Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A new study concludes that abstinence-only education had a significant and long-term effect in reducing teen sexual activity. “The abstinence-only intervention reduced sexual initiation,” reports the study, which is featured in the most recent issue of the medical journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, published by the American Medical Association.

The study found that a short eight-hour abstinence program reduced sexual activity among youth by a third. Despite the brevity of the abstinence training the effects lasted a full two years after students left the classroom. Moreover, if students who took the abstinence course did become sexually active they were not less likely to use contraception.

In contrast, study found that alternative types of sex ed failed. “Safe sex” programs (which promote contraception only) and “comprehensive sex ed” programs (which teach both abstinence and contraceptive use), had no effect on teen sexual behavior. These programs neither reduced teen sex nor did they increase contraceptive use among teens, which is their major emphasis.
These findings are based on a randomized controlled experiment, the gold standard in program evaluation and designed to produce unbiased results. The study analyzed 662 African-American 6th and 7th grade students in four public middle schools serving low-income communities in a northeastern U.S. city. They were randomly assigned to participate in an eight-hour abstinence-only program, an eight-hour “safe sex” program, an eight- or twelve-hour comprehensive sex education program, or a general health-only, non-sex ed program, which represented the control group in the experiment.

Bolstered by its rigorous randomized controlled design, this study provides important new findings. It strengthens the existing body of empirical evidence on the effectiveness of abstinence education. A 2008 Heritage study, for example, reviewed 15 studies of authentic abstinence programs and found that 11 of the 15 studies reported positive behavioral changes among teens.

These new findings—that abstinence education reduced teen sex, without causing any adverse decline in contraception use, while “safe sex” and comprehensive sex ed programs failed to reduce teen sex or increase contraceptive use—seriously counter the ineffectiveness claim made by opponents of abstinence education.

Opponents of abstinence are often motivated by ideology than by social science research.

In recent weeks, abstinence foes launched yet another attack, attributing the rise in teen pregnancy and birth rates, after more than a decade of dramatic decline, to federally-funded abstinence programs. However, a funding analysis by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that, in the fiscal year 2008, for every dollar the department spent on abstinence education, it spent $4 on comprehensive sex education and family planning services targeting teens. In FY2008, the department spent $176.5 million on abstinence education. By contrast, pregnancy and STD prevention programs and family planning services for teens received $609.3 million .

Sadly, despite the social science evidence, the Obama administration and Congress have eliminated all federal spending on abstinence education and, instead, have created additional funding for comprehensive sex education.

Purple For Life wrote:It says right on the website that they promote conservative values, so I don't take much stock in this article.

It also looks like that same Heritage Foundation funded the study. Ya think that might have had something to do with the results?

Col Hogan wrote:T-Man, I think that was wrong of you to put PFLs picture on your original post...before she even responded...

93henfan wrote:Abstinence-only, safe sex-only, or really anything-only is a bad idea because it limits education to whatever the "only" is that's being taught. Why would you want to only give part of the story to kids?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that encouraging abstinence while educating kids on common sense safety and birth control methods in a broad-based approach makes the most sense.

Rob Iola wrote:

93henfan wrote:Abstinence-only, safe sex-only, or really anything-only is a bad idea because it limits education to whatever the "only" is that's being taught. Why would you want to only give part of the story to kids?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that encouraging abstinence while educating kids on common sense safety and birth control methods in a broad-based approach makes the most sense.

I guess that's the thing - have a broad education on sex (which I did in fact reason from Catholic school), but then apply "values" to the teaching which in reality is a good thing - abstaining from sex until you're emotionally/physically ready for everything it entails is really the right way to go.

Of course, angry/sympathy sex with a fuck buddy (or two) can be loads of fun too...

93henfan wrote:Abstinence-only, safe sex-only, or really anything-only is a bad idea because it limits education to whatever the "only" is that's being taught. Why would you want to only give part of the story to kids?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that encouraging abstinence while educating kids on common sense safety and birth control methods in a broad-based approach makes the most sense.

93henfan wrote:Abstinence-only, safe sex-only, or really anything-only is a bad idea because it limits education to whatever the "only" is that's being taught. Why would you want to only give part of the story to kids?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that encouraging abstinence while educating kids on common sense safety and birth control methods in a broad-based approach makes the most sense.

