Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Bush administration continues to push for abstinence only sex education even while their own studies show that it's not only not reducing teen sexual activity, it's making that sexual activity less safe and more likely to result in pregnancy and disease. The Washington Post reports:
The nation's campaign to get more teenagers to delay sex and to use condoms is faltering, threatening to undermine the highly successful effort to reduce teen pregnancy and protect young people from sexually transmitted diseases, federal officials reported yesterday.New data from a large government survey show that by every measure, a decade-long decline in sexual activity among high school students leveled off between 2001 and 2007, and that the rise in condom use by teens flattened out in 2003.
And the obvious reason why:
"Since we've started pushing abstinence, we have seen no change in the numbers on sexual activity," said John Santelli, chairman of the department of population and family health at Columbia University. "The other piece of it is: Abstinence education spends a good amount of time bashing condoms. So it's not surprising, if that's the message young people are getting, that we're seeing condom use start to decrease."
Study after study of kids in abstinence only sex ed has shown that while those programs may help kids delay having sex for a short time, it doesn't last long. Those studies also show that when those kids do start having sex, they're a lot less likely to use condoms and that significantly increases the risk of pregnancy and disease transmission. It's time to end this madness.
Politics
Comments
Does the online version of the Washington Post have the same layout as the paper edition? At the link above, the story is on page A01, which I'm assuming is front page, but does that mean it's front page on the newsstands as well? I'm asking because I don't buy my local newspaper anymore, but if I walked past someone reading one with a headline that said "Abstinence Sex-Ed Fails!", I'd put my money down and read that story. Then I'd be talking about it to everyone, and looking for ways to do something about it.
I'm the only person I know who gets her news somewhere other then newspaper and tv, so I frequently find myself with a different take on current events than they do. People talk to me about things they read in the paper every day but I never hear them discussing issues like this, where an ideology-driven government program is not only not doing what it was paid to do, but is making the situation worse, and putting our children in danger. Why not? Am I missing something? Is there a huge protest going on about this that I didn't hear about? Is CNN more concerned about Obama's middle name than this scandal?
Posted by: Mary Talley | June 8, 2008 10:14 AM
Mary, the short answer is yes, they are.
The long answer:
Manufactured scandals like middle names and "bittergate" only require a short video clip and a couple of talking heads to endlessly speculate on what it means, and when they run out of things to say they just start reading emails and comments from viewers. Cheap, simple, vacuous.
Investigating the claims of government requires one to read the governments claim, find supporting or counter arguments on the claim, and then evaluate the strength of the evidence of each side, you must in very plain language say if someone is right or wrong on the issue. Perhaps hardest of all you must lay blame on someone if you find out that they are systematically distorting or ignoring evidence to support their side. This process requires the integrity to stick to the facts, dedication to see that you establish as full a picture as possible of what is going on, and a certain degree of intelligence. This process is often expensive, usually time consuming, and requires talent.
Corporate news programs are designed to be profit centers. So when they have a choice between an expensive process that requires trained specialists or a simple attention getting process that can be done by any pretty face with a pleasant speaking voice, it becomes easy to see why so much of our news is content free. But like any company that squeezes pennies and winds up making an inferior product, they are losing viewers and money, they have refused to establish quality standards for their product and as a result they find people abandoning their brand.
The sad thing is that in the digital age investigative reporting has been made vastly easier. So much so that many amateurs in the field are now offering content via the internet that is a huge improvement, in terms of both quality and content, on the work of many "profesionals" at the major news centers.
Posted by: random guy | June 8, 2008 11:09 AM
The Bush administration's conclusion would be, no doubt, that we just need to push abstinence-only programs harder. After all, when the empirical data showed that ONDCP anti-drug ads actually *increased* drug use (as studied from 1999-2004), the response was to spend $220 million more on anti-drug ads in 2005 and 2006. When the findings of the $47 million study were made public in late 2006 (after being communicated to the government in February 2005), they rejected the findings as meaningless because the data was stale.
In both cases, it's all about "doing something for the children" that feels like the right thing to the religious right, not about actually trying to address problems. It's all about the votes.
