Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I had to laugh at the absurd assumptions behind this headline from the American Family Association's OneNewsNow:
STDs have gone up, therefore we need more abstinence-only sex ed. Never mind that study after study has shown that kids who get abstinence-only sex ed are less likely to use condoms when they have sex. Here's their "logic":
Since many of the new reports involve young people, Crouse says the figures suggest comprehensive sex education -- which she believes encourages young people to be intimate -- is not working. "We have said to a whole generation, almost two generations now, of young people, 'Just be careful and use a condom,' and that's the only advice we are giving them," she adds, "and I think that's so unfair and it's so misleading for our young people because we're downplaying the consequences of casual sex."
Except that the evidence is abundantly clear that abstinence-only sex ed is what is causing this increase in STDs among teenagers. Let's look just at the state of Texas, which leads the nation in abstinence-only sex ed. 94% of all Texas school districts teach abstinence-only sex ed, with only 3% teaching abstinence-plus (abstinence plus condoms and other forms of birth control).
The result? Texas teenagers also are among the nation's leaders in unprotected sex.
Fifty-sex percent of high school students in Texas report having used condoms at last intercourse. Only three states have lower rates of condom use among students.
We already know that Texas has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the nation, despite 94% of them being taught abstinence-only. It's certainly no surprise that they also have an extraordinarily high rate of STD infections:
Young people ages 15-24 comprised twenty percent of Texas' new HIV cases in 2006.Texas' youth, especially young women, are at risk for STIs:
- Youth ages 15-24 experienced 73 percent of the total number of Chlamydia cases in Texas in 2006.
- Youth ages 15-24 experienced 61 percent of the total number of Gonorrhea cases in Texas in 2006.
- For all youth in this age range, young women were most at risk for STIs, experiencing 83 percent of Chlamydia infections and 60 percent of gonorrhea infections.
So much for that argument.
Politics
Comments
"Fifty-sex percent", no pun intended?
Posted by: MarkusR | March 24, 2009 9:41 AM
I'm amazed you can laugh at those absurd assumptions. They make me cry.
Posted by: Captain Mike | March 24, 2009 9:48 AM
"We have said to a whole generation, almost two generations now, of young people, 'Just be careful and use a condom,' and that's the only advice we are giving them," she adds...
What community is she living in, where that's the only advice parents and teachers give their kids? That sure as Hell wasn't the only advice my parents, or my junior-high sex-ed class, gave me; and both were decidedly liberal and explicit.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 24, 2009 9:48 AM
As I have repeatedly stated on this blog as well as others, the born-agains care nothing for the facts, either about this subject or evolution or global warming, etc. Their minds are made up, the facts are irrelevant.
Posted by: SLC | March 24, 2009 9:49 AM
You're not understanding the headline. It says that it's now trendy to get an STD. Also, the government needs to pay more attention to the pathetic results of Abstinence Education.
Seriously, how long does it take to educate on abstinence? One 10 minute lecture should cover the basics. That doesn't leave time for anything else?
Posted by: Odie | March 24, 2009 9:54 AM
10 minute? Try 10 second:
'Good morning class. This morning, we're going to deal with the subject of sex. Don't do it. Class dismissed.'
Posted by: Smidgy | March 24, 2009 10:44 AM
A few years ago I was on the Board of Health in a prosperous suburb of Boston MA, population 14,000. We arranged for an evening program on STDs, pitched to the parents. Reasonably well publicized, accessible, and with refreshments. Excellent presentation by a physician. I found it hair-raising, although it was not delivered in an alarmist fashion --- bare facts being bad enough. Three (3) parents showed up, including one abstinence advocate (our local radical religious right noisemaker). Three. Our semiannual survey of youth shows that there is more need for concern about various health hazards to these kids. Fortunately, the school nurses will supply condoms when asked, except for those few kids whose parents have opted out.
Posted by: stillwaggon | March 24, 2009 11:04 AM
The whole of abstinence sex-ed boils down to,
"If you have sex, you WILL die. Unless you're married, then it's the most wonderful, amazing thing you can imagine (but only if you're just doing it to make a baby)!"
