|
by Ed Vitagliano
| Journal Staff Writer
The conflict over sex education in public schools is one of the
most bitterly contested battles of the culture war, frequently dividing
state legislatures, communities and local school boards.
Nothing is simple or clear-cut when it comes to the problems that
sex education is meant to solve: sexual activity among teens and
the myriad of consequences resulting from it. Neither are there
simple answers when it comes to choosing which perspective on sex
ed is most useful – that of the “safe sex” crowd,
which relies on the use of condoms, or the promoters of abstinence.
However, in the battle over what to teach kids about sex in school,
our culture may be missing the obvious: the best place may be off
school grounds entirely.
Abstinence
to the rescue?
That is not to say that there shouldn’t be a debate on the
success of abstinence programs in the school. And there is room
for debate. To be fair, the research on abstinence-only education
has not demonstrated its effectiveness beyond all doubt.
For example, in a cover story on abstinence, Newsweek spot-lighted
the data gathered by researcher Stan Weed, who examined four abstinence-only
programs in Virginia. Weed found that two of the programs reduced
the rate of teens losing their virginity by 65%, while the other
two appeared to have no effect.
The difficulty in appraising the value of some abstinence programs,
however, may be due to the fact that not all abstinence messages
are the same. While some books and materials teach kids how to remain
abstinent until marriage, others reflect the belief that abstinence
refers only to a lack of intercourse. Such materials recommend “outercourse”
(having sexual encounters while fully clothed) and even mutual masturbation
as part of their abstinence message.
Nevertheless, study results are beginning to tip the scales in favor
of abstinence education. Two years ago the American Journal of
Sociology published a government-funded study on teens pledging
to remain abstinent. Researchers from Columbia and Yale universities
found that adolescents who pledged to remain abstinent actually
delayed their first intercourse for three years longer than teens
who did not make such a pledge.
According to World magazine, even the Alan Guttmacher Institute,
which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, has been forced,
at times, to admit that abstinence works. Its own research found
that an abstinence program in Atlanta public schools reduced sexual
initiation rates among 8th-graders for both boys (by 60%) and girls
(95%).
In April of this year the Physicians Consortium, a coalition of
state-based physicians groups representing more than 2,000 practicing
doctors, published a four-year study on abstinence in the Journal
of Adolescent and Family Health. The study examined data pertaining
to the drop in the birth and pregnancy rates of teens between 1991-1995,
and found that “abstinence accounted for 100% of the decline
in the teen birth rate and 67% of the decline in the pregnancy rate
to single teens” during that time frame.
What
really matters
Beyond what kids are taught in school, however, is what they are
taught at home and church. According to a growing body of research,
parents and religious beliefs are a potent one-two combination when
it comes to influencing a teen’s decisions about whether or
not to have sex.
A study conducted at Fordham University, for example, established
a relationship between the strength of a college freshman’s
religious faith and sexual experimentation. The study, published
in a 2000 issue of the Journal of Adolescence, found that
students “who strongly identify with religious teachings and
traditions” were “less likely to engage in … sexual
activity.”
Another study performed at the University of Otago in New Zealand
demonstrated the same relationship. Examining the data collected
from over 1,000 men and women, researchers could not find any differences
between 21-year-olds who were abstinent and those who had become
sexually active – except one: religious faith. According to
The Family in America, the study found that “persistent
religious involvement showed the strongest relationship with abstinence.”
Pat Ware of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy agreed.
Citing a report released by that organization, Ware said, “We
found that religion plays a very positive role in the lives of young
people – what we call a ‘protective factor.’ The
more frequently a young person attends worship services, the more
likely that person is to delay sexual involvement.”
A study released this year by the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) also found this link. According to an NIH press release, the
study found that “religion reduces the likelihood of adolescents
engaging in early sex by shaping their attitudes and beliefs about
sexual activity.” The reason? The NIH said it was “largely
because their religious views lead them to view the consequences
of having sex negatively.”
On the other hand, the study found that, “for both girls and
boys, more permissive attitudes – meaning more positive or
favorable – toward sex increased the likelihood that they would
have sex.”
Factoring permissive attitudes into this equation leads to what
is perhaps the most critical determinant for teenage sexuality:
the involvement of parents. A study published in the Alan Guttmacher
Institute’s Family Planning Perspectives showed that
parents can best keep their teens from becoming sexually active
by doing three things: maintaining a warm and loving relationship
with their children; letting teens know that they are expected to
abstain from sex until marriage; and avoiding the discussion of
birth control.
Psychology professor James Jaccard of State University of New York
at Albany and his fellow researchers found that each of these factors
by themselves doubled the chance that a teen would abstain from
sex. But parents who did all three influenced their kids so strongly
that their teenagers were twelve-and-a-half times more likely to
remain virgins.
Two studies published last year in the Journal of Adolescent
Health found a similar relationship between parent-teen relationships
and teen sex. In one study, researchers at the University of Minnesota
examined data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health, a regular federal survey involving tens of thousands of
American teens. The results showed that girls who had been close
to their mothers – and whose moms clearly articulated parental
disapproval about teen sex – were more likely to avoid or at
least postpone sexual activity than those girls who felt less connected
with their moms. (The effect of fathers on those girls was not examined
by either study.)
The other study, conducted in 2000 and also based upon National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health data, showed comparable
results. The research determined that the moms of girls who were
still virgins tended to know where their daughters were when not
at home, knew their daughter’s friends, and insisted on things
like shared family mealtimes.
Commenting on the corresponding conclusions reached by a government
study released in 2000, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
psychologist Daniel Whitaker said, “A lot of parents are afraid
to talk [to their kids about sex] because they think they might
say the wrong thing. But this suggests you should try to communicate
your beliefs openly.”
