12,000 abortions, half by married women : that’s why abstinence-only cannot work
12,000 women — meaning out of every 3 pregnancies, 2 are born and 1 is aborted.
Many are unnecessary. As Dr Beh points out in the article, half are done by married women, and because they are misinformed.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/441781/1/.html
“Many husbands do not use condom right from the start of the sexual activity, (they) wait till they are near ejaculation before they put it on, and that defeats the purpose.”
“some inaccurately think that birth control pills may be linked to cancer or weight gain, and others have the misconception that the intrauterine system makes sexual intercourse uncomfortable and carries an infection risk. While this may have had some truth to it with the older copper intrauterine device, the newer hormone-releasing intrauterine system carries less risk.”
Which is why it’s so important to educate women, so that they never have to be in this position where they have to make this difficult decision and choice.
The best opportunity, is while girls are still in school — that’s what school education is for. That’s why a program that equips girls with knowledge for their whole life, rather than just their teenage years, is so important.
Abstinence-only programs teach girls how to protect themselves while they are still teens in school. It leaves them with a knowledge-gap when they get married. Comprehensive Sexuality Education equips them with the knowlege they need TODAY, and FOR LIFE.
34 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
Mathia,
You have left a comment in my blog, but I think I’ll answer it here.
Nobody is against Comprehensive Sexual Education (CSE) in schools. It is what and how it was taught that parents are concerned. Do you really think it is right to teach 12/13 year old girls that anal sex and/or homo sex is “neutral” and OK?
Just as how it is only fair to lay out the consequences of engaging in vaginal and oral sex in either a protected or unprotected manner, in the same way, it is only fair to lay out the consequences of anal and homo sex in either a protected and unprotected manner.
Documented history has shown that when morality is imposed on health care / advise, the behavior you drive is not prevention but concealment. Concealment both harms the patient and the public.
Punishments are effective only when it can be effectively enforced — meaning you need to be able to detected the offense almost all the time.
When you can’t detect an offense efficiently , then people just try to beat the system. That’s not what we want for our children, is it?
Some Facebook comments:
at 7:53pm.
(I am) pro-life (on moral basis) but pro-choice (on legal basis).
at 10:58pm July 12
There was some MSM survey that found some poly and JC students still under the impression that douching and jumping up and down after sex or drinking pineapple juice works as contraception.
If this isn’t a clear indication of how deluded it is, to assume that abstinence only sex education is a failure, I don’t know what it.
at 1:15pm July 13
Alarming figure. I shudder to think what would’ve happened had abortion been criminialized. 12,000 under-cared or uncared for babies?
Mathia Lee at 1:53pm July 13
@ at 1:15pm July 13
More scary.
It is very well documented that in countries where abortion is criminalized, there is a significant number of back-lane illegal abortion-related deaths. Where abortion is illegal for a certain age group and below, you get your abortion-related deaths amongst these young girls.
In Singapore, sex with girls below 16yrs old is illegal. One NUH study documents that teenage girls tend to get an abortion in the 2nd trimester where chances of complications are significantly higher, whereas adult women tend to do abortions early, in the 1st trimester. …
There’s also a very interesting (but unproven cos not well studied) hypothesis put out in the book Freakanomics, where the authors show a correlation between increased crime rates among youths born in the decades where abortion was criminal in the USA.
Mathia,
Again, the issue is NOT sexual education programme per se. Note that AWARE was not the only third party that conducted CSEs in schools. However, parents specifically singled out Aware’s CSE and not other parties.
The issue is Aware’s covert programme, teaching girls as young as 12/13 that homo and anal sex are natural.
Solo Bear,
You are right to say that AWARE is not the only third party CSE, and I am not specifically defending AWARE’s CSE. I am defending the full disclosure of complete information to girls, using AWARE’s CSE as an EXAMPLE, because it is unfair for me to use something I am not familiar with as an example.
It is only in yours, and certain groups’, opinion that AWARE has a covert programme.
We have no covert programme. We are saying upfront that full health information ought to be given, so that the girls can make the healthiest behavioral choice.
As we are not a moral/religious organisation, it is not our place to educate anyone on morality. We take a health perspective. When we say homosexual sex, and anal sex is natural, this “natural” is from a health perspective, not religious/moral one. We recognise that “natural” means different things to different religions — to say that eating pork is “natural” is acceptable to Christians , but not Muslims , for example. Because of this religious diversity, it is not fair for a secular organisation to advocate for one particular view.