Posted by: sinned34 | March 24, 2009 11:09 AM
As Stephen Colbert memorably observed, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Posted by: Sanjiv Sarwate | March 24, 2009 11:13 AM
Smidgy, I was thinking it should be required to have Demetri Martin do a flip chart of what constitutes sexual activity - all with an X through them. If 94% of the adult run schoolboards in Texas have authorized abstinence-only education, I wasn't just going to assume the students even have basic knowledge of what it is.
Posted by: Odie | March 24, 2009 11:14 AM
For the abstinence only types, STDs are a feature, not a bug.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 24, 2009 11:33 AM
Posted by: llewelly | March 24, 2009 11:37 AM
But you're not thinking like they are - you see, if you give full, frank sex education, even only to the extent of detailing exactly what sex is (and therefore how to do it), that's immoral, as it leads to these kids having sex, in much the same way as teaching them about condoms leads to them having sex using condoms, instead of not having sex.
Of course, this does lead to a bit of a contradiction, when they claim that comprehensive sex education leads to increased pregnancies and STDs, as using condoms virtually eliminates this risk, but people like this are generally well practised at ignoring such contradictions, in my experience.
Posted by: Smidgy | March 24, 2009 11:45 AM
"The whole of abstinence sex-ed boils down to,"
"If you have sex, you WILL die. Unless you're married, then it's the most wonderful, amazing thing you can imagine (but only if you're just doing it to make a baby)!""
You can take it further then that.
Being that the ONLY acceptable form of sex is the missionary position, with the man on top.
Anybody else still amused at just how much these supposedly clean minded Christians talk and discuss endlessly on what is and isn't acceptable sexual practices?
Posted by: Asemodeus | March 24, 2009 11:46 AM
Peter Ustinov, in his autobiography, "Dear Me", mentions his sex education at an English public school in the late 1920s. The headmaster marched the boys into a room and announced:
"If you touch it, it will fall off."
Posted by: David Brown | March 24, 2009 12:09 PM
Lying to students is not an effective way to control them past age 7 or 8, which is when they start to realize they're being lied to and then ignore everything teachers tell them. Sex ed is only the beginning. In elementary school, I was led to believe that if I touched matches they would light instantly and burn down my house and kill my family. Then I was told that I if I didn't wash my hands after going to the bathroom, I would be poisoned. When I was 8, my teacher literally told me that if I even glanced a solar eclipse, I would instantly go blind permanently. This one is not even an exaggeration; she actually said that. When I was 11, my teacher told us not to eat unwrapped candy because it's probably a dangerous pill that someone carelessly left where I could eat it. I guess the teachers assumed that we wouldn't listen to their advice unless they threatened losing our lives. It had the opposite effect of what they wanted because they lost all credibility.
By the time I got to high school health class, I knew that my teacher was exaggerating. So I didn't believe him when he said that I would die if I had sex, smoked a cigarette, or took on sip of alcohol. Fortunately, it wasn't abstinence-only so I got information about birth control, and I also got a lot from teen magazines. But these people need to realize that lying to someone to scare them out of having sex just doesn't work.
Posted by: catgirl | March 24, 2009 12:18 PM
In an British public school in the 1990's it had not changed very much. We even got pictures, delivered with the words "This is what you're penis will look like with *******". It was not a good hour of my life...
Posted by: Ramel | March 24, 2009 12:33 PM
If the abstinence only crowd had their way,girls would be freaking out when they have their first period and the kids would think that kissing could cause pregnancy.
Posted by: Paen | March 24, 2009 2:34 PM
I've never been able to figure out why the idea of teens having sex freaks so many of these people out. Granted, these are the same people who have so many issues about sex they've highlighted every possible passage in their bible that may in some way justify their psychosexual irrationalities (and there are a lot!).
Sex is never the problem. Sex + bad judgment--that's the problem. And that's for all ages, not just teens.
Posted by: gary l. day | March 24, 2009 2:42 PM
Gary,
I agree with you. There is nothing inherently immoral about sex. It can cause problems if people are irresponsible, just the same as driving a car, but that doesn't make immoral. Abstinence only education is like telling people to just not drive cars, and then being surprised when they do it anyway but without seat belts and turn signals. It's unrealistic and sets people up for failure.
Posted by: catgirl | March 24, 2009 2:50 PM
Sex-ed in my HS (St. Cecilia's)? Not a chance. Not happenin' at home either. I had to learn it the hard way--with repeated lessons.
