Posted on 02/01/2005 11:28:59 AM PST by nyg4168
HOUSTON - Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President George W. Bush’s education plan, have had no impact on teenagers’ behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study.
Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University.
“We didn’t see any strong indications that these programs were having an impact in the direction desired,” said Dr. Buzz Pruitt, who directed the study.
The study was delivered to the Texas Department of State Health Services, which commissioned it.
The federal government is expected to spend about $130 million to fund programs advocating abstinence in 2005, despite a lack of evidence that they work, Pruitt said.
“The jury is still out, but most of what we’ve discovered shows there’s no evidence the large amount of money spent is having an effect,” he said.
The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.
Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Pull your kid out of public school.
I will say it again and again - this belongs in the home and not school!
Agreed. This falls under morality, and that is something for the government to keep its chubby fingers out of. Teach your kids in the home, or don't teach them anything - its up to the parents, not your neighbors and the bureaucrats.
No cause and effect. The kids got a year older, so more of them were active.
Ping
The number of teen having sex will fluctuate from year to year, but given the right tools and information they can at least greatly lessen the chance of picking up an STD or knocking/getting knocked up.
Yes, they got more active as they got a year older, but those who got abstinence education got more active at the same rate as those who did not get the education. So the abstinence education didn't seem to have any effect.
"The federal government is expected to spend about $130 million to fund programs advocating abstinence in 2005, despite a lack of evidence that they work, Pruitt said."
The Federal Government is wasting money? I'm shocked! </sarcasm
The program was a Bush idea. The Democrats in Texas couldn't back any program he had anything to do with so they told their kids he was wrong. "It is NOT a good thing to abstain". Naturally, all the little Dem kids followed their parents advice and went out and had sex.
Just what I was thinking. Are they going to actually give these "researchers' at A&M a degree for this claptrap?
Weeee! Look at ME!!!
In twenty years more of the girls will be sexually active.I's a Porfeshimanl Reesurcher.
I may be missing something, but i didn't see anyplace where the article compared abstinence only to the other programs as far as increase in sexual activity. Did I just not see it?
I don't think that any form of sex education in school is going to succeed in encouraging abstinence, unless the same message is heard clearly at home. And earlier points that abstinence/sexual education belongs in the home are pretty true. However, schools providing a "safe sex" message - let alone, "explore your potential homosexuality" are extremely counterproductive.
I'm sure. When faced with such a counter-intuitive study, the only conclusion is that the entrenched interests cooked the numbers and/or that the instructors charged with implementing the program didn't believe in it and did their own thing. Possible? Yes. Likely? Yes.
I was just going to say; that has never stopped Democrats. In fact, if we follow their paradigm...all we need is MORE money.
Thank you.
I agree.
D.A.R.E. (Drug and Alchohal Resistance Education) doesn't work either and has actually led to an INCREASE in kids abusing substances.
it's a government sponsored band-aid applied to appease parents too lazy/scared/self-absorbed/embarrased to talk to and police their own kids.
I forbade my daughter to attend, and raised a HUGE stink over it when she was in Fifth Grade. Told the counselers WHY to, and backed it allup with data.
"Teen sex increased after abstinence program Texas study finds no impact on sexual behavior"
By our no-fault divorce laws, primary custody of children is given to the most adulterous parents. Propaganda from public schools and other organizations for children make heroes (and heroines) of those who promoted adultery in many subtle ways. While they're relatively young and healthy, promiscuous people are the first to be hired and promoted.
150 years after romanticism was established in the USA, motivations for such behavior are many.
> sending kids mixed signals is a great way to educate them
Sometimes. Consider the 2nd Amendment, and how to teach about it:
If you see a situation with the potential for criminal violence to be acted out upon you (such as a riot), avoid it. However, if you nevertheless find yourself in the midst of the situation with no way to extract yourself from it.... the safety is located *here* on the gun.
If that were true I would have picked up an STD in college. Never did.
Condoms work, and they work really well. They have a failure rate that teenagers should be made aware of, but they're a hell of a lot better than nothing. It would be irresponsible for us to teach them about sex and then not give them the tools that they need to have safe sex.
Hmmm,
Some things (like basic biology) need to be taught in the schools.
Ethics and morality need to be taught by parents who have ethics and morals. They also need to understand all the factors that cause a child/teen to experiment with sex at an early age. And it ain't all about hormones either. If the child is lacking love, affection, kindness etc at home, they will find it somewhere.
And scaring them with disease, pregnancy or damnation doesn't work if they feel they have nothing left to lose or that what they have found with someone else is far better than anything you have offered.
Some people/parents, sometimes with good intentions, have such a bizarre view of sex they shouldn't be giving sex ed to a blow up doll, much less a child. It just does a whole lot more harm than good.
I work at a hospital and got tested for everything under the sun. Came out clean.
