Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Washington Post reports on a disturbing trend:
The long decline in sexual activity among U.S. teenagers, hailed as one of the nation's most important social and public health successes, appears to have stalled.After decreasing steadily and significantly for more than a decade, the percentage of teenagers having intercourse began to plateau in 2001 and has failed to budge since then, despite the intensified focus in recent years on encouraging sexual abstinence, according to new analyses of data from a large federal survey.
The halt in the downward trend coincided with an increase in federal spending on programs focused exclusively on encouraging sexual abstinence until marriage, several experts noted. Congress is currently debating funding for such efforts, which receive about $175 million a year in federal money and have come under fire from some quarters for being ineffective.
Some speculation on why:
Experts are unsure of the reasons for the change, but they speculated that it could be the result of a combination of factors, including growing complacency among the young about AIDS and the possibility that some irreducible portion of the teenage population can never be dissuaded from having sex."At a certain point, it becomes really hard to change basic human behaviors," said John Santelli, who studies teenagers at Columbia University. "I think what we're seeing is the limits of the emphasis on abstinence as the primary message."
But this presumes that the abstinence-only message actually works in the first place and there is no evidence to suggest it does and much to suggest it does not.
A recent study of four separate abstinence programs, conducted for the Department of Health and Human Services by Mathematica Policy Research, a nonpartisan firm, found no evidence that the programs delayed the start of sexual activity among teens, but Unruh and others said such programs need more time and wider use to counter pervasive messages encouraging teens to have sex.
This is hardly the only study that show that abstinence only sex education does not work. A 2005 study done by Texas A & M showed the same thing:
Among the findings in the Texas study: About 23 percent of the ninth-grade girls in the study already had sexual intercourse before they received any abstinence education, a figure below the national average. After taking an abstinence course, the number among those same girls rose to 28 percent, a level closer to that of their peers across the state.Among ninth-grade boys, the percentage who reported sexual intercourse before and after abstinence education remained relatively unchanged. In 10th grade, however, the percentage of boys who had ever had sexual intercourse jumped from 24 percent to 39 percent after participating in an abstinence program.
A Congressional committee has found that many abstinence only programs contain false information and outright lies. And one of the requirements of an abstinence only sex education program is that it may not even mention contraception except in the context of failure rates. That's sheer insanity. As I've said many times, we should be modeling our sex education system after those nations who have far lower rates of teen pregnancy, abortion and STDs than we do - which is the entire industrialized world, by the way.
We should particularly look to the Netherlands, which has a teen pregnancy rate 1/7th that of the United States. The Netherlands hammers home the safe sex message in TV commercials, billboards and advertisements. They offer free and anonymous birth control. Yet the average teenager in that country begins to have sex a full 2 years later than American teenagers. That translates in a far lower rate of abortions for teenagers too, something the religious right should applaud.
Comments
Do "pervasive messages encouraging teens to have sex" include their own hormones? Bah.
I've always objected to abstinence only programs, but the older I get and the longer I am unmarried, the more disturbed I am by their implications. What is the secular purpose of teaching that adults in their twenties and thirties (and beyond) should never have sex? Haven't these people ever heard of Bridget Jones - you can't just get married as soon as your old enough just so you can get it on.
And yes, I know the answer is that if I wasn't so easy I wouldn't have a problem getting a man to settle down. Of course, a man that worked that way would probably be some jerk I didn't want to know to begin with...bah!
Posted by: nicole | July 24, 2007 11:17 AM
Yes, but, you see, Nicole, you are not supposed to dwell on, or even notice, the jerkiness of the man you marry, since he is the High Priest of his home and his family, and you must submit to him; God says so.
Posted by: valhar2000 | July 24, 2007 11:47 AM
It's all about thought control. The very same people who lambaste Democrats for introducing "though control" in passing hate laws want to instill in the minds of our people that sex is dirty, sinful and ultimately harmful unless you do it their way. We're seeing an attempt to return to blue laws and morality plays.
Posted by: Michael | July 24, 2007 12:23 PM
Just to be a little skeptical here, I'd expect such a trend to bottom out no matter what, just because of diminishing returns in whatever is causing the rate to change in the first place. Which, for the record, I very much doubt has anything to do with ANY sort of sex education. I wouldn't be surprised if abstinence only education doesn't reduce sex at all, and does reduce condom use (as most early studies suggest). But what the government tells kids about sex has to be just about the most minor influence on their behavior I can imagine.
Posted by: plunge | July 24, 2007 1:32 PM
I tend to agree with plunge here. At some point there will be a baseline number and that's going to be it. We are animals and as such have a need to procreate. We get this need at differing times but it happens to virtually everyone between 14-19.
Likewise it wasn't all that long ago in human history that virtually all teenagers where married off and pregnant before 20.
One could more rationally argue that teenagers having sex by 18 is the norm and delaying the behaviour more abnormal.
This of course is from a purely evidential point of view.
Posted by: GH | July 24, 2007 2:17 PM
The religious right doesn't care about increases in abortion. No, really. They also don't care if people die of AIDS, have birth out of wedlock, or even just live in sin.
The religious right only truly cares about increasing their flock and, most importantly, their sense of righteous meaningfulness.
