Study Hall

Via Verum Serum comes this story about a study that suggests abstinence-only sex education classes may delay the beginning of sexual activity: Abstinence Programs For Children Work, Study Finds

Sex-ed programs with an abstinence-only message may help to delay the start of sexual activity for certain populations of children, a new study suggests.

The researchers looked at the effectiveness of various sex-ed programs for African American middle-school students. They found that, after two years, a program that urged kids to abstain from sex all together reduced the percentage of students who started having sex by about one-third compared with a health course that didn't include sex education (a control group).

Other types of sex-ed programs, such as ones promoting "safe sex" (not abstinence), were not found to significantly delay the start of sex compared with the control group.

The study, which was published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, a journal of the American Medical Association, is the first of its kind to find that abstinence programs can reduce rates of sexual activity among adolescents followed over such a long time

You know, that's nice and all; but the amount of time and energy spent trying to prove or disprove that abstinence-only sex ed classes will "stop" teen sex is inversely proportional to the amount of good any school-based sex ed can do. At best, sex ed classes are no more than a substitute for America's real sex ed teachers: parents, other kids, television, and the proverbial Louie-in-the-Schoolyard. All you can really do in school is teach about the mechanics of sex, dispel myths (oral sex isn't sex!), and - after everyone's all hot & bothered - urging them to NOT HAVE SEX. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, there is no sex ed curriculum out there teaching the social and emotional aspects of sex, which are much more powerful and relevant to a kid than pregnancy horror stories. That stuff you pretty much have to learn on the fly. (unless you were like my friend Hawk, who lived with his swinging dad, and saw a parade of secretaries, and shop clerks come through the door. Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas, indeed.) Kids pretty much have to learn through hard experience that sex can create unexpectedly strong emotional bonds that are not easily broken. And, no one learns or even understands, really, how much of sex is based on instinct and procreation, rather than a cool appraisal of your options. I know we are all hip and rational and autonomous, but the sex instinct is just that: an instinct, and a surpassingly strong one at that. You really can abandon yourself to it, and abandonment can lead to real trouble later on. Let's see the schools try to teach that.

It should go without saying that real sex education should be happening at home, not at school. That doesn't mean parents have to stammer through an uncomfortable dialogue. In sexual matters, as in other social matters, parents lead by example, rather than by diktat. A lot of teen sex arises more out of boredom than anything else. If the kids are engaged with school, family stuff, etc., they are less likely to seek out a sexual relationship. (NB: I said "less likely" not "never"). My wife tells me that her plan for protecting our daughter's chastity involves international travel, trips to museums, and the like; which I guess means she hasn't seen Dressed To Kill. The point is: keeping your kids mentally engaged and active will do a lot more good than "abstinence education."

Look, abstinence education is fine, so far as it goes. Unlike most people, I think the schools can impart some basic moral values, and telling teenagers they shouldn't have sex seems appropriate to me. Frankly, it's absolutely harmless, which makes me wonder about the libertine leftists who are so quick to denounce it. But,anything they do at school is a sideshow.