On the issue of the effectiveness of abstinence only programs.
My senior seminar students happen to be presenting today on this very issue.
There are many problems with the research in this area. First, many adolescents
are not sexually active (in one study 47% of students in Grades 9-12 had not
engaged in intercourse). Thus, programs might have a hard time demonstrating
behavior changes. Second, the programs are notoriously poorly evaluated with
many only including measures of attitude and not behavior change. Third, many
programs are of such a short duration that it is hard to image that they could
(regardless of the content) lead to behavior change.
In any case, programs that use an exclusive abstinence message are not effective
(conclusion by a very pro abstinence review article in Journal of Adolescent
Health, 1999). However, some problem with an abstinence-plus-other-stuff are
effective. Of course the size the abstinence portions varies a great deal from
program to program.
What is fascinating about federal funding is that provision of the two major
federally funded programs is that materials must conform to what has come to be
known as the (a)-(h) definition of abstinence education. Among other
requirements, this definition mandates that funded programs teach abstinence
until marriage (or until death, whatever comes first!) thus establishing
marriage as the expected standard of human sexual activity not just for children
but for everyone ("a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of
marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity") It also means that
you cannot teach about birth control except by pointing out that birth control
does not completely protect against STDs and pregnancy. The definition does not
include any definition of sexual activity. This is left up to the individual
states. Finally, one part of the definition mentions the importance of attaining
self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity. Self-sufficiency is
probably a good goal (in general) but is it really necessary as a prerequisite
to sexual activity? I can think of quite a few adults who would not qualify!
Oh one other thing. The program cannot tell young people "to wait" until they
are older or more mature. They can only be told to wait "until marriage".
Marie
References
Thomas, M. H. (1999). Abstinence-based programs for prevention of adolescent
pregnancies. Journal of Adolescent health, 26, 5-17.
Young, M. & Goldfard, E. S. (2000). The problematic (A) - (H) in abstinence
education. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 25, 156-162.
Paul Smith wrote:
> Jim Guinee wrote:
>
> > > Ethically I believe that overall religion is essentially a
> > > "wash", though, largely because so many people want their religious
> > > beliefs to "count" in the public realm, despite the clear
> > > conflicts of various interests.
> >
> > How's that any different from any other special interest group?
>
> It isn't, if those other interest groups base their claims on
> revealed truths, religious writings, personal faith, "everyone knows", "it
> must be true because I personally experienced it", "it must be true because
> I'm so angry about it" etc. I take it that was the point you were making
> with the spanking and abuse example, and I agree with it completely. The
> problem is DEFINITELY not unique to religious groups or to conservative
> groups. However, of course we have scientific methods for moving out of that
> realm, and producing the kinds of information that CAN guide public policy
> without running into those problems.
>
> > Hmm...science alone? Or science with religion, morals,
> > ethics overcome those conflicts?
> >
> > For some reason, cloning comes to mind...
>
> Of course ethics are required as well. I can't say that I think that
> religion is, though, especially in light of how easily people seem to slip
> from "religion provides my values" to "religion informs me about the nature
> of the world". Fundamentalist religion also seems particularly prone to
> interferring with the ethical discourse we so desparately need.
>
> > > But of course that distinction is a religious one, not relevant to
> > > scientific notions of natural change. What religious people
> > > refer to as "micro-evolution" is the only kind of evolution that
> evolutionists
> > > propose.
> >
> > I thought micro was evolution within a particular species, as
> > opposed to macro -- across species (not an expert).
>
> Whatever they (the creationists) say is I guess what it is as far as
> they're concerned. Just don't try to apply it to biology - it has nothing to
> do with evolution, any more than we need one theory to explain how a car can
> move 25 miles and another completely separate one to explain how it can move
> 2000 miles...
> I've learned that alt.talk.origins has a very nice FAQ that covers
> that kind of misconception. Personally I found it far better than the NAS
> book.
>
> > > Someone at MIToP today was handing out copies of a small
> > > book titled
> (snip)
> > Why do you think he was being discrete? Being sneaky means
> > he's either aware of the backlash or dispersing an item in an
> inappropriate venue.