From a health perspective, vaginal, oral, anal sex, heterosexual, and homosexual sex are all natural. Each comes with its own risk — none are risk free. In all cases, risk can be reduced (not eliminated) by using a condom correctly and consistantly. Although medically speaking, some sexual practices carry more risks, our message is that ALL sexual practices are NOT worth the risk to their health to practice in an unsafe manner.
That’s our OVERT message with regards to homosexual and anal sex.
More FB comments:
at 5:10pm July 13
The problem is that sex-ed is done ad-hoc and is all over the place. The parents don’t feel comfortable, and pushes it to the teachers. The teachers have no specialisation in teaching sex-ed, so they push MOE. MOE hires several NGOs, across the board, to teach sex-ed, and the result is that while one sch gets AWARE sex-ed, the other gets the teachings of a more conservative NGO. As a result, parents get unhappy.
W/o a firm guideline from MOE in regards to this, and without a strong, firm commitment from parents to work with the MOE to enforce what is taught in what should be the standardised sex-education across the board and spanning many age levels for sch-going kids, sex education will remain sporadic, inconsistent and as a result, younger generations will remain ignorant about such issues. Its better to teach ‘em now- rather than they make a fatal mistake(like getting STDs or HIV) & rgretting it forever.
Mathia Lee at 5:24pm July 13
There are pros-and-cons for the current model of having a standardised very basic, minimal program run in every school by MOE, and then getting “extra-info” from NGOs.
The cons are like you say, everyone might end up with a different piece of advice, and many may fall through the gap and get nothing at all.
The sad thing is, schools tend to send their “high-risk” girls to our classes. As a result, these “high-risk” girls grow up to be women who know how to protect themselves. On the other hand, the “conservative, good” girls grow up to be faithful wives who don’t know how to use contraceptives properly, find themselves accidentally pregnant when they are financially unprepared, and have to decide whether or not to abort.
The advantages, on the other hand is this. Because there is so much public pressure and expectation on public organisations like MOE, they need to keep it down to the lowest common denominator to keep all the voters happy. By allowing NGOs in, they allow information to enter, while reducing the risk of public backlash because they can easily suspend NGOs, and reduce their own responsibility. Thus NGOs can take more risks in bringing in seemingly controversial but necessary info.
Also, if there is a change is population behavior that requires a change in educational strategy, NGOs can change much more quickly. MOE needs years of consultations and planning to make any changes.
Personally, I support the current model MOE is taking. I just wished that more NGOs and funding agents will take on this role, and move in the right direction.
Mathia,
>>
I am defending the full disclosure of complete information to girls, using AWARE’s CSE as an EXAMPLE, because it is unfair for me to use something I am not familiar with as an example.
>>
But there was NO full disclosure. Here are the facts.
1. MOE did an about turn AFTER it was proven that parents had a valid complaint – the homo content in Aware’s CSE, which initially MOE was not aware of.
2. Aware old guard went on the defensive at the EGM, claiming that the homo portion was mentioned only for a minute and a half.
3. Old guard accused Josie’s group of disclosing the Trainers Manual, which they said was confidential and not meant for public eyes.
If there was full disclosure, surely the above wouldn’t have happened.
>>
It is only in yours, and certain groups’, opinion that AWARE has a covert programme.
>>
Please stop denying as the old guard have already have been caught with their pants (or skirts) down.
>>
We have no covert programme. We are saying upfront that full health information ought to be given, so that the girls can make the healthiest behavioral choice.
>>
But what you are giving is not truth. Anal and homo sex “natural”? Really?
>>
As we are not a moral/religious organisation, it is not our place to educate anyone on morality.
>>
Like it or not, giving young girls the idea that homo and anal sex are natural and OK is in itself a moral judgment. Who are you to judge that as OK?
Hasn’t a moral judgement been just passed?
>>
We take a health perspective. When we say homosexual sex, and anal sex is natural, this “natural” is from a health perspective, not religious/moral one.
>>
Really? Then why hide the fact that anal sex has the highest risk? The vagina is designed for penetration The rectum is not. Blood vessels tear easily in the rectum compared to vagina.
Why is that not revealed? Why are not stats given to the girls that homos, on per head basis, have the highest figures as far as HIV is concerned?