Congress has abdicated its responsibility for legislation and regulation to the executive branch, preferring instead to construct bills which "do something" with vague authorizations for specific regulations to be created by the executive branch, and then complaining about the inevitable failure of execution when bad, useless, or counter-productive regulations are what actually get implemented. It's a win-win for Congressmen--they take no risk of proposing programs that they can be blamed for when they fail, yet they can point to their votes for enabling legislation (which they probably never even read) as having tried to "do something." The result is more power to the executive and an increasingly ineffectual legislative branch which provides no check on the executive's power to continue with utterly useless, counterproductive, harmful, and unconstitutional programs.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | June 8, 2008 11:18 AM
That's such a shock that it doesn't work out well when we set educational policy not based on sound public health research but what seems like a good idea to a barely literate religious-fundamentalist moron.
And that adolescents will screw like rabbits regardless of how much we tell them what feels good to them is the work of the debil.
I'm shocked. Really, I am.
Posted by: NickG | June 8, 2008 11:19 AM
Come on, Ed.
Absence of evidence of abstinence is not evidence of abstinence absence.
Or something.
Won't someone think of the children?
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | June 8, 2008 11:25 AM
Ed-
There are some major problems with your post:
1) This story was about the release of the 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance data by the CDC, neither of them were mentioned by you in your abstinence-bashing opinion. The Washington Post, like yourself, took this release of data and immediately interpreted (while interviewing a biased anti-abstinence "expert" like John Santelli) as further proof of the failure of abstinence-education. This, however, is irresponsible journalism and junk science, to say the least.
It's very typical of the liberal elite to say that when sexual activity decreases and condom use increases, abstinence-education had no part. But when we see the trends leveling off, the blame is immediately placed on ab-ed. Further, there are so many variables that go into these numbers, that it is impossible to say that one form of education is to blame or not to blame. Santelli should know this, and so should you.
2) Strong Federal Support for abstinence-education didn't begin in 2001, it began around 1996 with the Federal Welfare Reform law, which authorized Title V. It was only in 2000 that another funding stream began, which is what Santelli is referring to. However, this seems to also be missing.
3) The programs that you and Santelli support actually encourage kids to have sex, rather than teaching them the reasons they should abstain. Further, a recent analysis of so called "successful comprehensive sex programs" found that only one out of dozens of these programs actually succeeded in their intended purpose, which most often is to see consistent and correct condom use. Only one of these programs actually worked. One.
4) More and more longitudinal studies are showing that abstinence education works. Do your research and you'll find them. Let's not just cherry pick from the liberal talking points. That's lazy.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 8, 2008 11:42 AM
I am convinced that the proponents of abstinence-only education do not give a shit about kids. They care only about their vision of how the world should work, and anyone who does not toe the line with their vision is acceptable collateral damage.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 8, 2008 11:43 AM
Anon - Point four - really name three -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 8, 2008 11:46 AM
I'm not sure we can reliably interpret these findings such that they impact this debate. The statistical generalization in question is leveling off of what was an ongoing decrease in sexual activity.
To me, the first thing that should come to mind when you see that is that all social trends naturally level off. Let's say that there is some reason, X, that was the primary cause for the decline in teen sex. If so, the natural trend we'd expect would be that X has its effect, and then slowly tapers off. Teens aren't going to stop having sex entirely. And condom use will never hit 100%. Whatever effect X is going to have in reducing sexual activity is going to hit a point where only the hardest cases (the horniest cases) are left, and so its much harder going to reduce sexual activity even further.
Oh, and anonymous: "The programs that you and Santelli support actually encourage kids to have sex, rather than teaching them the reasons they should abstain."
You're simply full of it.
Posted by: Bad | June 8, 2008 12:05 PM
I love comments like that one from Anonymous. 4 naked assertions, not a single one of them backed up with any evidence and full of boilerplate rhetoric about the "liberal elite." Utterly substanceless.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 8, 2008 12:34 PM
Anonymous,I have a suggestion for you, Google for the information and see what you get. I've spent a lot of time in forums discussing abstinence only and I can tell you that the only ones that believe in it are religous conservatives. Health professionals find it less than successful.
I always find it amusing when people make claims that are so easily research.
Posted by: jufulu FCD | June 8, 2008 12:44 PM
To those who support abstinance-only, all sexual activity before marriage is a sign of failure. Premarital sex is sinful, corrupting, filthy, dangerous and immoral with or without a condom. So a rational argument based on public health isn't going to convince them at all - even if they know that abstinance-only increases STI and pregnency rates, the teens are to blame for their own downfall in their choice to turn from Christ.
