner before a romantic dinner. Tease each other
manually while putting on the condom.[12]
State that there are other ways to be close to a
person and show you care without having sexual intercourse. Ask youth to brainstorm ways
to be close. The list may include holding hands, body massage, bathing together,
masturbation, sensuous feeding, fantasizing, watching erotic movies, reading erotic books
and magazines….[13]
Fact: Claims that parents support comprehensive sex ed or
“abstinence plus” programs are false.
Organizations such as Advocates for Youth falsely claim that parents
support comprehensive sex. These claims are based on the erroneous assertion that
comprehensive sex ed programs contain the heavy emphasis on abstinence preferred by nearly
all parents. In reality, these programs have very little abstinence content. In addition,
the aggressive promotion of teen contraceptive use, permissive sexual values, and explicit
sexual material contained in comprehensive sex ed programs are unacceptable to nearly all
parents.
Fact: Most parents want their children to be
taught a strong abstinence message as well as basic biological and health facts about
contraception, but this does not mean that parents oppose authentic abstinence education.
In general, abstinence
curricula focus on abstinence and do not teach about contraception. However, in most
schools where abstinence is taught, students will receive basic information about
contraception in a separate class such as biology or health. Most parents support this
approach; they strongly support abstinence education and do not believe abstinence and
contraception should be mixed together in the same class.[14]
Moreover, the
fact that parents want students taught the basic facts about contraception does not mean
they support the aggressive promotion of teen contraceptive use contained in
“comprehensive sex ed” programs. Such programs encourage contraceptive use,
teach teens how to convince sex partners to use contraception, teach youth how to obtain
contraception, and have students practice condom use; the overwhelming majority of parents
reject this approach.[15]
Fact:
Allowing state public health agencies to use federal abstinence funds for comprehensive
sex ed or safe sex programs would effectively eliminate federal support for abstinence
education.
Some policymakers
have proposed that state public health agencies be given the authority to divert federal
abstinence education funds to pay for safe sex/comprehensive sex ed programs. Since most
state public health agencies have long been wedded to the safe sex approach to teen sex
issues, this change would effectively eliminate most federal funding for abstinence
education.
Robert E.
Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage
Foundation.
|