February 2, 2010 11:02 AM

Abstinence-Only Program Delayed Teen Sex

By
CBSNews
(AP)  An experimental abstinence-only program without a moralistic tone can delay young teens from having sex, a new study found.

Billed as the first rigorous research to show long-term success with an abstinence-only approach, the study released Monday differed from traditional programs that have lost U.S. federal and state support in recent years.

The classes didn't preach saving sex until marriage or disparage condom use. Instead, they involved assignments to help students around the age of 12 see the drawbacks to sexual activity at their age. It included having them list the pros and cons themselves, and it found their "cons" far outnumbered the "pros."

The study appears in the February edition of Archives of Pediatrics&Adolescent Medicine. It was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and involved 662 black children in Philadelphia.

The students were assigned to one of four options: eight hour-long abstinence-only classes; safe-sex classes; classes incorporating both approaches; or classes in general healthy behavior. Results for the first three classes were compared with the group that had only the general health classes. That was the "control group" the study used for comparison.

Two years later, about one-third of abstinence-only students said they'd had sex since the classes ended, versus nearly half - about 49 per cent - of the control group. Sexual activity rates in the other two groups didn't differ from the control group.

Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Program, praised the study and said she hopes it revives government interest in abstinence-only sex education.

Critics of abstinence-only programs have long argued that most evidence shows they don't work. The new study challenges that, but even the authors say the results don't mean that more comprehensive sex education should be ignored.

The abstinence-only program was based on social psychology theories about what motivates behavior. It encouraged abstinence as a way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Psychologist John Jemmott III, the lead author, called the findings surprising given negative results in previous abstinence-only research. Jemmott said the single focus may have been better at encouraging abstinence than the other approaches in his study.

"The message was not mixed with any other messages," said Jemmott, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who has long studied ways to reduce risky behavior among inner-city youngsters.

Monica Rodriguez of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, an advocacy group favoring comprehensive sex education, said the study doesn't mean other abstinence-only programs would work.

"It's unfair to compare this abstinence-only intervention to the typical abstinence-only-until-marriage program that young people in this country have been put through," she said. These typically portray sex and condom use in a more negative light, she said.

Rodriguez said the program studied might be one approach to try with younger children, but that it probably would be less successful with older, more sexually experienced teens.

Almost one-fourth of the teens studied said they'd already had sex at least once, similar to other studies of urban, mostly black children of middle school age, around 11 to 13.

AP
Add a Comment See all 75 Comments
by P0ST1ING_AWAY February 3, 2010 6:40 PM EST
by cidaia February 3, 2010 3:48 PM EST
I'm only hateful to people who justify the doing of bad things.
I believe that justifications such as the ones I attacked (below) cause real harm in the real world.
We should uphold what is right and we should condemn what is bad.
I don't even know why that is controversial.
============================================================
What makes it controversial is that you have neither the ability
or the right to decide what is "right" or "bad" for the world.
Kids living in your house?? Great. You make the rules. FOR THEM.
You do not get to decide what the rest of us do.
Abstinence-only education frequently leads to pregnant teenagers.
It is a fact. 10 minutes or 10 years of your preaching will not
change this. Don't mind another mouth to feed ???
Then ABSTINENCE AWAY!!!!
Reply to this comment
by P0ST1ING_AWAY February 3, 2010 7:13 PM EST
That should read "you have neither the ability NOR the right".....
by rf35 February 3, 2010 8:40 AM EST
Did the researchers control for ugly kids?
Reply to this comment
by Cyber998 February 3, 2010 8:09 AM EST
cidaia, you seem a very hateful person.
Reply to this comment
by cidaia February 3, 2010 3:48 PM EST
I'm only hateful to people who justify the doing of bad things.

I believe that justifications such as the ones I attacked (below) cause real harm in the real world.

We should uphold what is right and we should condemn what is bad.

I don't even know why that is controversial.
by commenter777 February 3, 2010 1:32 AM EST
People this is 2010. If these kids don't start having sex soon after puberty they are going to be stunted sexually.
Reply to this comment
by displeased February 2, 2010 8:35 PM EST
cidaia, you keep blaming liberals for today's teen sex issues. The thing is, and I'm sure demographics has a lot to do with this, but of all the liberals I know, only one couple has a child. The rest are childless. It's the republicans I know that are squeezing 2 or 3 kids into their SUV then heading to church. Anyway, teen pregnancy is rare in my neighborhood (I live in a very liberal and educated college town). And it was rare when I was in high school. I remember only one girl that was pregnant in high school. Of course, we'll never know how many abortions there were.

