What is Abstinence Education?

     Abstinence education is not liberal or conservative, it is not an invention of the Republican or Democratic Party, neither is it a religious or faith based philosophy. Abstinence education is simply. …logical.

      In the early nineties the failures of comprehensive sex education (try not to have sex, but you are going to anyway, so here is how to use a condom, where to get them and by the way, take a few with you.) were becoming obvious. After years of well funded in school comprehensive sex education, pregnancy, sexual activity rates, and disease rates had increased, not decreased.

      A grass roots movement made up of diverse and sometimes-contrary elements began clamoring for change. They seemed to want several things: The benefits of marriage expounded, the choice to wait extolled, strategies for resisting peer pressure taught, the truth about condom failure rates explained, the physiological impact of early sexual activity revealed, and the idea that virginity can be “reclaimed” (Just because you started does not mean you can’t stop) taught. These core beliefs were later to be added to and articulated into the 1996 title V welfare reform bill.

      The medical and educational community was not sure what to make of what became to be known as “the abstinence movement”. Leaders began to push for serious consideration and government funding. Until 1996 there simply was no federal or state money for abstinence education. The movement was made up of volunteers, nonprofits, and para educators. I remember once, in 1993, I called my wife completely excited because an organization had given me gas money for working with their youth (I was a school teacher at the time). I remember those years, abstinence and virginity were bad words. Now years later, I speak at high school campuses where the “cool kids” wear t-shirts that proclaim abstinence and virginity as the wearer’s choice.

 

Title V

      In 96 the title V welfare reform bill was passed. Title V gave block grants to states so that they could spend the money how they chose in order to promote abstinence. The outlines were simple. The money must be spent in accordance with the parameters of the Title V guidelines. This implementation plan, though initially confusing, was brilliant. Instead of dictating to the states how to promote abstinence, congress made the money available and set the parameters down in stone. The title V guidelines were put in place and the states could fund any programs that worked within them in order to promote abstinence. The strict guidelines combined with the flexible application are at the root of the brilliance and success of Title V.

      The diversity and effectiveness of the programs that received and put into play this money always astounds me in my travels. Some states disseminated this money to the county schools and let the county chose and implement the programs and some funded non profit organizations to promote abstinence. I have continually been impressed with the dedication and professionalism of the folks in the abstinence movement “on the ground.” I have seen abstinence promoted through after school clubs, in class with medically accurate curriculum, billboards, radio spots, and rallies where attendance is over six thousand. Imagine six thousand children screaming and cheering for abstinence (If in 1993 if, when I did my first abstinence rally in the back of a Golden Corral restaurant for 19 teens, if you told me I would someday perform in front of 6000 teens, I would have laughed at you.) I have seen teens compete to be in an add on local TV that promotes abstinence. That’s right, teens competing to be in an ad that will be on local TV that “the kids at school” will be sure to see and the add promotes virginity.

      What happened? Well in the early 90s for the first time in 27 years, the teen pregnancy rate went down. What ensued after these findings was a rather deplorable “cat fight” between the “safe sex” camp and the “abstinence camp.” About whom or what was responsible for the decline. Both camps agreed that the pregnancy rate went down; however, both claimed responsibility for the decline. Studies came out that said increased abstinence was responsible for the decline. Studies came out that showed that condom use was responsible. I stated in the beginning of this brief that the abstinence movement is logical. Ask your self a logical question. If a philosophy or action is practiced to prevent a negative trend for 30 years and the negative trend continues to get worse, and then a new philosophy and approach appears to counter the negative trend, and the negative trend improves, which philosophy or approach is responsible for the improvement in the negative trend? It is simply logical to decide that the new or fresh approach was responsible for the change in the negative trend. Abstinence Education was the new and progressive approach that turned around teen pregnancy rates and teen sexual activity rates.

