Abstinence only education needs to be stopped
Published January 07, 2009 @ 07:41PM PT
So, we finally have conclusive proof that abstinence-only education doesn't work in the US. In fact, it's worse than just not working. Abstinence-only education is worse for teenagers than doing nothing at all. Young people who go through an abstinence-only education program are just as likely to have sex and they are more likely to do so without protection. And let me tell you, most public health types have known this for years. Abstinence-only education is a useless, damaging load of hooey.
For those unfamiliar with sex ed - abstinence-only education is exactly what it sounds like. It is an educational principle that young people should be taught to abstain from sex and why abstinence is important. It does not provide information about contraception or about sex and sexuality. The curricular focus is solely on why sex must be postponed.
Now, I am not one to ignore the role of culture in educational interventions. Every situation is unique. It seems to me though that if we can't get fundamentalist Christian teenagers in Southern Mississippi to abstain from sex, it's not a huge leap to argue that we also can't get people from historically polygamous cultures to abstain from sex. In other words -
It's time to abandon Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom. This is the mantra of PEPFAR, the US-funded President's Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief. All PEPFAR-funded HIV education efforts must follow that formula, and include all three points. 33% of all HIV prevention funds - 20% of the PEPFAR budget - must be - according to the organization's congressional mandate- spent on abstinence only education.
Yes, that's right. We are requiring that 7% of our HIV budget be spent on programs that have been scientifically proven not to work. Oops! Sure, nine out of ten Americans have sex before marriage. But we expect the developing world to do better at that kind of thing, right?
PEPFAR is a good idea. More money for AIDS prevention and treatment is a good thing. Wasting limited PEPFAR funds is not. It's time to free the PEPFAR budget from loony congressional restrictions on what can be funded. PEPFAR should be funding the efforts that will do the most good for the least money. End of discussion.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Comments (39)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Alanna Shaikh has spent the last ten years immersed in global health; she has worked for NGOs, companies, universities, and the US government on projects that ranged from preventing antibacterial resistance to improving maternal and child health.
Featured Global Health Actions
-
-
-
Know your status- Get tested!
99 People
-
Know your status- Get tested!
Most Popular Global Health Posts
- World Pneumonia Day 2009: Join The Fight
- Save A Village, Learn About World Pneumonia Day
- Gates Casts Himself as "Impatient Optimist" in Global Health Speech
- Anti-Malarials Often Ineffective But Historic First Vaccine Could Save 500,000 a Year
- Ecuador Breaking 2,000 Drug Patents, Big Pharma Says No Problem
I am evoked to use a little bit of sarcasm in a respectful manner. Indeed, I understand your stance on this issue, however if you are going to be opinionated about such subject be careful in your choice of words. It is needless to say that you published such article with no revision etiquette. If you are going to bash an activist ideal make sure you think before you write. You are criticizing that ABSTINANCE does not educate on using protection, and you have no reason to criticize, it is logical that if a group of people is supporting abstinance they are not indicated to promote protection.
If they were to promote sex education on protection than their ideal would have no credibility. Abstinace shows the reasons why you shouldnt and it is not their job to educate.
The people or the idea you should criticize is Pro Sex if they are promoting it than why not give the proper information.
Even better you are bashing such idea, than why dont you take the stance and educate us.
On another note, Abstinance is a good choice what is wrong with someone exposing such ideal, we live in a free country, and there are those of us who want to believe in that ideal.
If you think about it sex will save us a lot of turm oil.
Many teens, have sex because they want to feel validated, is having sex giving you a true sense of worth, its pretty ignorant to rely on sex to give you that self worth.
Really look at the spiritual, self growth issue here.
Posted by Ana De La Torre on 01/07/2009 @ 10:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Another comment I may add is that yes indeed perhaps Abstinence has not been well accepted because our media flourishes with sexual content. Sex is seen as the symbol of life, the cool thing, the in thing, its in fashion. We see sex promoted on the high way, in schools, the Internet, and it seems that many take the stance to be followers, and not leaders. We follow what we see instead of following the unseen that is true bravery and true courage.
Posted by Ana De La Torre on 01/07/2009 @ 11:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Abstinence, condom, fidelity sounds like good common sense to me. These are the three most effective ways to prevent std. Abstinence is the only 100% way of preventing these diseases and kids should be taught that. Fidelity of both partners is pretty effective at preventing introduction of disease to a couple. Without fidelity does a couple even really exist?