The one difference I do notice between libs and neocons is libs seem to be more interested in individual rights. They support all kids having an equal opportunity to education, when neocons seem to only want to take care of their own. I think the teen pregnancy issue is more common in inner cities where schools are under-funded and parents are irresponsible, uneducated, and poor. It's the kids that don't have loving and responsible parents that need to be informed. I think a lib would be more likely to help these kids than a neocon would.
Reply to this comment
by cidaia February 2, 2010 8:50 PM EST
I understand that liberals are affluent enough that they can control children using nothing but bribery. I've lived in affluent liberal areas. I used to be one, remember. I know exactly how liberals parent their one child - and I know exactly which facilities liberals send their child to when the child grows up bratty, selfish, spoiled, entitled, and totally out of control.

But that's not the point.

The point is that either children should be having sex, or they shouldn't.

If you really think they should, then make your case. We shouldn't just teach them how to use condoms. We should also lower the legal age. With rights come responsibilities, and if children are old enough to choose, they're also old enough that their parents shouldn't be held responsible if the children choose to ignore their parents.

But if you can't do that - if you aren't willing to argue that there's no harm in changing the legal age of consent to 12 - then stop kneecapping the parents who are trying to teach their child that

SEX IS FOR ADULTS.
by cidaia February 2, 2010 8:57 PM EST
And you're wrong about liberals caring more about children, too, btw.

Liberals ADVOCATE a great many things. If all the stuff they wanted were real, then Utopia would have come right on schedule somewhere around 1976.

But liberals don't care about the fact that none of their great ideas WORK.

Their grand ideas on education? Are today's children more educated than ever?

Their grand ideas on fixing poverty? Is poverty fixed yet?

Their grand ideas on sex ed? We've been teaching sex ed for a long time now. If you remove the kids exposed to abstinence-only education from the statistics, has pregnancy gone away? Are diseases not a problem any more? Are kids healthy, happy, content, and well cared for?

Your programs fail, and all liberals do is find dirty words to name anyone who tries to give them feedback.

You don't want to hear the feedback. That's the truth about what being a liberal is all about. Liberals haven't had a new idea in decades, and have grown increasingly nasty about defending the ideas they put forth in the 1970s....increasingly nasty because it's obvious that their programs not only do not work, but in fact do a great deal of harm.

Gary, IN used to be a nice working class neighborhood, before the liberals gave us The Great Society. Just remember that.

Caring about kids is not an abstract activity.
by jankebenzone February 2, 2010 7:52 PM EST
by P0ST1ING_AWAY February 2, 2010 6:28 PM EST

Your mythical god never was needed.
Please spare us your MoronGelical christian noise.
It is tiring.
----------------------------------------------------------------

That must mean you,re part of the "enlightened" and "educated" who think they know better. If the current life styles and statusquo is "progression" why are the majority so unhappy and dissatisfied ?History tells the truth, but many must learn the hard way. Lots of teens learn the hard way and most of their parent/s , general public, were poor mentors who also had to learn the hard way. Like it or not, God is the ONLY way, deniers will just get infinitly more sick and tired because of continued ignorance.
Reply to this comment
by displeased February 2, 2010 8:21 PM EST
Education is the only way. Education leads to progress. Religion and education are antonyms.
by cidaia February 2, 2010 8:28 PM EST
Human beings cannot live without a religion, displeased.

The only difference between other peoples' religion vs. yours is that secular humanism is the only faith in the world that rejects the Golden Rule.

When you mature enough to grasp the meaning and importance of "don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you", the number one reason why people are turning against science and humanism will melt away. (If humanism can SURVIVE the experience...since it seems to be BASED on the idea that humanists are right and good and noble for doing unto others what nobody, no humanist, would EVER want done to themselves!)

But you will also be barred from using political correctness as a way to call something "educational" when it is full of Political Correctness lies, like for instance the belief that you can't tell a girl the whole truth about the teenage sexual experience because it interferes with the agenda feminism wishes to push.

