Sexual Education - Abstinence Analyzing

Sexual Education - Abstinence

ANALYZING the FAILURE of ABSTINENCE-ONLY SEXUAL EDUCATION

Abstinence-only sexual education is based on the belief that the most reliable and effective means of preventing teenage pregnancy and incidence of sexually transmitted disease (STD) is the promotion of the concept of postponing sexual activity until marriage. Unlike traditional approaches to sexual education that incorporate information about safer sex such as responsible choices, monogamous sexual relationships, and strict condom use, abstinence-only education programs provide absolutely no such information at all.

The underlying philosophy of abstinence-only programs is that the only truly safe sex is no sex at all. Specifically, according to its proponents, relationships that are supposed to be sexually monogamous are susceptible to infidelity and condoms are too unreliable to prevent teenage pregnancy and STD transmission because they may be used improperly or break during intercourse.

The current Bush administration has promoted abstinence-only programs at an annual budget of $176 million as part of its "Family Values" initiative, in conjunction with which it also cancelled the types of comprehensive pregnancy and STD-prevention educational programs that had provided invaluable information to teenagers despite having proved successful at both the state and federal level (Mooney 2005).

Unfortunately, the abstinence-only approach to sexual education is demonstrably ineffective and based entirely on flawed reasoning both in its underlying philosophy and the operational mechanisms upon which it relies.

Evaluating the Comparative Effectiveness of Abstinence-Only Sexual Education:

As early as 2002, the office of Congressman Harry Waxman identified five comprehensive sexual education programs that had been proven effective in published peer-reviewed analysis compiled by a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) educational initiative called "Programs That Work" (Mooney 2005). Under the President's Family Values initiative, the CDC cancelled "Programs That Work" and the Bush administration has adamantly refused to incorporate any information about safer sex or condom use in federally-funded sexual education programs.

Meanwhile, during the same time period, Programs That Work was unable to identify a single abstinence-only sexual education program that worked. A study authorized by Congress in 1997 tracked 200 children from primary school through high school, of whom only half received abstinence-only sexual education while the rest received traditional family life services. At the conclusion of the ten-year study, which was announced last year, the children who received abstinence-only sexual education had identical rates of sexual activity (50%), age of first sexual experience (15), fewer than one-quarter of both groups used condoms every time, and more than one-third of both groups had already had more than one sexual partner (Sessions-Step 2007). Analysis of a Flawed Concept:

The underlying premise of the abstinence-only position includes the following main concepts:

No sex is preferable to safer sex,

Condom use is unreliable,

Providing information about safer sex condones premarital sex, and Premarital sex is morally wrong and inconsistent with the Family Values initiative.

Undoubtedly, abstinence is associated with a zero-incidence of both teenage pregnancy and STD transmission. The fundamental problem with the abstinence-only philosophy is not that abstinence is less effective than monogamous sexual relationships and condom use, but simply that it is impossible, by any practical measure, to achieve compliance among teenagers with abstinence protocols that depend on strict compliance to be effective. Furthermore, by excluding necessary medical and personal health information from the sexual education curricula, those children who do not comply with strict abstinence are put at increased risk of both pregnancy and STDs, by virtue of their ignorance about matters such as safer sex and condom use.

On the topic of condom use, the only message provided by abstinence-only sexual education programs is that condoms are unreliable even when used correctly and that they may break during use, despite the fact that this position absolutely contradicts the facts about condom use. Specifically: (1) the number of condoms that break during use is exceptionally small; (2) when condoms do break, may instances are caused by improper application or incorrect sizing; (3) non-breakage related failures are due virtually exclusively to improper use; and (4) condom use, even with total failure rates (including breakage and misuse) are still 90% effective in practice (Mooney 2005).

According to both anecdotal evidence and peer-reviewed literature (Gerrig & Zimbardo 2005), providing information about safer sex and specific instruction in condom use to teenagers does not increase the likelihood of sexual experimentation; in fact, it actually raises the average age of first sexual experience compared to children receiving no sexual education guidance on those matters. By contrast, there is absolutely no credible evidence to suggest that abstinence-only programs work as intended.

Moreover, the administration's entire Family Values philosophy is based on a Religious Right platform whose roots are in Christian religious principles. The view that premarital sex is immoral (even for adults) lies wholly outside the bounds of the Separation of Church and State ideal upon which this country was founded. In any case, even purely secular social mores about premarital sex, promiscuity (Baker & Elliston 1998), and the importance of female chastity (Verene 1976) rather than in objective morality or ethics in human life (Levant 1997.

Comprehensive Sexual Education - a Preferable Approach:

The fundamental psychology behind the abstinence-only approach to sexual education is incapable of achieving long-term compliance. Even apart from the issue that religion-based moral principles have absolutely no basis for inclusion into secular American law, preaching against the "immorality" and the dangers of premarital sexual activity does not work; if it did, parental prohibitions and religious values would be more successful than they are on their own.

More importantly, by presenting false information about the effectiveness of condoms, abstinence-only programs actually decrease their use among those individuals who, for whatever reason, choose to violate the teachings of those programs. Ironically, instead of decreasing teenage sexual activity as designed, abstinence-only programs are no more successful than comprehensive sexual education programs, but probably increase the incidence of both pregnancy and STD transmission among its failures. Furthermore, the exclusion of any information about emotionally healthy choices in relationships, mutual respect and consideration between partners over matters of sexual intimacy, monogamy, and especially, proper condom use from abstinence-only programs deprives its recipients of crucial health information and increased understanding of human sexual relationships. Even worse, abstinence-only programs perpetuate the unsophisticated and antiquated dynamic (Kasl 1989) that pits men -- who are necessarily cold and unemotional sexual predators -- against vulnerable women whose chastity needs protection. Similarly, by moralizing the notion of premarital sex (even for adults) completely apart from the legitimate concerns of disease transmission and unwanted pregnancy, the abstinence-only approach to sexual education perpetuates the epidemic repression of sexual desires in society, leading to its release in more irresponsible contexts (Shapiro 1999).

Instead, teenagers would benefit far more from comprehensive sexual education programs that presented information about: (1) the possible dangers and mechanism of transmission of STDs; (2) the proper use of condoms to prevent both STDs and pregnancy; (3) the possible emotional consequences of superficial sexual encounters; (4) the dynamics of healthy, potentially meaningful relationships and the difference between sexual intimacy in that context and others; and (5) respectful and considerate ways of approaching important decisions with one's partner through honest communication.

The comprehensive approach to sexual education would also enable educators to address the gender-based sexual double standard that perpetuates low self-esteem in females in society (Kasl 1989). Finally, whereas the Family Values initiative employs Christian values to support its message, a secular comprehensive sexual education program could incorporate a logical explanation of the difference between purely objective ethical standards of conduct in human life and dogmatic rules about sexuality that have no place anywhere in this secular society except within the walls of one's church or home, if they happen to represent one's religious values.

Conclusion:

The abstinence-only sexual education initiative promoted by the current presidential administration has proven itself to be completely worthless. In comparison to traditional sexual education programs, it provides absolutely no benefit, and conceivably causes additional harm attributable to the deliberate withholding of invaluable information about STD transmission and unwanted pregnancy. As part of its message, it distorts the truth about the relative effectiveness of condom use, thereby only decreasing the likelihood that teenagers who ultimately choose to reject abstinence (as virtually all adults do in our society before marriage) will do so responsibly, by using a condom correctly.