Posted by Charlie Reed on 01/08/2009 @ 04:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
To clairfy my stance. I have no objection to abstinence. It is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and STIs, and a worthy goal for any individual.
I have an objection to wasting scarce government funding on education programs which make young people more likely to take dangerous risks.
Posted by Alanna Shaikh on 01/08/2009 @ 05:07AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Perhaps I have an imperfect understanding of this issue, but aren't abstinence only education and the ABC PEPFAR program two different things? I understand why abstinence-only education is not working. Why is promoting faithfullness and condom use alongside abtinence ineffective?
Posted by Amanda Kloer on 01/08/2009 @ 05:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well just say no was a joke, anti tobacco ads are a joke, the war on drugs doesnt work, hey peace in the middle east is a joke. Just because something isnt effective doesnt mean its not worth trying. The world is in crisis and the number one root cause is simple science. Too many people not enough resources. Its time the UN and all the worlds nations got together and started tackling the overpopulation problem. Not promoting abstinence and condoms would be stupid.
Posted by Lucius Warner on 01/08/2009 @ 07:34AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm confused. At one point, you say that PEPFAR's slogan is "Abstain, be faithful, use a condom" and that it's good. Then you say it's not. And the whole time you are talking about abolishing "abstinance-only" education, which inherently wouldn't add "Be faithful, use a condom" since it is abstinence *only.*
I do think that in a sex-saturated, irreligious society, AO is not the way to go.
Perhaps if your message wasn't so confusing and contradictory, I might be inclined to agree with you and vote accordingly.
Posted by Candice Mangum on 01/08/2009 @ 09:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The more you say no, no, no. There just going to do it. They should just be given the correct information and ways to be protected and safe, so they don;t just go out and do it.
Posted by A J on 01/08/2009 @ 10:58AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
My favorite sex ed joke:
"To say that teaching teenagers about condom makes them want to have sex is like saying installing headlights on my car makes the sun go down."
I support sex education. Abstinence only (emphasis on "only") is not sex education. It's sex obsfucation.
I share the chagrin over the hyper-sexualization in our country, particularly of women, even more so of girls. Good, responsible sex education is the only thing that can solve that, because it will only go away when the people don't want to see it anymore. I personally believe that 13-year-old girls in suggestive clothing is a direct result of abstinence-only education.
Posted by SL Martin on 01/08/2009 @ 12:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Unless a society goes to the drastic step of total gender segregation and militant public non-fraternization codes enforced by police and other community members, it's impossible to prevent sex before marriage and the US never enjoyed some sort of past golden era where this was possible. I mean, maybe Saudi and Afghan teens abstain, but their families are willing to stone or beat them to death with their bare hands. That's the level of threat required - if you won't go there, you won't stop extra- and premarital sex.
Teen girls who got pregnant in the US before marriage in the middle of last century were sent away to homes for the pregnancy, frequently forced to give their children up for adoption whether they wanted to or not. If anyone ever got the impression that this sort of treatment didn't happen to grown women, that's because they would also be disappeared from polite public life if they became pregnant outside marriage, harder to avoid before birth control and condoms.
And it's really only recently that the abstinence messages were truly considered to apply equally to men. It has always been accepted that they would probably have sex before marriage without being thought of the worse for it, and probably that they'd try to have sex outside marriage after they'd settled down. Male subcultures are still virtually devoid in most places of the sort of slut-shaming stigma that presides over mixed gender and female subcultural interactions.
Teenagers, and adults, are going to continue having sex as they have always, always done. As they did even before there were sexual images in the media, as they do in places where 'the media' hardly exists, because the nature of sexual desire is such that you don't need to be told you have it. They may be encouraged to postpone, and in the case of teenagers even waiting a little while can mean substantial gains in maturity, so that's better. Some really will wait, but not many.
If you want to feel righteous and superior, preach abstinence-only, but recognize that your personal satisfaction is the only benefit. If you want to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancy, teach condom usage and safe sex.
Posted by Natasha Chart on 01/08/2009 @ 12:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"I personally believe that 13-year-old girls in suggestive clothing is a direct result of abstinence-only education."
"To say that teaching teenagers about condom makes them want to have sex is like saying installing headlights on my car makes the sun go down."