Humanism cannot account for WHY sexual equality is so hard - WHY is a girl viewed as trash when she has multiple sexual encounters, even now, after all this time? Since you don't LIKE the answer, "education" takes a back seat to ideology...which is exactly what you accuse religion of being guilty of.
by P0ST1ING_AWAY February 2, 2010 7:36 PM EST
by cidaia February 2, 2010 7:09 PM EST
How do condoms protect a girl from the sort of men who sleep with thirteen year olds?

or is that the point? You're in favor of pedophilia?
==============================================================
You are a MORON.
The issue is teenagers getting pregnant.
What does that have to do with pedophilia ???
What is wrong with you ???
Reply to this comment
by cidaia February 2, 2010 7:41 PM EST
What is wrong with me is that, unlike you, I actually have spent a considerable amount of my volunteer time getting to know the teenagers who are hurt by your approach to teenage sex.

Teenage sex needs to be stopped. The girls who are doing it, are doing it because they feel pressured.

They want their boyfriends to love them, and are astonished to learn that giving themselves does NOT make a boy love them - exactly the reverse.

They want to be seen as sophisticated and hip - and they find out too late that, for all that we make sex seem very glamorous, the reality is that nobody respects tramps.

They want to fit in. They want to be loved. They want to look good. These are the reasons why our children are entering into sexual relationships.

Many of these sexual relationships are with adult men. People like you are setting up our girls (and, yes, boys) to be exploited sexually.

You're either for or against minors having sex. Which is it?
by P0ST1ING_AWAY February 2, 2010 7:27 PM EST
by cidaia February 2, 2010 7:16 PM EST
.....................................................
Liberals neither know nor care much about how their flawed teachings have affected real children..........
===============================================
Oh, and BTW, DOOFUS, this is not a Liberal vs Right-wing-fringe issue.
The problem of teenagers getting pregnant is one that has been going
on for centuries. Again - I point to your goddess Sarah P.
WHERE DID HER "WISE" ABSTINENCE TEACHINGS GET HER?????
Reply to this comment
by cidaia February 2, 2010 7:34 PM EST
I do deal with present-day reality.

If liberals cared about children, they'd spend less time USING them to push a political agenda, and more time actually LISTENING to them.

Condoms don't protect them.

Your "sex ed" programs don't protect them.

They don't have realistic expectations going in to their first sexual relationships.

They need real grown ups to protect them and instead they have YOU, USING them on an agenda that isn't about THEM at all, but is about your own emotional neediness.

Kids need grownups to protect them.

This starts with what is best for them. We must teach them not to have sex until they are legally adult and both ready and able to make their own choices.

Teaching them that they shouldn't have sex but of course EVERYONE DOES, except of course the prudes and the undesirables, so since you probably WILL have sex - you're not a loser, are you? - here's what you'll need to know about birth control,

Why not just drive them to the pedophiles and drop them off?
by P0ST1ING_AWAY February 2, 2010 7:23 PM EST
by cidaia February 2, 2010 7:11 PM EST
Mythical or not, God is not needed to support the idea that parents who love their children want them to be abstinent until they're old enough to make adult choices.
===========================
Unfortunately ... IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU WANT.
You have to deal with present day reality.
Sarah "duh, I can see Russia from my house" Palin took the
abstinence approach. Now she has ANOTHER kid staring her in
the face.
Reply to this comment
by cidaia February 2, 2010 7:34 PM EST
So you're saying kids should be having sex at thirteen because Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house and that's stupid and wrong so therefore anything Sarah says must be the opposite of what is true?

You really have issues with that anger of yours. You're not making any sense.
by P0ST1ING_AWAY February 2, 2010 6:31 PM EST
by cidaia February 2, 2010 4:28 PM EST
Schools should be training children to become engineers, not welfare recipients.
Children need to learn how to have a baby out of wedlock "just in case" about like we need to teach children how to hotwire and steal cars "just in case".
Condoms don't protect children.
There is only one way to protect children.
That is to tell them the real truth about sex - that teenagers who do it are the ones getting used, abused, discarded, diseased, and end up ruined.
========================================================================
The MoronGelical christian approach to this subject is RETARDED.
Look where it got your goddess, Sarah Palin.
IT GOT HER ANOTHER MOUTH TO FEED!!!!!
Reply to this comment
by cidaia February 2, 2010 7:08 PM EST
Sarah Palin seems to be doing very well.

Whereas you sound like you're very angry about something.

Maybe I hit a nerve when I made that comment about fourteen year olds learning the hard way that spreading your legs for some boy is NOT the way to earn respect or love?
by cidaia February 2, 2010 7:09 PM EST
How do condoms protect a girl from the sort of men who sleep with thirteen year olds?

or is that the point? You're in favor of pedophilia?
See all 75 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
Better Information. Better Health.
CBS News on Facebook