>>
We recognise that “natural” means different things to different religions — to say that eating pork is “natural” is acceptable to Christians , but not Muslims , for example. Because of this religious diversity, it is not fair for a secular organisation to advocate for one particular view.
>>
I am NOT talking about religion. It seems AWARE, has already bought the gay argument that anal and homo sex is a religious argument. However, natural sex means the order of nature from a non-religious perspective. It is NOT natural for humans to have anal sex or homo sex.
>>
From a health perspective, vaginal, oral, anal sex, heterosexual, and homosexual sex are all natural. Each comes with its own risk — none are risk free. In all cases, risk can be reduced (not eliminated) by using a condom correctly and consistantly. Although medically speaking, some sexual practices carry more risks, our message is that ALL sexual practices are NOT worth the risk to their health to practice in an unsafe manner.
>>
That is trying to be deceitful. If Aware truly was objective, it would state that homo and anal sex carries the highest risk . It did not. It tried to portray that homo and anal sex is as safe as vaginal sex – a highly erroneous idea.
>>
That’s our OVERT message with regards to homosexual and anal sex.
>>
Aware’s CSE has been trying to put anal and homo on par with vaginal sex. That is the deceit. Anal sex is very, very, (x100) more risky than vaginal sex – with or without condoms.
The overt message is nothing more than OVERT DECEIT Aware has been trying to sell to young girls.
[...] link: 12000 abortions, half by married women : that's why abstinence … Tags: education-doesn, Girls, Girls need, hour-ago, married — Posted by: admin2 | [...]
Hi Solo Bear,
I see that a lot of your replies are statements of your personal opinion. I respect that our opinions differ. My objective was never to alter your personal opinion, but provide a reasoning behind mine to the wider readership. I think my objective has been met. I want to thank you for raising these questions, because you’re certainly not alone, and I’m glad for the chance to explain. As in all issues, especially that of morality, differences will remain, and I respect that.
However, I do want to clarify a couple of factual errors in your reply.
“full disclosure of complete information to girls” =
I was referring to complete information about sexuality.
“Then why hide the fact that anal sex has the highest risk? The vagina is designed for penetration The rectum is not. Blood vessels tear easily in the rectum compared to vagina. Why is that not revealed? Why are not stats given to the girls that homos, on per head basis, have the highest figures as far as HIV is concerned?”=
As a matter of fact, we do reveal all this information, with a lot of emphasis. Additionally, we also tell them that, should they choose to engage in sex, including anal sex, condoms should be used, for the very reason you’ve brought up. However, one danger of over-emphasising the risk of anal sex is that some teens would think “I’m engaging in oral sex, not anal sex, my risk is much lower, so I don’t need to use a condom”. In many countries the prevalence of STIs transmitted via oral sex has increased substantially over the years, because teens are protecting themselves only during vaginal/anal sex, but not oral sex. It’s a difficult balance.
“Anal sex is very, very, (x100) more risky than vaginal sex – with or without condoms.”
This is not true, and is a very dangerous message. Homosexual teenagers would then think “if using condoms or not is equally dangerous, what’s the point of using condoms since it will not protect me?” Anal sex is indeed more risky, but not x100! And with condoms, used correctly and consistently, the risk of STI transmission is no different from vaginal sex. Of course, the risk of skin tears remains. We do not deny that, we tell them that, because that is a consequence people have to deal with should they choose to practise anal sex.
One last thing I wish to clarify.
While I may have made criticisms about some aspects/policies of our educational/health system, I do respect the people who work in the organisations alot. No system/organisation is perfect, including AWARE/NGOs/the Church etc. It is in the spirit of improving the lives of the people we serve, that we make criticisms. I try to be constructive, and hope my criticisms can be useful.
I hope my readers do not get the impression that MOE, MOH, the govt, parents, children, teachers, AWARE, COOS etc belong to distinct irreconcilable camps, like differing football teams. We may have different views and values, but I believe we are all just trying to earn a living, and trying to do some good wherever we can. I believe Josie Lau had that aim, and I respect and admire her for that, even though I disagree with some of her views and methods. I believe we need dialogue, not mud-slingging.
