More evidence to suggest that abstinence-only education is risky
by Karina
Web Editor
Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Action Fund
The study suggests that despite the fact that learning about abstinence may have played a positive roll in teens’ attitudes toward abstinence, ultimately “sex intention” proved to be more influential than “abstinence intention”.
In a range from 1 to 3, with 3 being the highest intention to abstain or to have sex, teens who scored very low on their sex intentions (1s) were not likely to have sex regardless of their abstinence intentions. But among teens with high scores (3s) on their sex intentions, those who also held the highest abstinence intentions were actually most likely to have sex.
"Increasing a kids' abstinence intentions has little impact on the bottom line," Masters said. But if a teen with a high sex intention obtains higher abstinence intentions, "he may become, we think, confused or conflicted and those heightened abstinence intentions may make him more likely to have sex in a kind of boomerang effect."
Not surprisingly, the research suggests that teens have conflicted views about sex and abstinence.
It’s interesting to note that opponents of comprehensive sex education like to say that comp sex ed is risky because it gives kids “mixed-messages” because it first emphasizes abstinence, but then goes on to provide information on how to protect and take care of oneself in the event that one chooses to be sexually active. The fact of the matter is that “mixed messages” and feeling conflicted is just a part of life. Many teens are going to feel conflicted about sex regardless of whether or not they have been taught abstinence-only education or comprehensive sex education. The difference is that comp sex ed gives kids the info they need to keep themselves healthy if they choose to be sexually active. Abstinence-only education leaves them uniformed.
Which seems riskier to you?
Trackback: http://ppsd.bluestatedigital.com/trackback/453/98cE1HL5/
