A quick parsing of "Study finds focus on abstinence in sex-ed classes can delay sexual activity" shows that we'll see this one spun by the religious right faster than you can say "condom".
When I saw the headline on news.google.com earlier today, I have to admit that I was instantly skeptical.
A new "study" that shows abstinence as an approach to sex education actually works?
What's an old, cynical, atheist/humanist/leftist supposed to make of that?
It seems that there may a real lesson there for someone, however, but to my mind the most interesting points are:
- if the people who really need the lesson are going to get it, and
- even within the WaPo's article itself, what the study was and what it was not are already being spun by the religious right.
No surprise there, I guess...
Points from the article (emphasis added):
The new study involved 662 African-American students who were randomly assigned to go through one of five programs: An eight-hour curriculum that encouraged them to delay having sex; an eight-hour program focused on teaching safe sex; an eight- or 12-hour program that did both; or an eight-hour program focused on teaching the youngsters other ways to be healthy, such as eating well and exercising.
OK. Sounds reasonable.
Over the next two years, about 33 percent of the students who went through the abstinence program started having sex, compared to about 52 percent who were just taught safe sex. About 42 percent of the students who went through the comprehensive program started having sex, and about 47 percent of those who just learned about other ways to be healthy. The abstinence program had no negative effects on condom use, which has been a major criticism of the abstinence approach.
Well, now wait just one minute. No negative effect on condom use? If they weren't supposed to be having sex, what did saying anything about condoms have to do with it?
Several critics of abstinence-only approach argued that the curriculum tested was not representative of most abstinence programs. It did not take on a moralistic tone as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until they were married, did not portray sex outside of marriage as never appropriate or disparage condoms.
OK: I get it. The abstinence-only portion of this larger study wasn't being run by Christians, but by, maybe, people who have some actual experience with preteens and early teens and sex and health education in general.
What a concept.
So no one was shamed into not having sex out of wedlock, nor lied to about the effectiveness of condoms, or coerced into making some sort of religiously-based pledge?
In fact:
"There is no data in this study to support the 'abstain-until marriage' programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.
Cool.
But not everyone thinks so. Fasten your seat belts: here comes the spin:
"For our critics to use 'marriage' as the thing that sets the program in this study apart from federally funded programs is an exaggeration and smacks of an effort to dismiss abstinence education rather than understanding what it is," Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association.
uh.. so, by definition, the current, Federally-funded "abstinence-only" sex education curricula do focus on no-sex-before-marriage, and by definition any abstinence-only sex education curriculum must?
And I'd bet anything, therefore, that Valerie Huber doesn't consider this real abstinence-only sex education anyway.
Pardon me while I have a little problem with that.
And:
"The take-home message is that we need a variety of interventions to address an epidemic like HIV, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy," Jemmott said. "There are populations that really want an abstinence intervention. They are against telling children about condoms. This study suggests abstinence programs can be part of the mix of programs that we offer."
uh.. in a word, no.
No one wants "interventions" in sex education, abstinence-only or otherwise, except for the religious right.
And who, exactly who, is against telling kids about condoms?
No one but the religious right.
So this study had nothing to do with religion, and didn't preach evangelical Christianity, didn't lie to anyone, didn't shame anyone, and didn't make any kids make any completely unrealistic promises.
And it worked.
What's the real lesson here?
- bp