Is Teaching Abstinence Effective?
Rating the Success and Failure of Abstinence-Only Education
© Kat Long
An analysis of the effectiveness of abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education based on recent studies.
Several studies released in the past few years analyze the impact of abstinence-only sex education on students in public schools. Abstinence is the only type of sex education that is eligible for federal funding--but does that mean it is effective?
Abstinence-only curricula teach students that abstinence from sex until marriage is the only way to avoid teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other social and psychological consequences. Topics like contraceptives, disease prevention, abortion, and homosexuality are only discussed to highlight their moral dangers. In contrast, “comprehensive sex education” curricula teach abstinence, as well as inform students about birth control methods, preventing sexually-transmitted diseases, and contemporary issues about sex and society.
Abstinence-only sex education remains extremely controversial in the United States, and a number of studies have been published that evaluate its efficacy. Researchers have asked whether teens who have been taught abstinence curricula actually wait until marriage for sexual activity, if teens are more or less likely to have premarital sex despite abstinence teachings, and whether teens understand contraception and disease prevention if they do choose to have sex.
In 2004, Advocates for Youth released a report on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs in 11 states: Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Missouri, Nebraska, and California. The study evaluated data provided by the states in areas of instruction like attitudes endorsing abstinence among students, intentions to abstain, and sexual behaviors. Advocates for Youth concluded, “Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth’s willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state [Pennsylvania] did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation.”
Other factors point to the failure of the abstinence-only model to equip teenagers for the realities of sex. Abstinence-only education has been shown by British researchers to have no impact on the prevention of HIV transmission. A study in 2004 revealed that 88% of students who made “virginity pledges” promising to remain abstinent until marriage broke their pledges. Virginity pledgers also suffered STD infections at the same rate as non-pledgers. The New York Times reported in December 2007 that the teen birth rate, a crucial factor in evaluating youth’s sexual choices, rose for the first time since 1991. And as recently as March 2008, 1 in 4 American female teenagers were shown in a federal study to have one or more sexually-transmitted diseases.
Congress continues to fund abstinence-only education at the rate of about $170 million per year, with little concrete evidence of its effectiveness.
Sources:
Abstinence Education: Efforts to Assess the Accuracy and Effectiveness of Federally Funded Programs. U.S. Government Accountability Office, October 2006.
Debra Hauser, MPH. Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact. Advocates for Youth. www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm (accessed March 15, 2008).
Lawrence K. Altman, “Study Finds That Teenage Virginity Pledges Are Rarely Kept,” New York Times, August 10, 2004.
Gardiner Harris, “Teenage Birth Rate Rises for First Time Since ’91,” New York Times, December 6, 2007.
Related review: "The Humble Little Condom"