Rather contrary, don't you think? Not only do many 13 year old girls crave the attention suggestive clothing lends them, many are so over-saturated with sex by the media that they don't even realize the effect it has on males. They think it's just normal to dress that way.
Sex education has nothing to do with it - when I was in school, we learned it all, but we didn't learn about the provocativeness of dressing certain ways.
Posted by Candice Mangum on 01/08/2009 @ 12:44PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I can see how it might appear that way. Let me see if I can clarify.
13 year old girls crave the attention suggestive clothing gets them – yes.
They think it is normal to dress that way – yes, most likely. At least that anyone who says otherwise is shockingly behind the times.
They don’t realize the effect it has on males – I disagree. They don’t totally understand, no, but they also aren’t ignorant. They get attention, and it’s attention they want, and I have no doubt they know it has something to do with their sexuality. I agree with Natasha that these things are cross-cultural constants.
You can’t tell teenagers not to dress a certain way. But I think you can treat sex as a normal human function (which is it, even at their age) and destroy the allure of getting sexual attention from strangers. They won’t stop being sexual, but they may cherish it a little more, and that may help them make smarter decisions. It worked for me – of course, I am not everyone.
My point is that teaching that sex is bad bad bad bad bad puts tremendous strain on a culture, which is made of people, and people are sexual by nature. That strain expresses itself in confused, misguided, and sometimes dangerous expression of sexuality by young people who don’t know better.
Posted by SL Martin on 01/08/2009 @ 01:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have two words for you when it comes to abstinence-only teaching: Bristol Palin.
AO patently doesn't work. I think that if young people were educated, and birth control were used properly, it would prevent many abortions and the abuse of unwanted children.
While personally I feel that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body, I would not want to have to make that choice. So which is more acceptable to the religious right: the abortion of a fetus or teaching their children how to avoid the need for one? They're gonna have sex no matter what. Sex is a biological drive, like hunger or thirst. Wouldn't you rather they be prepared?
It is true that the media is saturated with skankiness. When I came back to the "real" world after 8wks of basic training, I was used to seeing women as soldiers, my sisters in arms, strong and determined. The magazine covers were almost like pornography. I couldn't imagine why any woman would want to look like a prostitute if she wasn't actually selling sex.
Our great-grandmothers fought for our rights as women--to dress like hookers and act like geishas for our men. They would be ashamed. Only when grown women stop letting themselves be dressed by men and treated as sex objects, only when we stop feeding the beast, will little tween girls stop dressing like us. Let them learn to be valued for their minds and not their bodies, and let us teach their male counterparts to treat them with decency and respect.
Also, if you think our culture is irreligious, you're obviously not living in the US. The male dominated religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam take up a majority of the population, with Christianity being the largest. We Godless heathens who worship some other deity or none at all are quite the minority. :)
Posted by Tab Worth on 01/08/2009 @ 01:50PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
tummmmm............. ok what ever teens are goin to do what that want!!!! i should no many will say that and then get prusured in to something like a rock and a brick wall and its REALLY hard to say NO to someone you really like and then if u do they get mad or just still do it anyway and yea we could use condoms but when you cant tell ur mom or dad or anyone and no way to buy them or get any what do u do i mean honestly come on and this is comiin from a teen we r just RETARDED in somethings and that is one the best kinda condoms is chruch when you feel like you want to go to chruch or think of god!!!!! not to be weird or anything i useally dont talk bout god and jesus died for you and just respect him and follow him thats all he wants if you dont belive me read the bible!!!!! peace love joy
brittany
Posted by brittany monroe on 01/08/2009 @ 02:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Amanda - Sorry, I wasn't terribly clear about that.
The A in ABC stands for abstinence-only education. That's the actual wording used in PEPFAR's congressional mandate. So ABC is a set of educational messages that includes abstinence-only education.
Posted by Alanna Shaikh on 01/08/2009 @ 03:21PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Lucius - You said "Just because something isnt effective doesnt mean its not worth trying"
I do not agree at all with that. If something isn't effective, then we shouldn't do it.
Posted by Alanna Shaikh on 01/08/2009 @ 03:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Abstinence programs should no longer be funded because their aim is to force young people into postponing sex until marriage. However, young people have rights and they're the ones who will make the decisions, not a program whose aim is to brainwish them into abstinence. The best way to teach sexual education is to teach proper condom use, not abstinence.