The more pain and suffering there is in the world, the better, since that will 1) help win over converts, who are told that the world is in a state of degradation and that mankind is "fallen" and is in need of salvation (which can only be gotten through their religion), and 2) let them experience the moral paranoia that gives their lives meaning.
Death, destruction, disease, persecution (of themselves) are all part of the religious right's apocalyptic fantasies. If everything was fine then they wouldn't feel like it was the End Times and that would leave their lives meaningless, since all their sense of meaning is tied up in the dramatic story of Revelations.
So, I think the religious right will be unswayed by any amount of evidence that abstinence only education is counter-productive, since it's only counter-productive from the point of view of those measuring the outcome based on the happiness and well-being of others, not on whether the prophecies of the Bible are being fulfilled.
Posted by: jpf | July 24, 2007 3:17 PM
The Religious Right has succeeded in shaping the debate over teen sexuality in this country. Abstinence is seen by most people as the desirable state for teens and responsible sex as the fall back position if abstinence fails. But whatever happened to teaching kids -- as some European societies do -- that having responsible sex sometime in the late teens or early twenties is a normal, healthy and pretty much expected part of growing up? No school board in America would dare touch that one.
Posted by: Paul Sunstone | July 24, 2007 3:53 PM
Although I agree that the Religious Right doesn't seem to particularly care about increases in pregnancy, abortion, AIDs, etc., I think the reason has more to do with a mindset that prefers personal anecdote to statistics than a thirst for Armageddon. If only one innocent teenager abstains from sex till marriage because they accepted the rationale that this is how one best honors and respects God, the program has been a success. There is a personal story to celebrate. Numbers and statistics are cold when measured against a good story they can all relate to, a real person in whose life they have made a difference.
This mindset isn't really limited to the Religious Right. It's part of the human condition, and also drives alternative medicine and other forms of unscientific or pseudoscientific woo.
Posted by: Sastra | July 24, 2007 4:16 PM
The Religious Wrong doesn't see that any other program has anything to offer. A program that tells kids how to safely have sex fails, because then the kids might have sex. Safety isn't their concern at all. Inflicting their morals on others is all they care about. Someone who has sex but doesn't spread STDs or get pregnant is a failure in their books, so the other programs are not remotely more successful by their standards.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | July 24, 2007 8:29 PM
Someone who has sex but doesn't spread STDs or get pregnant is a failure in their books, so the other programs are not remotely more successful by their standards.
In fact, arguably, someone who has premarital sex and DOES get an STD or pregnant IS a success in their books, of a sort - a bad example to point to. "This is what happens when you violate God's law." Sin is supposed to lead to punishment, and if God chooses to exact His revenge in this life, so His followers can see it, so much the better for scaring others into abstinence.
Posted by: BobApril | July 25, 2007 8:25 AM
Hmmm, which would be more successful at keeping someone from having sex? Tell them, don't have sex; or tell them that while they probably shouldn't have sex, if they do they should use a condom, or risk getting HIV/AIDS, any of a number of other STD or possibly end up a parent.
My guess would be that number two would be more effective. And the up side of it is, that those who do decide to have sex, are more likely to have safer sex, than the abstinence only crowd,
Paul -
But whatever happened to teaching kids -- as some European societies do -- that having responsible sex sometime in the late teens or early twenties is a normal, healthy and pretty much expected part of growing up? No school board in America would dare touch that one.
If only they would. I doubt that it would do a lot to alter the sexual patterns of teens, but it would go a long ways toward supporting the self-esteem of those who choose to have sex. Making sex a forbidden fruit, on the one hand encourages some people to do it, while on the other it makes many kids (some of whom fall into both groups) feel guilty and dirty about it. I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's as bad for one's future sexual epression as being molested, but it sure as hell isn't healthy.
Take away the forbidden fruit and a lot of that would change. Indeed, I daresay that it would encourage healthier sexual expression among teens that do have sex. It doesn't even require encouraging kids to have the sex. A simple statement like; "People shouldn't have sex until they are ready, for some people that doesn't happen until they are married, for others it happens quite young. The only bad sex, is having sex before you're comfortable with the idea." or somesuch bland statement. There is no excuse for making kids feel bad about doing something that is obviously completely natural. Not teaching kids about ways to make the sex safer, is flat out criminal. It is nothing less than gambling with their lives and health.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 25, 2007 2:25 PM
While I fully support the Dutch views on sex, they have a vastly different and much more homogenous population base than in the U.S. If I remember the statistics correctly, African-American teens have sex about a year earlier and Hispanic-Americans about two years earlier than their Caucasian-American counterparts. The U.S. also has a significantly higher divorce rate than the Netherlands; evidence indicates that pheromones from a biological father suppress the onset of puberty in females while those of non-related males (like stepfathers) accelerate it, which seems like an important factor.
Posted by: Cole | July 25, 2007 6:25 PM
well i wanted to see what everyone thinks in view of their own cultural beliefs...who what where when should a parent talk to their children aout alcohol sex and drugs or if you think they should even have the talk at all...? thanks!
Posted by: sabrina | November 8, 2007 11:37 AM