Thursday, December 13, 2007
Teaching about the birds and the bees
Editorial commentary
Recent contributions
- Can we be a two-trolley town?
- Striving for civility
- School funding no fantasy
- Pesticide board's work will continue through merger
- Commentary archive
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Charles H. Holland
Holland, who lives in Roanoke County, is a clinical psychologist specializing in human sexuality.
Certain opinions and commentaries printed in The Roanoke Times need to be responded to in an objective manner, given that they contain information that is misleading and/or patently false, as well as potentially harmful to our children. I'm not sure if the authors should be embarrassed or ashamed, or perhaps both.
In his commentary "Abstinence-only sex education works" (Nov. 28), state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli begins by making statements having to do with a correlation between the age of first sex and various undesirable life outcomes. Aside from not recognizing that correlation does not in and of itself indicate causation, he also draws conclusions that are not accompanied by any data or sources, some of which, in my professional opinion, are incorrect, if not patently absurd.
Cuccinelli, as well as Bill Goode in his letter "Kaine promotes sexual activity by teens" (Nov. 28), then goes on to tout the "successful" and "very positive" results of abstinence-only sex education. I wish it were so.
For some 30 years as a mental health professional specializing in human sexuality, and as a father and grandfather, I have sought out ways to teach both the joys and pitfalls of "having sex/making love." I wish that abstinence-only sex education was the answer. Unfortunately, the "social science data" that Cuccinelli refers to does not support that conclusion. Quite the opposite.
Congress has spent more than $1.5 billion on abstinence-only sex education over the past 25 years. Funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, an evaluation of these programs was released earlier this year. The specific programs chosen to be evaluated out of the more than 700 that have been funded by Congress were reported to have been handpicked to show positive results of abstinence-only sex education. Such was not the outcome.
In brief, the evaluations demonstrated no effect of abstinence-only sex education on:
n the rates of sexual abstinence;
n the age of first sex (14 years, 9 months);
n the use of condoms;
n the rates of sexually transmitted diseases;
n pregnancy rates;
n the numbers of sexual partners.
Recognize that this study was conducted on behalf of the current Department of Health and Human Services, which is part of the current administration, hardly a group prejudiced against abstinence-only sex education.
It is also instructive to note that research conducted by or for the states of Arizona, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Texas showed similar results. And there are probably others of which I am currently unaware. Evaluations done in these states showed abstinence-only sex education to be "at best, ineffective."
If our interests include wanting our children to be sexually responsible, to decrease the incidence of unwanted pregnancies, and to eliminate the need for abortions, then a broad-based, comprehensive sex education program is necessary. This would include information on abstinence, but it would also include, at a minimum, information on anatomy and physiology, sexually transmitted diseases, contraception and sexual alternatives to sexual intercourse.
Our children do indeed need "how-to information" -- how to take care of themselves. To suggest that adequate, well-designed, broad-based, professionally taught sex education promotes sexual activity among young people is simply not accurate.
If we use the analogy of physical medicine to look at this situation, then abstinence-only sex education might be considered to be similar to a vaccine, a preventive measure designed to protect our children. Unfortunately, however, scientific, peer-reviewed research fails to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Politics and self-interest aside, we need to find an approach that works, a new "vaccine." Abstinence-only sex education simply does not work. And to spend commonwealth funds on a program that does not work is ill-advised not only from a fiscal standpoint, but also from a public health standpoint, and perhaps even a moral one.