Posted by Edwin Bonilla on 01/08/2009 @ 04:00PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Alanna & all -
The PEPFAR II has eliminated the hard earmark on abstinence, which you mentioned in your article as " 33% of all HIV prevention funds - 20% of the PEPFAR budget ". (i.e. H.R. 5501, Lantos/Hyde U.S. Leadership Against AIDS, TB, and Malaria Act of 2008 signed by President Bush in July 2008)
For more details, see the table compiled by Global Health Council http://www.globalhealth.org/images/pdf/public_policy/080108_aids_tb_malaria_03vs08.pdf
Posted by Evelyn Garland on 01/08/2009 @ 08:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As a highschool student, I am a little frightened by the concept of an abstinence only program in my school... even with a mixed program strongly supporting abstinence while still giving education about protection, many of my classmates are dangerously ignorant of the potential harm unprotected sex can cause. These kids have a snowball's chance in hell of staying abstinent, and if what little knowledge they gleam from school were taken away, we'd have a much bigger problem on our hands than we do now.
Posted by Ryan O'Regan on 01/08/2009 @ 08:49PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This should said for all abstinence. Telling kids not to do drugs doesn't do much. Tell a kid not to open a box, leave the room, and see what happens. Some things are simply best left unsaid. Even to adults. Forcing someone to abstain from drugs through drug courts does nothing but causes strife, and much money is wasted on all abstinence programs. I fully support this cause.
Posted by Scott Sibley on 01/08/2009 @ 09:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
idiot,get off the page !
Posted by Ann henry on 01/09/2009 @ 11:22AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Education can inform, inspire and stimulate students.
Education cannot teach people how to choose. People make their own choices. You can threaten or scare students, or try to make them feel guilty for what they feel. But that doesn't teach them to make responsible choices for themselves.
On the contrary, such a teaching might even make students believe that they are not responsible for their own choices. They may learn to live by rules of morality or law, scared or ashamed to do anything else. Then they start denying their own responsibility and stop listening to their own feelings and needs. I believe this is the same place where humanity stops and cruelty begins. Our responsibility is to prevent children from falling into this trap of oppressive education. Let children make their own choices. Teach them to take their own responsibility.
Informing children about possible dangers, and all the means available to prevent them, is our responsibility. Demanding them to do what we want them to do and think what we want them to think is humanity's pitfall.
Posted by Jeroen Lichtenauer on 01/09/2009 @ 12:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jeroen I agree.
Think about this dialogue!...We are discussing the effectiveness of a government program in modifying individual/adolescent behavior.....LOL!
I refuse to concede that our children are out-of-control sexual creatures who need to be taught how to use protection because "everyone's doing it" -- what an indictment on American parents.
I'm also not naive to willfully blind myself to the culture that has created the context for HIV proliferation. Culturally we hold a degree of shame about sex, yet we contradict that shame by glorifying it in our media, then go back to homes that have never cultivated a healthy view of our sexuality. Our kids need to know and respect their bodies before we tell them how and when they can express their sexuality--and yes, even as a father of three, I recognize that my children are sexual beings who will be naturally curious and want more information...I can provide that in a loving safe environment or leave it up to the school system and myspace/facebook friends to teach them about sex.
If we nurture our children and teach them self-love and respect, then handling their bodies and their sexuality should walk hand-in-hand without any mystique. No government program can nor should replace the loving guidance of a parent/family.
Of course we are faced with kids who have no family structure to support them and those kids are the at-risk children who most need the guidance of a parent...this is where our community leadership, volunteers, boys and girls club advocates and faith-based agencies can make a huge impact. Love does not require a grant-writer. Just reach out beyond yourself and do it.
Posted by Kevin Johnson on 01/09/2009 @ 01:14PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I disagree with the author's premise that "abstinence-only education is worse than nothing" and needs to be stopped. That's like throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. It kind of depends on what the original intent was - if it was to reduce teen pregnancy/ birth rates, it has been successful IN THAT AREA. The referenced article opens with,
"Since 1991, rates of teenage pregnancy and birth have declined significantly in the United States. These are welcome tends."