Posted by: democommie | March 24, 2009 3:12 PM
My favorite right wing nutjob quote on sex ed is from Phyllis Schlafly which is "Don't let anyone touch you where you wear your swimsuit."
Scott
Posted by: Scott | March 24, 2009 3:12 PM
Just for fun, I submitted the following comment at OneNewsNow.com.
"The only way to prevent STDs and pregnancy, says Crouse, is abstinence."
Well, yes. But abstinence and "abstinence only education" are not the same thing. The first is a personal practice. The second is policy decision on how to teach (or not teach) our children about sex.
Abstinence only education amounts to teaching our children everything about what they should and should not do, but nothing about how they can protect themselves and nothing about what real world risks they may face. I wonder if graduates of abstinence only programs even know what Chlamydia and Syphilis are?
So as parents we need to ask, "are we giving our children the tools they need to protect themselves?"
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | March 24, 2009 3:37 PM
So... Gruppenfuhrer Schlafly is telling us not to let anyone touch us on the beach?
Posted by: Dumoustier | March 24, 2009 3:38 PM
perhaps this is a reflection on the quality of teachers as much as it is the subject matter. If you can't get the kids attention with sex ed you've got a problem. Just proof that govenment schools are an abysmal failure no matter what they teach.
I would venture a guess that the rampant spread of STD's in Texas has more to do with the flood of immigrants across the borders than it does education. They are eager to jump in the sack unprotected with as many partners as it takes to pump out that anchor baby and get on the public dole. An STD is a small price to pay for a new life in America on the welfare system.
Posted by: bob | March 24, 2009 4:37 PM
Bob = right wingnut
Posted by: DaveTheWave | March 24, 2009 4:47 PM
Oh noez! It seems we have a troll. IIRC, he is a pretty active one too.
Posted by: catgirl | March 24, 2009 4:52 PM
DaveTheWave: Bob = right wingnut
Sort of gives you an idea of the quality of an education from Liberty University, eh?
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 24, 2009 4:54 PM
Just proof that govenment schools are an abysmal failure no matter what they teach.
Just proof that bigots like bob will automatically call public schools "failures" no matter what they teach, or how well they teach it.
And yes, bo(o)b's comment about immigrants and anchor babies does indeed prove he's a bigot.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 24, 2009 4:58 PM
I do bleeve that Ol' bob found out that they were running a "Buy one, get two free" on the Burning Stoopid and ran right down to the store so's he could stock up.
bob, besides being a bigot and a moron, you're not up to date on current events. That "anchor baby" shit only works for people like Michell Malkintent.
Posted by: democommie | March 24, 2009 5:05 PM
Why do the largely atheist countries of Sweden and Japan have lower teen pregnancy rates and abortion rates than the US by a wide margin? They teach their kids about contraception. If the pro-lifers really want to push their cause, they need to get on the condom bandwagon.
Posted by: Robert Faber | March 24, 2009 5:37 PM
Robert Faber: If the pro-lifers really want to push their cause, they need to get on the condom bandwagon.
I suspect that many of these people aren't as interested in lowering rates of out-of-wedlock births or STDs as they are interested in having fewer kids have sex outside of marriage. I wouldn't be surprised if many would feel that increased rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies are an acceptable trade off if they are occurring among a smaller number of sexually active teenagers (and young adults), albeit ones who are now denied access to contraceptives or useful knowledge of contraceptives.
But I think by even this standard (if it is held by some) is a failure.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 24, 2009 5:50 PM
So I can touch the kids anywhere except the swimming pool?
Posted by: kehrsam | March 24, 2009 6:39 PM
Fifty-sex percent of high school students...
Oh Sigmund, where are you when we need you?
But--and I'm on your side, now--does that mean what we think it means? My high school journalists love sex stories and have demonstrated time and again, with good survey science, that a surprising number of high school students are in monogamous sexual relationships and use better birth control than condoms. Seven percent of sexually active girls in my school use depo-privera--that's careful. It's illogical to assume that because they aren't using condoms, they are having unsafe sex.
On the other hand, abstinence-only is idiotic and disastrous. I'll give you that.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | March 24, 2009 7:40 PM
Nope, the tanning salon is right out, too.
Posted by: twincats | March 24, 2009 7:42 PM
Well, no. I think you filled in a missing qualifier.