 

What About Safe Sex and Comprehensive Sex Ed

      As if the wonderful news of teen pregnancy decline weren’t enough. Scientific surveys began to show a decline in sexual activity itself. In other words an increasing number of teens are simply choosing not to have sex. Like the decrease in teen pregnancy rate, this is the first decline in sexual activity in thirty years. Why? What changed? What was the new variable…abstinence education? This time the rush to claim responsibility was conducted in a more civilized manner. As is the norm, studies came out to support both sides. However, the overwhelming evidence points to abstinence education as the reason for the decline in incidence of sexual intercourse amongst teens. It is logical is it not? How can an approach that encourages condom use be responsible for the decline of sexual intercourse amongst the target group? Wouldn’t the approach that encourages teens not to have sex be responsible for the fact that an increasing number of teens are choosing not to have sex? Logical.

 

Won’t Condoms Keep Teens Safe?

      Abstinence education is a logical approach to the problem of teen pregnancy and STDs. This is becoming even more apparent as condom ineffectiveness against viral disease is becoming a scientific fact. Though condoms have been shown to decrease the transmission of aids, the same cannot be said for herpes and HPV. Once again, this is logical. Herpes and HPV are skin-based diseases. They do not need the exchange of body fluid to occur in order to be contracted. The viruses can be present throughout the whole genital region. This is simply a scientific fact. The condom only covers a portion of the genital region of one partner. It is logical to assume that parts of the genital region will come into contact that are not covered by a condom. Therefore it is safe to conclude that condoms do not offer protection against the transmission of Herpes and HPV. Let’s follow this logical statement in simpler fashion: The viruses that cause herpes and HPV can be present throughout the whole genital region, condoms do not cover the whole genital reason, therefore condoms do not protect against Herpes or HPV. Logic.

 

Peer Reviewed Studies that support Abstinence Educations position on condom ineffectiveness

      Following are just a few of the studies that show how ineffective condoms are against herpes and hpv. These studies are from credible national organizations and are not funded or connected to the abstinence movement in any way. The mainstream media have chosen not to cover these very important findings. Why, whenever I conduct an interview I include this information and often hand over copies of the CDC and NIH study to the interviewer. Most often they edit the below facts from the interview that airs or goes to print. Why? Think about it. Her are just a few of the studies that tell the truth about condoms and Herpes and HPV. The study findings are in regular font ant the sources are in italics:

     While latex condoms do reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDs, there is not enough enough evidence to determine that they were effective in reducing the risk of most other sexually transmitted diseases.

     National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious diseases, National Institutes of health, Department of Health and Human Services. Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence On Condom Effectiveness for Transmitted Disease Prevention, July 20, 2001

     Condoms have no impact on the risk of sexual transmission of Human papilloma virus in women and there is no clear evidence that condoms reduce HPV transmission in men.

     “Federal Panel on condoms Offers Crucial Warnings to sexually Active Americans, Says The Medical Institute for Sexual Health.” NIH condom report, July 19^th, 2001

     Only the women’s risk of getting herpes is slightly reduced. Using condoms didn’t help men reduce their risk of getting the disease at all.

     Wald, A.G.M. Langenberg, K. Link, et al., “Effect of condoms on Reducing the Transmission of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 from Men to Women.” Journal of the American Medical Association 285 (2001): 3100-3106

     A review of scientific research shows that condom use offers relatively little protection (from “zero” to “some”) for herpes and no protection from HPV. On average, condoms failed to prevent the transmission of the HIV virus between 15 percent and 31 percent of the time. While condom use has increased over the past 25 years, the spread of STDs has likewise continued to rise.

     Dr. Susan Weller, “Meta-Analysis of Condom Effectiveness in Reducing Sexually Transmitted HIV” Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 36 12 (1993). See also National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, “Summary,” Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention, July 20, 2001

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf

     Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, Tracking the Hidden Epidemics 2000: Trends in STDs in the United States, 2000, at

http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/news/RevBrochure1pdftoc.htm

 

      Given the above scientifically supported information, it would be logical to promote abstinence as the only successful way to avoid sexually transmitted disease as well as the only way to avoid viral (skin based) disease. Abstinence is not an ideological response to a problem, it is a logical response.