I am getting worringly good at thinking like a fundamentalist.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | June 8, 2008 12:56 PM
Humans being sexual beings from an early age are going to have about the same amount of sexual activity no matter what you do or which culture you inhabit. This is yet another instance where religion clashes with reality.
When the urges come it is better to be educated than not and that is the abject poverty that is abstinence only education despite it's good intentions.
Our German exchange daughter cannot believe how ignorant her classmates are here in TX about this topic and is agast there is no sex ed in the HS despite the number of pregnant teens and the on campus daycare for HS students.
Posted by: GH | June 8, 2008 1:06 PM
This is one of those issues that it is hard to tell anything. I used to think that by giving out the condom you were saying it was ok and the kids would do it more. The bottom line is that if they meet someone they like they are going to have sex with them. I think it is wrong and I know it is harmful because so many end up hurt in the end, diseases come, and they get pregnant....
I lived through the consequences of teen age pregnancy. I look back and have no idea what I would have listened too. I am pretty sure the last person would have been some religious dude saying to turn down having sex anytime I wanted with a girl that was so hot my jaw almost dropped the first time I saw her.
So with that settled maybe we can come up with some real solutions. I am all ears. I have a 13 year old who is hurting real bad years later. I am glad he was born but maybe the circumstances could have been different.
Posted by: King of Ireland | June 8, 2008 1:07 PM
It is not that hard to test. If abstinence-only sex education is effective, then there should be a difference between pregnancy rates and STD transmission between teens that have gone through the program and teens that have not gone through the program. This study orded by Congress (.pdf), for example, shows that abstinence-only was no better than the control.
I'd say not providing citations to back up your arguments is lazy.
What I have found, however, are statements by the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association, all criticizing or opposing abstinence-only education. Exactly what studies have all these organizations failed to find?
Posted by: Citizen Z | June 8, 2008 1:22 PM
And this is a bad thing, how?
Message to Anon, sex is fun. You should try it too. :)
Posted by: student_b | June 8, 2008 1:29 PM
I have a 13 year-old daughter, and the one kind of "homeschooling" her mother and I have seen to is comprehensive sex education. Our daughter's questions have always been answered about sex, with the guiding principle being, if she's old enough to ask the question, she's old enough to get the answer. Since she hit puberty, she's known where the condom drawer is.
And she shows no indication that she is all that interested in having sex yet. Many of her middle school friends are "boy crazy" (her term) and the peer pressure is immense, but she doesn't care. In fact, her girlfriends call her for relationship advice, and she corrects the erroneous information these kids get "on the playground".
Of course, being in California, a state that rejected the federal money for "abstinence only" and designed their own comprehensive sex education program, does help. But my daughter is a shining example of how comprehensive sex education does work. She has solid facts to base her decisions on, and as such, she makes the right ones. I fully expect her to go on making the right ones when she does become sexually active.
Posted by: Joe Max | June 8, 2008 1:48 PM
Anonymous, you complete moron!
Have you ever stopped to think why the USA have much higher teen pregnancy and STD rates than the entire rest of the First World?
Have you ever stopped to think why the red states have higher teen pregnancy and STD rates (and, BTW, divorce rates) than the blue states?
Did you even know that was the case in the first place?
-------------
I don't think I've ever before called anyone a "complete moron" in a blog comment. But the bright flaming stupid... RRRAAARRRGH!!!
I think I should mention I live in Europe, am 25 years old, and have never had sex. Hey, with whom? Girlfriends for nerds don't exactly grow on trees. Regardless, it is plain obvious to me that abstinence-only sex non-education is stupidity on par with the Flat Earth Society. What next? Intelligent Falling is long overdue. Morons.
*hrrrrr*
*hrrrrr*
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 8, 2008 3:58 PM
Shit, David, you're 25? My mental image generator, using your work on Pharyngula, has failed me utterly.
Though the no SO thing may explain why you're so well read. ;o)
Posted by: MikeG | June 8, 2008 4:25 PM
"The programs that you and Santelli support actually encourage kids to have sex, rather than teaching them the reasons they should abstain."
The fact that this statement was made by an abstinance supported illustrates my point about the disconnect. For this supporter, typical of his view, the objective of sex-ed is to teach teenagers to abstain. Any program that does not achieve this objective is a failure - even if it successfully reduces the twin metrics of lower STI rate and lower pregnency rate, it is still a failure, because it hasn't stoped teenagers from having sex.