It then goes on, "Yet, teens in the United States continue to suffer from the highest birth rate and one of the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the industrialized world. Debate over the best way to help teens avoid, or reduce, their sexual risk-taking behavior has polarized many youth-serving professionals. "
Why do we have to go to one extreme or the other? I would rather see the program tweaked to include the additional info, but with the emphasis being on abstinence. IOW, a more pragmatic, or "real life" approach. But even that might not be enough, as acknowledged by a later statement, "It is important to note that a great deal of research contradicts the belief that changes in knowledge and attitudes alone will necessarily result in behavior change.[8]"
Candice commented, "...when I was in school, we learned it all, but we didn't learn about the provocativeness of dressing certain ways."
When I was in school, which had to be before your time, we didn't learn any of it in school. I learned it all INCLUDING about the provocativeness of dressing certain ways from my mother.
Anita C.
Posted by Anita C on 01/09/2009 @ 02:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I thought it was funny that in many years of my personal public tax-sponsored education about sex and sexuality, not a single teacher even once mentioned that it was sometimes enjoyable. Most of them neglected to point out any of the great positives about our human sexual nature. Because of this obviously intentional oversight, I as an intelligent and sexually aware child was left with very little trust in their authority. This is the great danger of our severely limited approach to sex ed. If our children don't trust us, the entire mission is lost from the start.
There is nothing wrong with craving and getting attention. Your ideas of the wrong kinds may be different from mine. Their is nothing wrong with either spiritual or physical pride. Abstinence Only is about moral values, not STD and pregnancy prevention. That is why it is ineffective and should not be the focus of our tax dollars. I love sex. I'm ok with that. I wish the rest of the world could be as comfortable in their own bodies as I am in mine.
Posted by Brian Rooney on 01/10/2009 @ 08:02AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hear, hear.Abstinence-only education is cruel and moralizing.People who support it believe that if you stray from abstinence, you deserve whatever you get--hence the lack of STD and birth control information.
Posted by Becci . on 01/10/2009 @ 11:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The concept of only teaching abstinence in public schools is another attach by the religious right to control our nation. This with intelligence design vs. evolution is a means of bringing God into the classroom. Thank God, (nice choice of words) we have a Constitution designed to seperate church and state.
Like most religious political thought it does not care if it is working or not. The state with the worse problem of teenaged pregnancy is now Mississippi. Earlier it had been Louisianna. Both these states teach abstinence when it comes to public schools. The states with the best data concerning teenage pregnancy are in New England. These states teach both abstinence and birth control.
The parents should be the one to decide which type of sex education their children study. There are few reasons why both can't be taught in school.
Posted by James Fabiano on 01/12/2009 @ 11:40AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The sheer stupidity of abstinence only has been proven time and again by the rise in teen pregnancy. Is abstinence a good idea? I think so. But those who think that it is effective seem to have forgotten that there are little things called HORMONES that kick in at a time when in today's world, children are still children. We have evolved to begin procreating at a very early age because until fairly recently if we didn't start having children early, we'd be dead before we hit what today is considered a proper age to engage in sex. The Bush administration confused religion with science; hormones with urges that could be harnessed 100% of the time. I hope that an Obama administration will reverse many of the absurd non-thinking of the funny mentalists who have been Shrub's mainstay.
Posted by Beverly Kurtin on 01/12/2009 @ 11:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
here is the link for the article about other studydone with real scintific subset, and done by Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former head of both the Red Cross and the National Institutes of Health.
you are guessing, with quite different results
:)
Posted by Ivan Franck on 01/12/2009 @ 12:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I abstained until I was married. I don't have an STD and I have no fear of one.
For me, that's case closed.
Posted by Eric Wargo on 01/13/2009 @ 06:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What's wrong with sex???? People who want to teach abstinence ONLY seem to believe sex is wrong, it's dirty, and hurts people. It can be hurtfull, of course. But so can any other form of inter-human relationship. We don't tell our kids "Don't talk to your friends because they might hurt your feelings!" We teach them how to deal with people that might hurt them. It's the same with sex. Sex is a normal part of human life and yes, it IS a normal part of a teenagers life. You can't cheat mother nature. The hormones will always win! So it is our responsibility as parents and caregivers to give our children ALL the tools they need to make healthy choices - CONDOMS included!!!!
Posted by Melanie Colman on 01/13/2009 @ 09:02AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
And Eric, I did not abstain until I was married. I don't have an STD either and neither does my husband!