It's that darn 3% that's ruining it for everybody!
Posted by: Citizen Z | March 24, 2009 8:36 PM
What sickens me about this abstinence-only agenda the right wing is pushing is that they've had ample time to test it on other nations.
And watched it explode (or is the term ejaculate?) point-blank in their face:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/jan-june06/aids_06-28.html
What kind of an idiot pushes for a strategy that's already proven to be ineffective at the very least, or downright lethal at its worst?
Posted by: Twin-Skies | March 24, 2009 9:00 PM
Demo - But I bet St. Cecilia's had a terrific music program. :)
Ice - Does depoprovera kill STDs?
I'd still say to my (hypothetical) students: "not using a condom is not safe sex."
Just my opinion. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 24, 2009 10:02 PM
DingoJack:
I quit the choir when I was about 11 because I found out that singing the high alto parts required a "procedure" that I was not willing to endure for country or GOD. Warren Zevon's "Mr. Bad Example" charts, roughly, my progress from that point on.
Posted by: democommie | March 24, 2009 10:37 PM
What kind of an idiot pushes for a strategy that's already proven to be ineffective at the very least, or downright lethal at its worst?
How is abstinence "lethal" exactly?
Posted by: mroberts | March 24, 2009 10:44 PM
I was referring to the study in the link, and how an abstinence-only angle towards AIDS-control doesn't work.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | March 24, 2009 11:06 PM
...and here we have an excellent example of Natural Selection working in reverse. The stoopids who can't use a condom are more likely to procreate.
Guess we'll just have to cross our fingers that stoopid's not hereditary.
Posted by: Chemgirl | March 24, 2009 11:07 PM
"We have said to a whole generation, almost two generations now, of young people, 'Just be careful and use a condom,'"
Would a person belonging to the last generation or the one before that still be considered a "youth"?
The swimsuit no-touching zone rule is actually effective with younger kids because they can visualize and understand the concept of the areas a swimsuit does and doesn't cover.
Posted by: wrpd | March 25, 2009 12:59 AM
Asemodeus "You can take it further then that. Being that the ONLY acceptable form of sex is the missionary position, with the man on top."
You can take it further than that. Get done quick and make sure that you don't enjoy it.
bob I would venture a guess that the rampant spread of STD's in Texas has more to do with the flood of immigrants across the borders than it does education. They are eager to jump in the sack unprotected with as many partners as it takes to pump out that anchor baby and get on the public dole."
Obviously. And pot is illegal because brown people and swarthy field-laborers smoke it and then rape our white girls.
Robert Faber "Why do the largely atheist countries of Sweden and Japan have lower teen pregnancy rates and abortion rates than the US by a wide margin?"
You're forgetting that they're foreigners, and as such don't count. Plus, Japanese cars have tiny backseats and Swedes, um, are all ugly. I think that the facts, if they buttress my case, will prove me right. If not, then they aren't facts.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 25, 2009 1:09 AM
Modusoperandi - "Plus, Japanese cars have tiny backseats and Swedes, um, are all ugly".
Oops, here I go confusing you with 'facts'.
Ferraris have no back seat at all (so Italians must be taking the Pope's advice then+) and Volvos are ugly, boxy things (not at all like Swedish women*). And even if that's so, what do American cars say about Americans? :D DJ
+Or perhaps only wankers are taking his advice. But if they're wankers, aren't they, by definition, not taking his advice? ooooh my head hurts.
*Yes Nurse Freida I'm really for my sponge-bath now!
[Nurse Freida soothes Dingo's aching head.] ;)
Posted by: DingoJack | March 25, 2009 1:46 AM
mroberts:
Abstinence is not lethal (except for the odd spree killing caused by spermbies--a sexual variant of rabies--that occurs when someone hasn't been laid so long they've become a murderous swine). Otoh, TEACHING abstinence frequently causes people that have no idea about how sexual intercourse actually occurs (and how much better it feels than, for instance, praying or singing in the choir) to react to the itch of the sexual urge by scratching it--with no protection or even knowledge of why it might be desirable to use protection. That's how, bonehead.
As always, you are entitled to holding your delusional beliefs. Please hold them inside your own fucking head.
Posted by: democommie | March 25, 2009 3:19 AM
Sex acts happen - in some way and some form - especially when people are young.