You can argue successfully against the extremally poor science behind all the attempts to argue that abstinance-only works - it's quite easy to punch holes in it, because statistically it is next to worthless. But even if you do that, it won't convince the supporters because they use a fundamentally different metric to measure success.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | June 8, 2008 5:08 PM
I agree with anon. I never let facts get in the way of my opinion.
What a fucking moron.
Posted by: wrpd | June 8, 2008 5:28 PM
A little Roy Zimmerman to lighten the mood in here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPClWkEdES8
:D
Posted by: Wes | June 8, 2008 5:44 PM
My mental image generator also failed to consider that David might be younger than 30--few people in his age range are as mature as he comes across. I just turned 24, but I feel barely older than 16.
Out of curiosity, where in Europe are you located, David? Based on your surname, I'm guessing that you are of Serbo-Croatian descent.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 8, 2008 6:11 PM
I was going to say something, but Sadie just wrote my comment, so I'll just let hers stand instead of repeating it.
Posted by: Sivi Volk | June 8, 2008 10:18 PM
No, no. Abstinence only educations is great. In fact, we should extend it to other areas, like gun safety:
Abstinence Only Gun Education
Posted by: JK | June 8, 2008 10:29 PM
Ed:
There is another problem with abstinence-only, or, for that matter, any form of sex education that considers the central ethical problem to be whether or not you have sex. It makes it practically impossible to start a classroom discussion on how to act ethically while having sex.
I'd argue that the basics of the question -- as with almost any human activity -- are that ethics requires respect, honesty, and responsibility -- both in the sense of 'acting responsibly' and 'taking responsibility for your actions and any consequences that occur.' And yes, I mean more than 'do you get the girl pregnant.' (Or as a character in a long-abandoned book of mine said 'once you get it across that there is a person on either end of your cock, everything else is just details.')
But can you imagine the furor that would result if a sex ed teacher started his first class by saying "whether or not you have sex -- and with which gender -- is up to you. What I'm going to teach you is how to have sex -- if you choose to -- not just the mechanics, but the attitudes you should develop towards sex and towards your partner."
For that matter, can you imagine what would happen if a sex ed teacher began the course by teaching his students -- of whatever age -- how to masturbate, or got them discussing the various techniques they used. (Especially if the class were co-ed -- yet how much of the bad sexual attitudes that are pervasive among much of the male population come from the simple failure to realize that women can enjoy sex and have orgasms too -- and how many religiously-instructed women and girls are equally ignorant.)
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | June 9, 2008 12:30 AM
Right on, Citizen Z! Guys like Anonymous never back up their claims with any evidence. In fact, it's not evidence what drives them anyway. They just 'know' how the world works and any counter-evidence is the work of the devil. But back to the topic:
Sex is a completely natural thing. Everybody does it (even Xtian fundamentalist. Of course, they really feel bad afterwards.) The only thing that one can do is teach kids openly about it so that they can make informed choices when the situation arises. Preaching abstinence-only just leads to high-risk behavior (as David (what 25? I also thought you were older!) pointed out it's no accident that the USA has a much higher rate of teen-pregnancies and STDs compared to other 1st world countries - in lack of a better word, 1st? not so much! - as is the north-south gradient in their spacial distribution)
Slightly off topic (but relevant since it elucidates the underlying mentality of Xtians). Yesterday there was a very funny show on NPR. Well, it wasn't supposed to be funny, but for an atheist with catholic upbringing it was. It was a show about the ten commandments. For each commandment they had some 'enlightening' story. The story for 'Thou shall not commit adultery' was an interview of a fundamentalist and how he had such a hard time with this commandment since looking at a woman is already committing a sin (the famous 'dirty thoughts') I learned that there are special books on how to deal with one's unclean urges in the man's section of Xtian book stores. How can one waste so much time with such a completely normal human behavior and turn it into an unhealthy obsession? For Xtians, sex per se is bad and any policy that tries to cope with its consequences (and thereby acknowledges that sex is inevitable) is also bad and needs to be opposed. They truly don't care for the teens that contract STDs or get pregnant in the process (they have been bad anyway, you see?!). How anybody can claim that Christianity entails higher moral standards is beyond me.