Moving forward, and learning from the whole AWARE saga, I am hoping to get involved in Inter-Faith groups. Long before the AWARE saga, it has been on of my goals to bring people with different views and values together to dialogue. I’m hoping to have respectful enlightening exchanges of the concerns each group has, and understand where each other is coming from. We might actually find a lot of common ground and venues for cooperation. Where we have irreconcilable differences, I hope we can respectfully negotiate boundaries and terms of engagement.
Moving forward, I’m joining a few such Inter-Faith groups, to look for a platform where I can contribute to this movement. If you do not mind me, I would be very very happy to have you join this movement too. You (and any reader reading this), can express your interest and get more info by emailing me at mathialee@yahoo.com . I’m actually hoping very much that you, Solo Bear, would take up my invitation. I think it would be very interesting and exciting to dialogue with you.
This is an account and analysis of the recent Inter-Faith conference I attended, organised by the Southeast CDC:
http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/religious-harmony-in-singapore-the-issue-suggestions/
Dear Mathia,
“I hope my readers do not get the impression that MOE, MOH, the govt, parents, children, teachers, AWARE, COOS etc belong to distinct irreconcilable camps, like differing football teams. We may have different views and values, but I believe we are all just trying to earn a living, and trying to do some good wherever we can. I believe Josie Lau had that aim, and I respect and admire her for that, even though I disagree with some of her views and methods. I believe we need dialogue, not mud-slingging.”
Right now if i were to decide to have any kids, and i want my kid to be sex ed the right way (the AWARE CSE way i.e.), i WOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to do so.
And since i do not want any other religious groups to give the wrong conservative “moral” sex ed, i would have to send my kid to only public schools. That is so sad for the other kids who would like to be sex educated the right way!!!
Mathia,
>>
I see that a lot of your replies are statements of your personal opinion.
>>
I gave you these facts.
- MOE made U-turn after it discovered homo content.
- Old guard became defensive about content in CSE when game was up.
- Old guard claimed trainer’s manual was not meant for public eyes.
Are those my opinion?
>>
“full disclosure of complete information to girls” =
I was referring to complete information about sexuality.
>>
But what you gave in CSE (homo is natural) is opinion! If you want FULL AND COMPLETE info, then you must give alternate view that homo is considered promiscuous as well. That is FULL disclosure to the girls. Telling them only one side is not.
>>
“Anal sex is very, very, (x100) more risky than vaginal sex – with or without condoms.”
This is not true, and is a very dangerous message. Homosexual teenagers would then think “if using condoms or not is equally dangerous, what’s the point of using condoms since it will not protect me?”
>>
Now you are being judgmental. If truly you are only interested in facts, you should stick to the fact that of all sexual practices, anal sex is the most dangerous – with or without condoms.
>>
I hope my readers do not get the impression that MOE, MOH, the govt, parents, children, teachers, AWARE, COOS etc belong to distinct irreconcilable camps, like differing football teams.
>>
Mathia, please do not bring in COOS. It is a non-issue. COOS is only relevant to the old guard. Parents are NOT least bit interested in the Aware takeover. Parents are interested in the covert (yes, it is COVERT, no matter how you deny) CSE conducted by Aware.
>>
Moving forward, and learning from the whole AWARE saga, I am hoping to get involved in Inter-Faith groups.
>>
Leave the religious groups out. The issue is between MOE, Aware and parents. All other parties are non-issues here. Don’t get parents and MOE involved in your friction with religious groups.
Hi Solo Bear,
Thanks for your time and contribution. I rest my case. The jury is out there, and in the statistics.
Hi Trev,
I believe your kids would have the “right” education, because i believe you’ll be a responsible enough parent to educate them = D
But yes, I agree that issues are still unresolved for the wider society. Now that we’ve identified the issues, the next step would be to explore and implement the solution.
In the society, the “converted” and the “hardcore moralists” make up a small proportion each. Most people are ambivalent and ignorant, who would go with the conservative vote just to be kiasu/kiasi. It’s a Catch-22 we need to break out of. Education is needed to gain acceptance and change in legislation. But acceptance and a change is legislation is needed so that we have the right to educate.
It’s tough, but I believe we’ll get there. In the meanwhile, we just take care of ourselves and our kids.