They always have and always will.
And so does marrying too early when sex is repressed and tightly controlled between the sexes.
I've never met a generation lubricated enough to spill the beans who didn't have some fond sexual memories from youth.
I myself and my peers of bygone era and of strict no sex or even thought of sex indoctrination have stories of variety that would make Larry Flint blush.
Hormones happen ..
Our job as parents and educators is to instill respect for self and others, proper knowledge of consequences, proper prevention techniques, proper feelings empowerment to make reasoned decisions, etc.
Teaching superstition and expecting nature not to happen because of it insanity. And even when you control people's activities tightly like in prison - it is nature and it will happen - and even happen more often in a less beautiful way.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | March 25, 2009 6:10 AM
Well Democommie,St Celias or not, you were either a slow learner or you started to enjoy yourself. If it's the latter, the fun police will have you and your fucked.So to speak.
Posted by: wobert | March 25, 2009 6:48 AM
mroberts: How is abstinence "lethal" exactly?
It's lethal as a strategy because it is very difficult to maintain, many people can't maintain it consistently, and those who try and fail (or who have only been taught that this is the only effective method of protection) are more likely to engage in unsafe sex practices.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 25, 2009 8:36 AM
I think two other variables and their outcome is also important to consider:
1) For a variety of reasons, children are reaching puberty at a much earlier age.
2) We've evolved to a society where its extremely difficult for a one wage-earner family to thrive and raise a family, especially in our younger years. This has caused the median age of first marriages to rise dramatically. In fact, it's mostly only the poor and uneducated that marry young, putting them at an even greater disadvantage at achieving financial independence based on choices they make in their late teen-age years and even in their early-twenties.
The result is that the stretch of time between puberty and the median age for marriage has risen dramatically. Studies have shown that even those children raised in a home where they are well-educated and have hope for a future will start to engage in pre-marital sex, as will the chasity kids, typically around the age of 18 - 20 years old, which is now about 6 - 8 years prior to the median age of marriage. So the "holding off" practice, which is absolutely rational and wise to promote in jr high / high school years now well exceeds that time by close to 10 years after 17 years old. Therefore, young people who wait to marry until after they can afford to do so will be having sex, very few people wait until their late-20s to start having sex.
In addition, this debate can not merely center around attempting to keep kids from having sex in junior high and high school, instead high school sex education also needs to provide them the education and understanding to insure when they do start having sex hopefully after high school, they do so in manner that removes the risks of contracting and spreading STDs and resulting in an unplanned for pregnancy. We also need to understand that the arguments to wait to have sex that are effective are very different in high school and they would be post high school. In either case, the abstinence-only crowd can not point to success while it's easy to point towards their failures when kids start reaching their very late-teens and the sex drive becomes enormous.
And given many parents proven inability to properly teach children about sex, just like most are unable to teach their kids about chemistry or math, not providing a gradually sophisticated education in sex education in elementary through high school harms the kids and the taxpayer every bit as much as not teaching kids how to manage their personal finances.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 25, 2009 9:29 AM
Michael Heath - well put.
I have a different view of when activities start though. I think most males and enough females start activities in some fashion sooner than you suggest. Have for ages -- natural as can be.
Problems arise as with any human interaction and teens especially can be ignorant and/or reckless in this and in many activities. We have to keep emphasizing propriety, respect, and safety - re: driving, biology, etc. But to think they will not engage sooner then later -- well that is not realistic.
And to demonize endeavors that stem from urges built into youth because from they made survival of species sense greater for most of our evolution, and that otherwise can be beautiful human interaction even when young (most youthful interactions actually result in fond memories) is just wrong in my book.
Not saying you did Michael .. and again really well put by you -- but for the record via my experiences I feel it happened/happens lot earlier than 18-20 and has for a while (BTW talking some sort of intense activity).
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | March 25, 2009 12:17 PM
@DingoJack
Well, the Volvo is the world's safest car (in more ways than one apparently)
Posted by: Twin-Skies | March 25, 2009 8:49 PM
It's not natural selection in reverse: Ab-only teens will have unprotected sex, perhaps have a baby and then get fertility-reducing chlamydia. Safe sex educated teens will have lower rates of STIs and pop out the kids at a time when they have resources to raise them.
Posted by: Bacopa | March 25, 2009 8:55 PM