The 'Thou shall not kill' section of this program was also very revealing. The accompanying story was about soldiers that had trouble killing or were traumatized by having killed another human in the war because of this commandment. They interviewed a military priest who explained that this commandment is, of course, not absolute but exceptions are allowed (for example, Jesus did heal the child of a soldier, disregarding his profession. Therefore, killing as a soldier is allowed.) I do see that this might be of help to somebody who is troubled by what he has done during a war, but, still, the dishonesty is mind-boggling.
Posted by: Futility | June 9, 2008 2:26 AM
ONe reasons this is all failing is that they have forgotten what it is to be a teenager.
The teenager knows everything. You know nothing. If you are over 35 you are a has been.
They ain't gonna listen.
When they look back 15 years after graduation...if they graduated...and look at the wreck their like has become it will be too late.
But you can tell em "I told you so."!
Bahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Grady | June 9, 2008 8:32 AM
Grady: That's not really true -- teens to listen to their elders, but the elders have to know what they're talking about, and always tell the verifiable truth. The minute the teens suspect (or, worse yet, do a little research and prove) that the grownups are lying, or carefully editing the truth according to a set of regs, they will stop listening.
And that's why abistnence-only sex-"ed" fails: call them lazy stupid hormone-driven slackers all you want, but kids are indeed smart enough to know when they're being lied to, or "shielded" from a truth the adults find inconvenient.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 9, 2008 9:32 AM
Raging Bee, right on the money. Kids are NOT stupid. Most know a lie when they see one, but will at least think about truth. As someone above noted, policies that depend on what the world should be, as opposed to what it really is will always fail.
War on sex, war on drugs, etc.
Posted by: RAM | June 9, 2008 10:47 AM
Did they forget, or are they in denial?
Wouldn't being "born again" encourage someone to dissociate themselves from their former lives? Just Seal all the unchaste behaviour of your youth in a thick bag and slap a "theohazardous waste" sticker on it. Now you can tell young people to live in a way you never did without feeling the sting of hypocrisy.
Posted by: DaveL | June 9, 2008 9:27 PM
My school had comprehensive sex education. They don't tell you sex is great, go out and do it. They tell you about the anatomy of the reproductive systems. They tell you what diseases you might catch if sexually active. They tell you how pregnancy happens, and what doesn't work to prevent it-- and what *usually* does work to prevent it. And while giving you advice on how to avoid STDs and pregnancy if you're sexually active, they tell you, repeatedly, that abstinence is 100% effective.
I'm one of the 5% who didn't have sex until after marriage-- I don't like risks, and 100% certainty of not having college interrupted by a pregnancy, and avoiding the risk of AIDs, were really big incentives for me.
Furthermore, comprehensive sex ed also deals with peer pressure; how to get help if you're being sexually abused; and other ways teens can protect themselves and their right to say No.
It's just that comprehensive sex ed is reality based, and focuses on your options and puts the power to make decisions on the individual, rather than threatening them into obedience to someone else's choice.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | June 9, 2008 9:40 PM
Samantha - "they tell you, repeatedly, that abstinence is 100% effective". I'm sorry to tell you this, but 'they' repeatedly lied to you, evidently.
Also I am curious about the "100% certainty of not having college interrupted by a pregnancy" being an incentive. Didn't they teach you about contraception? A combination of condom and pill is very effective (>99.999% at least), if you're one one the unlucky ones, well there are ways of dealing with that too. -curiously DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 9, 2008 10:37 PM
"For that matter, can you imagine what would happen if a sex ed teacher began the course by teaching his students -- of whatever age -- how to masturbate"
I recall a politician suggested this back in the Clinton years. She was immediatly fired for even mentioning that it might be a good idea for the classes to say mastubation is acceptable - and she didn't even suggest teaching them how.
I can't find information, but there was a sort of study on parential views on sex ed a few years ago. I say sort of because it wasn't in the scientific framework - it was two unqualified people (students, I think, for a project). The type of thing that produces results urging a followup be done properly to verify.
They showed a group of parents one of two videos of a sex-ed class extract, and asked if they would support their children attending. The extract was the 'how to fit a condom' demonstration, and the two videos were the same in almost every detail. Same set, same teacher, same script, even same timings. The only difference was that one placed the condom over a featureless plastic pole, while the other used a fairly realistic replica penis.
The approval rate for the pole was high. The approval rate for the penis was far lower. Parents who are quite happy for the teens to be taught how to use a condom become very uncomfortable with the prospect that the teens might also see what a penis looks like.
Humans are not rational.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | June 10, 2008 4:36 AM