      As the logic of abstinence education becomes apparent. The illogical claims against it have increased. One of the most ridiculous and illogical claims against abstinence education is that it is a religion. The thinking goes like this, “the Bible, Koran, and many religious texts promote abstinence until marriage and monogamy after, and therefore, abstinence education in schools is promoting religious objectives.” A third grader can dismantle this argument. Ask yourself, is a motorcycle a car? Of course not. But they both have wheels? Yes, both a motorcycle and a car have the property of having wheels. They share that characteristic. But that does not make one synonymous with the other. Only a fool would claim that a motorcycle is a car. Or stated differently, just because two ideas or things share a characteristic they are not automatically similar.

      One can test an idea by applying the driving principal behind it to other situations. Some appose abstinence education with the simple and illogical statement, “abstinence is promoted in the Bible, the Koran, and many other ancient books, and therefore it should not be promoted in public schools.” One need simply look at this statement logically. All religions teach not to take others property; not to steel. If you pick up any public school manual or guide book you will find rules against stealing.

      Why aren’t those opposed to abstinence education also apposed to teaching children not to steal? Why isn’t the ACLU screaming about the fact that every school system in the country has laws written into all their student manuals against stealing? Isn’t this also religious indoctrination that has been specifically forbidden by the separation of Church and State? Why is it that all the rules and guidelines that have roots in ancient books and are also taught in are public school are acceptable and not called “religious doctrine”, yet abstinence is. Think about it, when a teacher punishes a student for stealing or cheating (both activities that are frowned upon by the Bible, Koran, Torah, Wicca, or any other religion on the planet). The teacher is not accused of “promoting religious ideology”. However, if the same teacher discourages teens from having sex, he/she may be accused of “promoting religious ideology” Why is that?

 

Does Abstinence Education Work?

     Below you can clearly see the declining sexual activity rates amongst the nation’s teens. Notice that the decline starts at the same time abstinence education started making inroads into American culture and the largest gains were made after Abstinence education received Federal funding through Title V (1996). Teen intercourse rates have increased from the early 1970s (comprehensive/condom education introduced into public education) until 1991 (grass roots privately funded abstinence programs started in civic and public forums) with even steeper declines occurring from 1996 (Title V funding) onward.

     Teen intercourse rates are now lower than they were in 1976. Could a philosophy that states: “you’re going to have sex anyway so here is how you use a condom.” (Comprehensive sex Ed) be responsible for a decline in teen sexual activity?

     This chart can be located from the following link. Which is, by the way, from the CDC. (Center for Disease Control) Not exactly a right wing, religious organization. Additionally, all statistics and studies quoted on this site or from peer reviewed original sources.

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/yrbss/QuestYearTable.asp

 

United States Center for Disease Control National Youth Survey Data

Youth Online: Comprehensive Results

United States All Years
Percentage of students who ever had sexual intercourse

Variance: 95% Confidence Interval Standard Error None

UNITED STATES ALL YEARS
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO EVER HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR SURVEY

	Sex	T otal	F emale	M ale
Year
2005		46.8 (±3.3)	45.7 (±3.6)	47.9 (±3.4)
2003		46.7 (±2.6)	45.3 (±2.6)	48.0 (±3.3)
2001		45.6 (±2.3)	42.9 (±2.8)	48.5 (±2.7)
1999		49.9 (±3.7)	47.7 (±4.1)	52.2 (±4.0)
1997		48.4 (±3.1)	47.7 (±3.7)	48.9 (±3.4)
1995		53.1 (±4.5)	52.1 (±5.0)	54.0 (±4.7)
1993		53.0 (±2.7)	50.2 (±2.5)	55.6 (±3.5)
1991		54.1 (±3.5)	50.8 (±4.0)	57.4 (±4.1)

 

      Abstinence Education is obviously a logical, medically accurate response to the problem of teen pregnancy, STDs, and sexual behavior. It is now validated by a decline in teen sexual behavior and several (over 12) peer reviewed studies (following)

Click the bellow link to go to "Proof It Works"

Evidence That Abstinence Education Works