It’s not surprising that teenagers who pledge abstinence from sex before marriage are no more likely to actually refrain than those who don’t pledge, as findings of a new study make clear.
“Taking a pledge doesn’t seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior,” said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. “But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking.”
Nor is it surprising that the study indicates wholesale failure of abstinence-only sex education — indoctrination, really.
“This study again raises the issue of why the federal government is continuing to invest in abstinence-only programs,” said Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. “What have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay sex until they are older, but then when they do become sexually active — and most do well before marriage — they don’t protect themselves or their partners?”
As anyone who’s ever been a teenager ought to know, if only intuitively, adolescence is a time of powerful curiosity, mercurial emotions, intense passions and raging hormones. All of that is punctuated, usually, by bouts of rebelliousness.
Thus, adolescence is a time of risk taking. Some teens take more and greater risks, some fewer and slighter ones, depending on personality. But nearly all take risks.
So it figures that, even after a period of being bombarded with facts, statistics and logical reasons why abstinence makes good sense, many a teenager will make, then break, the pledge.
But what about morality?
OK, “fortify” the facts and logical arguments with moralizing. That will probably induce a few more young people to make the pledge — before turning around and breaking the pledge, some with an added level of guilt after the fact.
Most teens who pledge abstinence probably are sincere, at that moment. The problem is, they are unstable. Circumstances and their feelings can change drastically within days.
The bottom line is that, from society’s standpoint, abstinence education and moralizing cost plenty and deliver unacceptable results. Having parents who demonstrate love, loyalty and faithfulness to each other is probably more influential, at least with some teenagers.
Realities being as they are, it makes sense to begin teaching young people more, earlier, about love, sex and responsibility, along with useful backstop information about avoiding sexually transmitted diseases, a bad reputation and unwanted pregnancy.
It’s no wonder. Most of the kids who take the pledge are too young to really know what they’re getting themselves in to. The whole thing is a sham.
I doubt if any of those rightwing Bible-pounders actually think this abstinence pledge will have any effect. All the rhetoric about abstinence is just another way to keep fanning the flames and keep the culture wars burning.
I still fail to comprehend how educating someone on the the risks associated with sex is a bad thing. It defies logic to criticize a child for getting pregnant or an STD (or, omg, an abortion) and turn around and discourage any discussion of risk prevention. I am curious about the conversations surrounding Bristol Palin’s baby…did they fail to educate their child about the risks associated with sex? Wouldn’t a sex education class have helped, just a little bit? How effective could abstinence only education have been?
King, I think most of the kids who take the pledge have a good idea of what it’s all about. They might not appreciate how hard keeping the pledge can be, though. Welcome to Oh!pinion.
Tom, I must be in contrary mode this evening. Some backers of abstinence only probably use it as you say. I think most are true believers who favor it in part because they don’t trust schools to teach regular sex education, including information about contraception, without, as they would state it, “putting bad ideas into their head.”
DB, welcome also. Teaching about risks is essential. I don’t know if Bristol Palin got abstinence-only instruction, or what. I strongly think she would’ve been better served by some straight talk about pregnancy risk and contraception.
Happy New Year!
I think the most ridiculous thing about the social conservative position on this abstinence-only education is that achieving 100% compliance regarding premarital sex simply goes against human nature. It’s not going to happen. The toothpaste is out of the tube with respect to this issue.
Let’s continue this premarital sex argument…
Many more people are going to college and graduate school. That means they are more likely to get married later. Should people remain virgins until they are 30?
What happens if you get a divorce? Should you no longer be allowed to have sex? Even if you’ve already had children and are in your 40s?
Everyone knows that sex and alcohol go hand in hand. Should alcohol be banned from mixed group parties because of the threat of sex?
How would violations of premarital sex be detected?
What should be done for the people who fell through the cracks and had premarital sex?
What happens to people who never get married? Should they die as virgins?
Is contraception still allowed if you’re married?
Wait a minute! I believe in small government! (Right?)
Anthony, you excellently point up a fundamental contradiction in modern political and social conservatism. On one hand, they say government shouldn’t meddle in people’s lives. Then, they want to use government to indoctrinate about an especially personal and sensitive area of people’s lives. To make matters worse, they do that while withholding vital and protective information, plus the means of preventing the spread of STD’s and unwanted pregnancy.
This approach, this attitude, is not just self-contradictory, not just bad public policy, it’s bizarre and dangerous — and should be grounds enough for rational, sensible people to reject the party that harvests conservatives’ votes and carries their water.
We need to be very careful. If we are not, we could be confronted by the RC Police (RC stands for Religiously Correct).
Any of us who are of a more secular stripe should watch what we say and do!
Good article, S.W.
Snave, just say mullahs, for short.