Here are more facts for you:
Sex Education Course Fails to Cut Teen Pregnancies
Doctors who developed a sex education programme for schools throughout Britain have concluded it is no better at preventing unwanted pregnancies than traditional approaches.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/nov/21/health.sexeducation
And the latest corrupting salvo coming in from the debauched West:
The National Health Services of the United Kingdom has produced a pamphlet for school students titled “Pleasure.” In it, it promotes:
“Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes’ physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article6689953.ece
Oh yes, we are ignorant indeed, Mathia. I’ll bet my house (not flat or condo, by the way) that I possess higher academic qualifications than you.
Mrs Tan,
Congratulations on having higher academic qualifications, and having a house. I feel happy for you, and I feel happy that this brings you happiness. Happiness, houses, and academic qualifications are hard to come by in these hard times.
Additionally, the effectiveness of any program does not just depend on the values and principles underlying, but also depends on the effectiveness of the educators and adminstrators, the teaching environment and resources etc.
Also, the accuracy of surveys and studies depend on the survey methodology, including sampling method, evaluation criteria etc.
There are both proponents and critics of the UK NHS, because no system is perfect, and all has to be improved. That’s why it’s important for us to comment and criticize.
For practicality, I think there should also be an education program for couples at the point when they indicate the intend to register for marriage.
From personal experience, at the point of marriage, I retained close to zero knowledge on the sex education being taught in my secondary school days.
In light of the abortion figures, it would be most appropriate to survey couples at the point they register for marriage and determine how much they really know.
A probable solution is to provide sex education during the teenage years AND just prior to marriage.
Dear Mrs Tan,
A word of advice to the presumably highly educated you, beware of what you speak. Someone might hold you to your words.
Read this piece of news:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-cheney-mason-lawsuit-062409,0,4224437.story
Next I would like to comment on the news article you posted. I would like to highlight how you had failed to properly appreciate the report.
[Quote]
Doctors who developed a sex education program for schools throughout Britain have concluded it is no better at preventing unwanted pregnancies than traditional approaches.
[unQuote]
Fact 1: The control cases were conventional sex education.
Question: So what are these conventional sex education?
Answer: Do you know why Catholic schools were intentionally not included for the study? Do you know that 2 of the control schools do routinely demonstrate the use of condoms. These “traditional” sex education are NOT abstinence only programs. But admittedly majority also did not actively teaches contraceptives, only present and discuss.
[Quote]
Known as Share, for “sexual health and relationships: safe, happy and responsible”, the programme was designed by the Medical Research Council and NHS Health Scotland to improve sex education by using interactive videos, group work and role play to develop the skills needed for sexual relationships.
[unQuote]
Fact 2: The main differences between Share and conventional sex education are using interactive videos, group works, and role-playing to develop skills needed for sexual relationships, instead of just presentation and discussion of information.
Question: So what is the study trying to find out?
Answer: To find out if sex behavior intervention through enhanced interactive learning improves sexual health of teens.
[Quote]
The researchers noted that it was difficult for the Share programme to reduce conceptions or abortions as these were so strongly influenced by socio-economic factors. Low socio-economic status is linked to a young woman’s likelihood of becoming pregnant, although when more well-off women became pregnant, they were more likely to have terminations.
[unQuote]
Fact 3: Behavior intervention through interactive learning is not better than conventional approaches. (Does not mean it don’t work. Share is shown to work, just not any better than conventional approaches. Note that the research intentionally selected schools with sex education that ARE already shown to be EFFECTIVE as the control group)
Fact 4: Socio-economic factors play a very significant role.
Take home point 1: If the socio-economical issues are not resolved, any improvement to the sex education program are not likely to have any significant impact.
Take home point 2: Behavior intervention are not ineffective. They are just shown to be unable to negate the adverse influences of existing socio-economical problems, just like conventional approaches.
Full Research Article:
Impact of a theoretically based sex education programme (SHARE) delivered by teachers on NHS registered conceptions and terminations: final results of cluster randomised trial.
Full Text: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7585/133
And I would like to highlight the stand taken by numerous medical association on abstinence-only SE and CSE.
American Academy of Pediatrics:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/108/2/498
“Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices… Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control.”
American Psychological Association
http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html
American Medical Association
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/15/ph_sexual_health_ed.pdf
National Association of School Psychologists
http://nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx
Society for Adolescent Medicine
American College Health Association
http://www.adolescenthealth.org/PositionPaper_Abstinence_only_edu_policies_and_programs.pdf
American Public Health Association
http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1334
All in favor of CSE and against abstinence only SE. So where are the facts?