>
> I simply meant to avoid sounding as though he had a table among the
> publishers and was actively hawking books. I don't know whether he was
> handing it out to promote creationism (it's a mighty shabby attempt to do
> that with educated people) or simply because he was proud to know an author.
>
>
> > BTW, I have no idea about the state of the current
> > anti-evolution argument. It does make me curuious -- I wonder how it is
> taught in
> > religious schools?
>
> This goes with my "hope springs eternal" line. I really did take
> that book thinking that perhaps there would be some new and interesting
> argument in it. My understanding of evolution WAS enhanced by the discussion
> we had a year or two ago that included the notion of a micro/macro
> distinction. Understanding comes from being challenged - I took my MA in
> Philosophy because my epistemology and ontology had lost their groundedness.
> When I defended my dissertation a year ago, my epistemology mentor noted
> that he'd changed his mind on some of what I see as key issues, and I hope
> to have a chance sometime to work with whatever he has come up with now. I
> have some accomodating to do.
>
> Incidentally, I was brought up in a creationist school until high
> school. Fortunately, we had an excellent public school system in my
> district.
>
> > Whoa. I NEVER said religious views are incompatible with
> > misbehavior. That's clearly untrue (and not biblically supported, by the
> way). To
> > paraphrase myself, I said the "high rate" of misbehavior.
> > There are plenty of studies out there that will demonstrate folks who more
>
> > closely adhere to religious beliefs are much less likely to "misbehave."
>
> (I'm going to assume that you meant "folks who report more closely
> adhering to religious beliefs" - otherwise you have a meaningless tautology
> as long as those religious beliefs at least partly define "misbehavior".
> Incidentally, I think about this each time I walk into the YMCA, or pay my
> monthly fee or contribute to their annual campaign).
>
> That depends upon two things, though: who the comparison group is,
> and what behaviors are counted as "misbehavior". I don't think that there's
> much doubt but that people who report themselves as "atheists" or
> "agnostics" are far less likely than the general public to "misbehave" as
> well, and I personally suspect that they are overall less likely to
> misbehave than those who report themselves to be close adherents to
> religious beliefs.
>
> As far as the "which behaviors" question...
> Take the "premarital sex" and "cheating on test" examples you refer
> to below. Two completely different things. Religions seem to put exceptional
> focus on control of sexuality, and I would never argue that fundamentalists
> dominate violations of their own sexual ethics. Of course, the remarkable
> string of conservatives (off the top of my head, Hyde, Livingston, Gingrich,
> Helen C., Barr, Burton...) revealed during the 1998 impeachment to have had
> affairs even in some cases as they investigated the President's affair
> certainly raises questions. Regardless, whether violations of the
> fundamentalists' ethics constitute "misbehavior" is of course not an
> empirical question.
> As far as more basic character issues which are reflected in things
> like "cheating on tests", I simply disagree. Whatever strengths religious
> fundamentalists have, honesty is clearly not among them (see below). As I
> noted in my other message, if that's not already apparent to you (and I
> obviously suspect that it isn't), then there's not much point in continuing
> the discussion.
>
> > I contend that outward behavior is not necessarily a manifestation of
> > religiosity, but nonetheless it can be quite telling. Take
> > the students at your school -- I'm willing to bet my next paycheck that
> those who
> > score higher on religiosity scales are less likely to be having premarital
>
> > sex, cheating on tests, etc.
>
> I wouldn't take that bet with respect to premarital sex, but I think
> that you're going way out on a limb with the cheating on tests comment. As I
> mentioned, I believe that Steve Davis has some data on that. If the overall
> data show a reduction for various forms of cheating and dishonesty for the
> religious, it'd be pretty difficult to explain the central role of
> dishonesty in fundamentalist endeavours such as creationist teaching, the
> attempt impeach President Clinton, the attempt to recriminalize abortion, ad
> nauseum. As I said before, rationalization is a powerful thing.
>
> Paul Smith
> Alverno College
> Milwaukee
--
Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Program Director & Assistant Professor of Psychology
Transylvania University
300 North Broadway
Lexington, KY 40508-1797
Office: (859) 281-3656
Web page: http://www.transy.edu/homepages/mhelweglarsen/index2.html