And that's case closed for me.
Posted by Melanie Colman on 01/13/2009 @ 09:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ivan - you did not attach a link. Can you summarize the results?
Posted by Alanna Shaikh on 01/13/2009 @ 03:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Kevin, you said, "No government program can nor should replace the loving guidance of a parent/family."
That isn't what a sensible sexual education program is about. If you want to talk to your own family and give them your own perspective, on the whole, I think everybody prefers that parents talk about this with their own children.
But the assumption that a family will provide loving guidance, or guidance, or accurate information, can go badly awry. As I tell people, you know those people you read about in the news and you think, 'damn, what an incredible jerk,' or 'what a monster,' ... that's a member of someone's family. And that jerk, that monster, is perhaps like that at home. Or there might be a family that seems perfectly nice, but then you find out later that they were, well, otherwise. Or maybe the parents just don't know any better, because their parents didn't and no one ever told them any different.
Government policy can't be made on the assumption that everyone comes from a loving, supportive family that can also provide for all their material and informational needs. If a policy does so, it will fail, and that failure will be reflected in poor public health outcomes.
Posted by Natasha Chart on 01/13/2009 @ 03:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Melanie, nothing is wrong with the sex!
so more and more 12 or 13 or... years old kids think the same
but when your preach CONDOM use, please be very awaire of hormones ("which will win", as you say), alcohol ("You can't cheat mother nature"!), some drogs, lots of needs to be aproved and accepted in the group, sexy tv show in the midlle of the day, comercials that almoust do not exist without (half)naked bodies...
and than let the kid to a party...at friends place...friday night
how can someone peacefully sleep, even if tought kid about condoms since kidergaden, and they heard words like "abstimance" and "chasity" only when you explained that its "those fundamentalists belivers" bullshit?
how can 13 (14, 15...) year old be responsable and use condoms, after 3 bears, few smokes, in a room full of teen (or some older (why not??)) bodies if you never gave a chance to an idea that sex is maybe not allways so great?
Posted by Ivan Franck on 01/13/2009 @ 04:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
ups!!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120095259855597.html
These teens generally have less risky sex, i.e., fewer sexual partners.- These teens are less likely to have a teenage pregnancy, or to have friends who use drugs.- These teens have less premarital vaginal sex.- When these teens lose their virginity they tend to do so at age 21 -- compared to 17 for the typical American teen.- And very much overlooked, one out of four of these teens do in fact keep the pledge to remain chaste -- amid much cheap ridicule and just about zero support outside their homes or churches.
Posted by Ivan Franck on 01/13/2009 @ 04:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I live in the Netherlands (but am American) and have two daughters. It's interesting that teenagers here can legally drink "soft" alcohol in bars when they are 16, are given a great deal of freedom, encouraged to have friends of both sexes, marajuana is also legal here and as far as I can see the kids here have the same hormonal drive as kids anywhere else, but our teenage pregnancy rate is substantially lower than in America (as is also true for most other European countries). I really think the difference is that, in general, sex is not an embarassing or taboo subject here, and there seems to be a healthier attitude towards bodies and what they do (eating, excreting, reproducing... all those "messy" and "uncomfortable" things, you know?). Perhaps there are other factors too, I haven't done a scientific study, but the amateur social scientist in me says that this whole issue is tied up in body-awareness, self-worth and being more open and comfortable in dealing with bodily/sexual issues and education; from ALL of the people responsible for where children get their ideas/attitudes.
Posted by Suzan Lemont on 01/13/2009 @ 04:33PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Suzan,
I agree - sounds like my kind of country socially. Libertarianism for life!
Posted by E G on 01/13/2009 @ 06:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Suzan, I was raised in Germany and have had the same experiences that you talk about. Talking to kids about their bodies and EVERYTHING they can do with it is the most important preventative measure when it comes to STD, teen-age pregnancy etc. I think one reason why European teens seem to have "smarter" sex is because they know it's a normal part of live. It's something many of them have been talking to their parents about since they were little. Sex is not elevated to some divine and blessed act that requires holy matrimony. Kids are tought that sex is what it is, not more, not less. It is not something that can replace true love or respect or your parents attention. And it should not be taken lightly but be enjoyed responsively (we should have a slogan like that on TV;)
Posted by Melanie Colman on 01/15/2009 @ 01:04PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.