GannonFan wrote:

93henfan wrote:Abstinence-only, safe sex-only, or really anything-only is a bad idea because it limits education to whatever the "only" is that's being taught. Why would you want to only give part of the story to kids?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that encouraging abstinence while educating kids on common sense safety and birth control methods in a broad-based approach makes the most sense.

That's the thing, though - I think everyone would agree that encouraging abstitence and teaching common sense safety and birth control is the best option, but neither side seems to want to compromise - the abstinence people abhor talking about birth control, and the birth control people find it laughable that anyone could have enough restraint to actually abstain. Kinda odd to have such entrenched positions when the compromise, as you state, is not really that much of a come down from either position.

Grizalltheway wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
That's the thing, though - I think everyone would agree that encouraging abstitence and teaching common sense safety and birth control is the best option, but neither side seems to want to compromise - the abstinence people abhor talking about birth control, and the birth control people find it laughable that anyone could have enough restraint to actually abstain. Kinda odd to have such entrenched positions when the compromise, as you state, is not really that much of a come down from either position.

Heh

GannonFan wrote:

93henfan wrote:Abstinence-only, safe sex-only, or really anything-only is a bad idea because it limits education to whatever the "only" is that's being taught. Why would you want to only give part of the story to kids?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that encouraging abstinence while educating kids on common sense safety and birth control methods in a broad-based approach makes the most sense.

That's the thing, though - I think everyone would agree that encouraging abstitence and teaching common sense safety and birth control is the best option, but neither side seems to want to compromise - the abstinence people abhor talking about birth control, and the birth control people find it laughable that anyone could have enough restraint to actually abstain. Kinda odd to have such entrenched positions when the compromise, as you state, is not really that much of a come down from either position.

mainejeff wrote:I WISH that breeders would follow through with abstinence........there would be less over-crowding in the world and then I could eat in peace at my favorite restaurants.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Belittle it all you want, its fact that if you dont fu*k, you wont have kids you cant take care of.

Abstinence works every time its tried.

Col Hogan wrote:T-Man, I think that was wrong of you to put PFLs picture on your original post...before she even responded...

Purple For Life wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:T-Man, I think that was wrong of you to put PFLs picture on your original post...before she even responded...

I see...no logical response, so you resort to making fun of my looks.

Hmm. I see the extent of your thinking process. Fascinating.

I still question the validity of this study. Then again, it's hardly surprising you use a loaded study, from an admittedly conservative website, to prove a point you already agreed with.

It might be nice if you posted something from the other side of the coin. I might be more inclined to take you seriously. I can see why Cap'n doesn't.

Rob Iola wrote:

Purple For Life wrote:
I see...no logical response, so you resort to making fun of my looks.

Hmm. I see the extent of your thinking process. Fascinating.

I still question the validity of this study. Then again, it's hardly surprising you use a loaded study, from an admittedly conservative website, to prove a point you already agreed with.

It might be nice if you posted something from the other side of the coin. I might be more inclined to take you seriously. I can see why Cap'n doesn't.

Wait - you take Cap'n seriously? Seriously?

You've posted pictures of yourself - you're far better looking than virtually all of us.

But you've also been pretty outspoken and have gotten hammered on things - no different than the rest of us - toughen up that skin of yours!

Well actually, if you could, please whomp up a sammich for me, then toughen up that skin of yours...

Alice wrote:.

AshevilleApp wrote:

Alice wrote:.

Welcome Alice. Keep those posts coming.

Alice wrote:

Rob Iola wrote: Wait - you take Cap'n seriously? Seriously?

You've posted pictures of yourself - you're far better looking than virtually all of us.

But you've also been pretty outspoken and have gotten hammered on things - no different than the rest of us - toughen up that skin of yours!

Well actually, if you could, please whomp up a sammich for me, then toughen up that skin of yours...

Like bullying people.

Wow!

Alice wrote:

Rob Iola wrote: Wait - you take Cap'n seriously? Seriously?

You've posted pictures of yourself - you're far better looking than virtually all of us.

But you've also been pretty outspoken and have gotten hammered on things - no different than the rest of us - toughen up that skin of yours!

Well actually, if you could, please whomp up a sammich for me, then toughen up that skin of yours...

Like bullying people.

Wow!