Parental involvement in teaching their kids about sex may even increase
the effectiveness of abstinence-only classes taught in school. Researchers,
led by Susan M. Blake of the George Washington University Medical
School, split more than 350 eighth-graders into two groups. One
received five abstinence-only sex education classes in school, while
the other received the same instruction in school plus sexuality
homework assignments to be completed with parental help. According
to USA Today, the results, published in Family Planning Perspectives,
showed that the kids receiving parental assistance said they felt
more prepared to resist sexual pressure and indicated a firmer desire
to remain abstinent than the other group of teens.
In fact, some of the most successful abstinence-only approaches
actually teach kids more than simply, “Just say no to sex.”
In addition to a strong abstinence message, these programs are teaching
character, self-discipline and responsibility, and giving them information
on how to make commitments and resist pressure. (See AFA Journal,
5/03.) These are the very things kids would presumably be learning
from involved parents.
Studies such as these indicate that parents who are involved in
their kids’ lives, and who confidently transmit their religious
and moral values to their children, have the greatest success in
preventing risky and immoral behavior.
That reality may mean that the battles being fought in public schools
over sex education, while important, may be missing the point. Questions
about sex outside marriage flow directly from issues of morality
– and those are best handled in the two places best equipped
to do so: the home and church.
  
  
  
‘SAFE
SEX’ –RUSSIAN ROULETTE
When they dabble in sexual dalliances in their teenage years, the
toll on the physical, emotional and spiritual lives of young people
can be enormous. And the price tag is not simply a personal one.
Entire families share the burdens of teen pregnancies, government
and medical costs proliferate, and an entire culture faces the repercussions
of virtually unrestricted access to abortion mills.
And then there are the diseases. According to the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 25% of sexually active
teenagers get a sexually transmitted disease (STD) every year, and
80% of infected teens don’t even know they have an STD, passing
the diseases along to unsuspecting partners. When it comes to AIDS,
the data is even more chilling: of the new HIV infections each year,
about 50% occur in people under the age of 25. (See
“Infecting our Kids” at right.)
The most common approach in public schools to the problems of teenage
sexuality and its consequences is to advocate that, if kids are
going to have sex, they should be encouraged to have “safe
sex” – that is, use condoms. But does the use of condoms
make sex safe – or even safer?
The simple answer is that condoms do make sex safer for some things,
but not others – and “safe” actually becomes a relative
term. According to the Food and Drug Administration, for example,
when condoms are typically used, they prevent pregnancy 86% of the
time. That means, roughly speaking, that even when using condoms,
a couple will become pregnant one out of every 10 times they have
intercourse. That may indeed be safer sex (than not using a condom
at all) – but it is still a gamble.
The issue becomes even more muddled when the topic is STDs. For
some diseases, wearing a condom may provide some protection. That’s
may, as in guesswork, because the scientific community can
present little concrete evidence of condom effectiveness when it
comes to preventing STD infections.
“Condoms may be effective in preventing transmission of HIV/AIDS
and, in some cases, transmission of gonorrhea in men, but beyond
that they do not protect adequately against other sexually transmitted
diseases,” said Claude Allen, deputy secretary of the Department
of Health and Human Services.
Even in the case of HIV, however, the definition of “protection”
may be in the eyes of the beholder. The CDC considers condoms 85%
effective in preventing the transmission of HIV – something
akin to the odds of playing Russian Roulette with a revolver.
One of the most vigorous promoters of “safe sex,” the
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
(SIECUS), is forced to sound downright vague when it discusses condoms
and STDs on its SIECUS Fact Sheet: The Truth About Condoms.
“Condoms can be expected to provide different levels of risk
reduction for different STDs,” it says. “There is no definitive
study about condom effectiveness for all STDs. Definitive data are
lacking on the degree of risk reduction that latex condoms provide
for some STDs; for others, the evidence is considered inconclusive.”
That’s not exactly a firm foundation for an entire approach
to teen sex.
Even worse, however, is the fact that SIECUS simply refuses to admit
the possibility that the safe sex approach should be given an in-depth
reappraisal. Immediately following the above admission, the Fact
Sheet quotes the CDC: “It is important to note that the lack
of data about the level of condom effectiveness indicates that more
research is needed – not that latex condoms do not work.”
This shows how far ideology has contaminated not only interest groups
like SIECUS, which is to be expected, but even a supposedly science-based
government agency like the CDC. If “more research is needed,”
as the CDC admits, then why don’t government, health and educational
entities call a moratorium on safe sex education – which relies
solely on the efficacy of condom usage – until the research
is completed? Why risk the health and lives of teenagers in the
meantime?
Moreover, for some STDs, such as human papillomavirus (HPV), an
incurable disease linked to cervical cancer, condoms may provide
no protection at all, because the virus is often on areas of the
skin exposed during sexual intercourse but not covered by a condom.
With 20 million Americans already infected with HPV – and 5.5.
million new infections reported every year – the disease is
nothing short of a sexually transmitted epidemic. According to Dr.
David Hager of the University of Kentucky School of Medicine, some
studies suggest that 40% to 45% of college co-eds have tested positive
for HPV.
Dr. John Whiffen of the National Physicians Center, a group of 400
doctors that is recommending abstinence as the sole approach to
sex education, told Fox News that condoms are completely ineffective
against six common STDs.
“To tell a child that a condom is going to protect them [against
STDs] when it actually offers less than a 50% chance of protecting
them is simply not a good argument,” Whiffen said.
Nevertheless, it’s an argument that SIECUS and its ilk continue
to make.
|
|
