February 8th 2010

Science and Sense in the Abstinence Wars

News organizations carried a story last week about a successful, experimental sex ed curriculum focused on abstinence. What follows is my blog post about the study, which ran in The Huffington Post, and a short sample of reaction to the post.

*****

When I read the lead paragraph of last week’s news story on the success of an experimental, abstinence-only sex ed curriculum, my first thought was: “Yes, but…”

The Washington Post story, written by Rob Stein, said that the “landmark study” showed that encouraging children to remain sexually abstinent had persuaded “a significant proportion” to delay sexual activity.

“Yes, but...” I thought, having read the abstract and knowing the research was limited to 662 sixth and seventh grade African Americans in a Northeastern city. (Rob reported that in his second paragraph.)

Could a program that small be characterized as a landmark study? Was it robust enough to support Rob’s observation that results could have “major implications for U.S. efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases”?

Later I realized I had fallen into the Washington trap of, “Yes, but,” as in “Yes, what you say sounds interesting but it doesn’t agree with what I’ve previously thought. Therefore it must be wrong or at best, incomplete.” We in the nation’s capital are quick to dismiss views that don’t agree with our own. Admitting there is merit in a position you oppose could mean your position is worth nothing. Insecurity takes the form of disdain.

One sees this in the culture wars over sex education. While warriors on one side argue that young people should be taught to abstain from intercourse until marriage, warriors on the other say kids should simply be taught to protect themselves from pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. The goal is safe sex, not wedding bells, they say.

Both sides disparage the other. In conversations I heard yesterday, several experts whom I would characterize as moderate to liberal pooh-poohed the results of the new study. Yes, they said, the lead researcher was well respected, but the study was reporting old data. Yes, the program might work in inner-city neighborhoods, but nowhere else.

They failed to note that the experiment, conducted over two years, was designed and run according to scientific standards which they have long championed.

For example, teachers in the program were instructed not to portray sex in a negative light, not to use a moralistic tone in their discussion, not to include any inaccurate information, and not to criticize condom use. Instructors also were told to encourage abstinence until later in life, not necessarily until marriage. Mod-libs should at least have applauded that.

Conservative commentators ignored the same parts of the experiment, embracing the study’s success while not acknowledging that the restrictions placed on instructors may very well have contributed to the project’s results.

Chad Hills, policy analyst at Focus on the Family, said the study “offers the latest proof we have to add to our growing mountain of evidence that abstinence education works.” Robert Rector, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said, “This takes away the main pillar of opposition to abstinence education.”

It seems reasonable to me to tell sixth and seventh graders (the mean age was 12 years old) not to have sex. It also seems reasonable to be careful how we couch that, and to remember that the same approach may not be effective with other groups.

And it seems imperative that we put aside the “Yes, but…” statements and ideology to embrace and use what science is showing us works with kids.

*****

Several readers of my post reacted as negatively to the study as some of the experts I wrote about, saying, for example, that the research proved little since only 7th and 8th graders were involved.

“12 to 13 years old having sex is abnormally young," wrote exlgrf4evr, “so to claim success in preventing them from sexual intercourse at that age is ridiculous.”

Well, not really. These were "high-risk" African-American children in an urban school, some of whom do engage in intercourse and other sexual behaviors at a distressingly young age. Why not target that age group first? They are still at high risk of disease and injury and are easier to influence. The study’s authors never claimed their methods would work on older teens. They were simply surprised – and pleased – to find something that might work with a group at extreme risk. Bravo for them, I say.

Another person who reacted to my blog, TheBodySacred, offered this observation:

“Instead of presenting sex in the negative like most programs tend to do, why not promote it as something to look forward to as an adult. Children are not mentally, emotionally, and physically able to handle sex. Many of us adults have a difficult time with it as it is….. Does one think that teens are really equipped to handle the surge of emotions and feelings associated with sex? …

We prepare for careers by going to school and doing preparatory work before embarking on our careers. We prepare for exams by studying and doing labs before actually doing the real thing. Why then do we want to push children into having sex without proper preparation and study?"

I found myself agreeing and disagreeing with the comment. Like the author, I believe sex education (or what I call sex/love/relationship education), is as important as any other part of life we prepare children for. However, it must start early in a child’s life, worded appropriately for age. It is unrealistic to think that kids are supposed to ignore sexual impulses until we decide it’s time for them to receive instruction.

Elan4444 suggested parents and teachers ask health care professionals to help educate, and to include sexual behaviors other than intercourse in their instruction.

“Kids who engage in oral sex thinking it is not 'real sex' are doing themselves a disservice and also risking their health. No, I am not an ideologue promoting abstinence. I am a realist who recently listened to my doctor who told me that HPV among young girls is at an epidemic level….Girls, the stats are: Herpes, gonorrhea, genital warts, HIV,intestinal parasites and hepatitis A are among just a few of the maladies that can be contracted through oral sex. I really don't know why more isn't said about this, kids really need to be informed. I have several daughters with whom I have shared this info, and have even invited them to visit our doctor if they have any questions, so he can accurately detail the matter with authority. I'm all for personal choice, but when what you do in high school inspired by peer pressure or just plain lust, may have consequences far beyond the impulsive years, I strongly advise both guys and girls to have a talk with a qualified someone who has the best interest of their long-term health in mind.”

Wouldn’t it be great if all of us – adults as well as kids – had “a qualified someone” in our lives to help us with the challenge of sexuality?