Alright, tell me what's wrong with the analogy. "Stay away from X, but if you *do* find yourself in that situation, deal with it appropriately."
> *Poof.* Problem solved.
Yeah, just like the "Scared Straight" programs eliminated teen crime, and SADD/MADD eliminated teen drunk driving, and the numerous No Smoking ads and programs eliminated teen smoking.......
You can *easily* impart factual information to the young. Imparting wisdom is not nearly so easy, and comes from experience more than from authority.
This attitude is about 40 years old and started with the hippie crowd in the 1960s. Prior to that in this country, morality was considered very much in the interest of the state for the commonly understood fact that an immoral people cannot remain a free people. Morality and freedom are as inextricably linked as mass and gravity.
The words to America the Beautiful understood this: "Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law."
You cannot expect state imposed lessons on abstinence, often taught by teachers who are openly fornicating, to carry the same weight as that from parents or clergy. Government's role is not to subsidize immorality, but it cannot make people sexually moral or turn back the clock.
So it was a six percent increase? Maybe after the abstinence program, 6% more have admitted they had sex.
Obviously, sex education in school teaches kids how to do it rather than discouraging them from it.
It would be better to let their parents scare the hell out of them, except that many parents are more promiscuous than teenagers.
Well when I went to school, sex education consisted of watching a few horrifying films on venereal disease. It scared the crap out of us. I doubt that would work today since it couldn't compete with a media that's completely infused with sex.
If this is truly a study, where is the control group?
Especially if the same teachers are telling straight kids not to have sex, but openly approve of homosexual behavior.
Look pal...if Doctor "Buzz" Pruitt said it, then that's good enough for me! hahahahahaha!
FMCDH(BITS)
One program technique has been to try to bolster students’ self-esteem, based on the theory that self-confident teenagers would not have sex. Those programs, which sometimes do not even mention sex, have shown no effect, Pruitt said.The problem, of course, is that psychobabble ("self-esteem") is no basis for making decisions. But public schools have trouble when they try to offer kids anything else because somebody, somewhere is sure to be offended.Other programs that focus on the social norms and expectations appear to be more successful, he said.
What product are you going to sell with your advertising? I don't see how you can compare a public service announcement to an ad selling a product.
> If advertising doesn't work, then why do corporations spend billions of dollars on it?
*Advertising for things people don't want* doesn't work.
> I remember I was a pre-teen when that first "scrambled egg" commercial came out. It was effective.
The "this is your brain" one? I believe I was in early/mid teens. It was ineffective with me. Because I had *already* made my determination that drugs were not for me. What sold me? Watching my schoolmates turn into drooling morons.
Reality is a far better teacher than a preacher.
Also, it doesn't help when everything in pop culture is telling kids to do the opposite.
That is the essence of the problem and why these programs fail.
>I doubt that would work today since ...
... a single shot woudl take care of most of those diseases, and for the ones that linger, there are TV-advertised treatments that make it look like you'll live just fine. And for oen of the STD's, it's attained, in some circles, a level of "you're damn near not cool if you don't have it."
The actual physical downsides of rampant and unwise sexuality are not what they once were. Unwanted pregnancies can be dealt with with a quick trip to the neighborhood Pre-Born Baby Suck-O-Lux Emporium; if you choose to keep said baby, Da Gubmint will take care of you at taxpayer expense. Ans what with the devaluation of the father figure... Single Mom is not nearly as unpalatable as it used to be.
Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education.
Wait a minute, am I missing something here? They are only discussing 23% of ninth-grade girls who were ALREADY sexually active. What about the other 77% who were not? What was the effect on them?
And perhaps the percentage might have gone up even more without the abstinence program. Maybe it would have gone up to 50%. Without a comparative study taken before the abstinence program was put in place, this study is meaningless.
Your statement is BS.
I don't know when you grew up but the Government stayed out of families when I grew up in the 50s. Morality was in, that is true, but it was "in" because the people wanted it such and carried it out at home. It was socially unacceptable for a girl to get pregnant when not married and this was the deciding factor when girls were making out in the cars with boys. Yes, fear of God may have played a part, fear of mom and dad was the biggest deterrent, for the boys too. If you were a boy did manage to have sex, you tried your hardest(no pun intended) to NOT get the girl pregnant! The consequences were just too great! The Government played no part in this, it was a societal thing and needs to be again.
The governement has no business teaching our children about sex, hetero or homo, period. Morality isn't something you can legislate and until our citizens make having sex by unmarried teens morally unacceptable in society our teens will have sex and STDs will continue to be a problem.
It should be obvious by now that teaching sex in school has done nothing to reduce teen sex nor has it reduced the incidents of STDs. Most teens don't think safe sex is cool, if they use that expression any more, and do it without condoms. Teaching at home and leaving the government out of the sex training business will work better than the system today.
I didn't realize his name was Buzz. No one with that name is ever wrong. His motto is "To promiscuity, and beyond".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.