Kristen Underhill, Paul Montgomery, and Don Operario. “Sexual abstinence only programmes to prevent HIV infection in high income countries: systematic review.” BMJ 2007 335: 248.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7613/248
Emerging Answers 2007. National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/
Leslie M. Kantor, John S. Santelli, Julien Teitler, and Randall Balmer. “Abstinence-Only Policies and Programs: An Overview.” Sexuality Research & Social Policy, Vol. 5, No. 3, Pages 6–17, September 2008.
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/srsp.2008.5.3.6?journalCode=srsp
Douglas B. Kirby. “The Impact of Abstinence and Comprehensive Sex and STD/HIV Education Programs on Adolescent Sexual Behavior.” Sexuality Research & Social Policy, Vol. 5, No. 3, Pages 18–27, September 2008.
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/srsp.2008.5.3.18?cookieSet=1&journalCode=srsp
John Santelli, Maureen Lyon, Jennifer Rogers, Daniel Summers, Rebecca Schleifer, J.D. “Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs.” Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 72-81 (January 2006).
http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(05)00467-2/abstract
Hannah Brückner, Peter Bearman. “After the promise: The STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges” Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages 271-278 (April 2005).
And btw Mathia, I think you should just ignore solar bear. He is a known troll who argue for the sake of arguing. He doesn’t care about logic or truth.
Dear Mrs Tan,
A word of advice to the presumably highly educated you, beware of what you speak. Someone might hold you to your words.
Read this piece of news:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-cheney-mason-lawsuit-062409,0,4224437.story
Next I would like to comment on the news article you posted. I would like to highlight how you had failed to properly appreciate the report.
[Quote]
Doctors who developed a sex education programme for schools throughout Britain have concluded it is no better at preventing unwanted pregnancies than traditional approaches.
[unQuote]
Fact 1: The control cases were conventional sex education.
Question: So what are these conventional sex education?
Answer: Do you know why Catholic schools were intentionally not included for the study? Do you know that 2 of the control schools do routinely demonstrate the use of condoms. These “traditional” sex education are NOT abstinence only programs. But admittedly majority also did not actively teaches contraceptives, only present and discuss.
[Quote]
Known as Share, for “sexual health and relationships: safe, happy and responsible”, the programme was designed by the Medical Research Council and NHS Health Scotland to improve sex education by using interactive videos, group work and role play to develop the skills needed for sexual relationships.
[unQuote]
Fact 2: The main differences between Share and conventional sex education are using interactive videos, group works, and role-playing to develop skills needed for sexual relationships, instead of just presentation and discussion of information.
Question: So what is the study trying to find out?
Answer: To find out if sex behavior intervention through enhanced interactive learning improves sexual health of teens.
[Quote]
The researchers noted that it was difficult for the Share programme to reduce conceptions or abortions as these were so strongly influenced by socio-economic factors. Low socio-economic status is linked to a young woman’s likelihood of becoming pregnant, although when more well-off women became pregnant, they were more likely to have terminations.
[unQuote]
Fact 3: Behavior intervention through interactive learning is not better than conventional approaches. (Does not mean it don’t work. Share is shown to work, just not any better than conventional approaches. Note that the research intentionally selected schools with sex education that ARE already shown to be EFFECTIVE as the control group)
Fact 4: Socio-economic factors play a very significant role.
Take home point 1: If the socio-economical issues are not resolved, any improvement to the sex education program are not likely to have any significant impact.
Take home point 2: Behavior intervention are not ineffective. They are just shown to be unable to negate the adverse influences of existing socio-economical problems, just like conventional approaches.
Full Research Article:
Impact of a theoretically based sex education programme (SHARE) delivered by teachers on NHS registered conceptions and terminations: final results of cluster randomised trial.
Full Text: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7585/133
And I would like to highlight the stand taken by numerous medical association on abstinence-only SE and CSE.
American Academy of Pediatrics:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/108/2/498
“Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices… Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control.”
American Psychological Association
http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html
American Medical Association
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/15/ph_sexual_health_ed.pdf
National Association of School Psychologists
http://nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx
Society for Adolescent Medicine
American College Health Association
http://www.adolescenthealth.org/PositionPaper_Abstinence_only_edu_policies_and_programs.pdf
American Public Health Association
http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1334
And I would like to highlight the stand taken by numerous medical association on abstinence-only SE and CSE.
