Anti-Abstinence Analysis
Tuesday, March 9th, 2004Anti-Abstinence Analysis
Study Examines STD Rates of Teen Virgins
Lesson to be learned… don’t just read the headlines!
“Teens who pledge to remain virgins until marriage have the same rates of sexually transmitted diseases as those who don’t pledge abstinence, according to a study that examined the sex lives of 12,000 adolescents.”
Interesting statement. We’ll examine the article further in just a second, but for the moment let’s just say that this is a “misleading” statement.
I would like to first remind everyone that sexually transmitted disease is only a small part of the problem. Add to that the psychological damage potential of pre-marital sexual relationships and financial/social problems that can arise from teen pregnancy and you’re beginning to get the bigger picture.
“The study found that the STD rates for whites who pledged virginity was 2.8 percent compared with 3.5 percent for those who didn’t pledge. For blacks, it was 18.1 percent and 20.3 percent. For Asians, 10.5 percent of virginity pledgers had STDs compared with 5.6 percent of non-pledgers. For Hispanics, it was 6.7 percent and 8.6 percent.”
Let’s all re-read that paragraph. Do the numbers look the same to you? I don’t think so. What the “experts” have said and what the headline communicates are two completely different things. What the research states is that the results are not “statistically significant”. However, the research clearly indicates a difference. I don’t want to accuse anyone of lying, but this is a blatant misrepresentation! Let’s read a little more…
The problem, the study found, is that those virginity “pledgers” are much less likely to use condoms.
“It’s difficult to simultaneously prepare for sex and say you’re not going to have sex,” said Peter Bearman, the chair of Columbia University’s Department of Sociology, who co-authored the study with Hannah Bruckner of Yale.
“The message is really simple: ‘Just say no’ may work in the short term but doesn’t work in the long term.”
So, let’s analyze these statements:
First, let’s analyze the “problem” indicated in the first statement. This whole article is guilty of bait-and-switch tactics. No abstinence educator in the world is going to say that “pledging abstinence” is going to decrease teen pregnancy and STD transmission. It is not the “pledge” that somehow magically fixes things, it is following the program of actually abstaining from sexual relationships that will eliminate not merely decrease the transmission of STDs and teen pregnancy. They have set up a “straw man” in the pledge of abstinence, and then set out to prove what common sense already demands. If you pledge not to have sex, and you choose to have sex anyway… the consequences will be the same.
The next statement about “preparing for sex” and “pledging abstinence”. More wordplay. Of course, the two statements are diametrically opposed. How many people “plan” to go on a diet, but when the package of Twinkies becomes available… they can’t resist. Does it make it more healthy to teach people how to binge and purge so that they can “prepare to eat the twinkie” instead of teaching them that the twinkie is unhealthy? No! And that is precisely what this statement implies. Few abstinence educators would suggest that kids be prevented from knowing what condom is or condemn discussions about sexuality as implied in the article. The purpose is to educate young people how to abstain from sexuality until committed in a marriage relationship rather than sending them blindly and irresponsibly into the world of sexuality with a condom, a sponge, a few pills and some vague and fuzzy words about love and commitment.
Those “child sex” advocates who would irresponsibly educate children how to have sex, then put “protection” in their hands and walk away may feel noble - but they are ignoring the fact that sexual relationships between students who are not emotionally mature cause devastating consequences! Take it from someone who has had to help young people pick up the pieces.
They’re also diverting attention from the fact that their solution is certainly no better and according to the research, less effective - but it also has no additional benefit. You see, assuming a young person does hold to their vow of abstinence until marriage, they will have a wonderful opportunity to share a once-in-a-lifetime experience with the person they have committed themselves to in a relationship designed as permanent. And they also stand a greater chance of that marriage remaining together because they come into the relationship with less psychological and sexual baggage.
Returning to the junk food analogy, mere sex education is the equivalent of handing a person a twinkie and the number to the local cardiology surgeon. You give permission and a proposed possible means of “protection”, but you provide no accountability and take no responsibility for the results of your action.
The last statement makes no sense whatsoever. What “short” or “long” term is being referenced? It sounds like this line was just added in out of context to add some false validity to the statement. Conversely, in the short term sex education may keep some young people from STDs or pregnancy, but in the long term the psychological and sociological effects can be devastating.
The bottom line is, abstinence is shown to be more successful (though not significantly so statistically) than just sex education in the short term. There is no greater benefit from mere sex education. And while sex education - at the appropriate age - can be helpful in conjunction with abstinence education - it certainly hasn’t solved any problems so far. The real problem lies in the moral status (or lack thereof) of our nation. If you tell children sex is okay - whatever your age and whatever your maturity or relationship - so long as you have protection, you should expect the result to be higher STD trasmission and higher pregnancy rates. If you explain to them that it’s wrong and unhealthy for them - and why - you can expect those odds to decrease over time. Anything else would seem to be a temporary solution with long term negative consequences.