American Academy of Pediatrics:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/108/2/498
“Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices… Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control.”
American Psychological Association
http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html
American Medical Association
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/15/ph_sexual_health_ed.pdf
National Association of School Psychologists
http://nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx
Society for Adolescent Medicine
American College Health Association
http://www.adolescenthealth.org/PositionPaper_Abstinence_only_edu_policies_and_programs.pdf
American Public Health Association
http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1334
American Psychological Association
http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html
American Medical Association
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/15/ph_sexual_health_ed.pdf
National Association of School Psychologists
http://nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx
Society for Adolescent Medicine
American College Health Association
http://www.adolescenthealth.org/PositionPaper_Abstinence_only_edu_policies_and_programs.pdf
American Public Health Association
http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1334
All in favor of CSE and against abstinence only SE.
So now where are the facts?
Kristen Underhill, Paul Montgomery, and Don Operario. “Sexual abstinence only programmes to prevent HIV infection in high income countries: systematic review.” BMJ 2007 335: 248.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7613/248
Emerging Answers 2007. National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/
Leslie M. Kantor, John S. Santelli, Julien Teitler, and Randall Balmer. “Abstinence-Only Policies and Programs: An Overview.” Sexuality Research & Social Policy, Vol. 5, No. 3, Pages 6–17, September 2008.
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/srsp.2008.5.3.6?journalCode=srsp
Douglas B. Kirby?. “The Impact of Abstinence and Comprehensive Sex and STD/HIV Education Programs on Adolescent Sexual Behavior.” Sexuality Research & Social Policy, Vol. 5, No. 3, Pages 18–27, September 2008.
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/srsp.2008.5.3.18?cookieSet=1&journalCode=srsp
John Santelli, Maureen Lyon, Jennifer Rogers, Daniel Summers, Rebecca Schleifer, J.D. “Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs.” Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 72-81 (January 2006).
http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(05)00467-2/abstract
Hannah Brückner, Peter Bearman. “After the promise: The STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges” Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages 271-278 (April 2005).
All in favor of CSE and against abstinence only SE.
So now where are the facts?
Kristen Underhill, Paul Montgomery, and Don Operario. “Sexual abstinence only programmes to prevent HIV infection in high income countries: systematic review.” BMJ 2007 335: 248.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7613/248
Emerging Answers 2007. National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/
Leslie M. Kantor, John S. Santelli, Julien Teitler, and Randall Balmer. “Abstinence-Only Policies and Programs: An Overview.” Sexuality Research & Social Policy, Vol. 5, No. 3, Pages 6–17, September 2008.
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/srsp.2008.5.3.6?journalCode=srsp
Douglas B. Kirby?. “The Impact of Abstinence and Comprehensive Sex and STD/HIV Education Programs on Adolescent Sexual Behavior.” Sexuality Research & Social Policy, Vol. 5, No. 3, Pages 18–27, September 2008.
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/srsp.2008.5.3.18?cookieSet=1&journalCode=srsp
John Santelli, Maureen Lyon, Jennifer Rogers, Daniel Summers, Rebecca Schleifer, J.D. “Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs.” Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 72-81 (January 2006).
http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(05)00467-2/abstract
Hannah Brückner, Peter Bearman. “After the promise: The STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges” Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages 271-278 (April 2005).
PS: Have to break up cuz wordpress limits the number of hyperlinks
I’m from Germany and for me it was normal that we discussed the sex things in our biology lessons. So I’m really bemazed every time I hear about “Abstinence only Education” or people which support that.
At the moment I’m completing an Internship at NCAC (National Coalition Against Censorship) so I’ve read a lot about it – certainly.
If you are interested in reading more about it just join our blog:
http://ncacblog.wordpress.com
On our blog there is shown a infographic about Abstinence-only Education. It’s very interesting!
We are glad about a lot comments as well as a lively discussion!
Greetings
Jana
CM, 100% agree. For once. hehehhe.
Hi Eterna2, WOW! your research work is really impressive!!! thanks!!!
I’m working on (as a volunteer, not a job) a couple of papers , one on gender discrimination in education (CEDAW) and the other on sexuality edu in the local cultural context (apww http://apww.isiswomen.org/). Interested to come on board?
(Any other reader keen, please let me know too mathialee@yahoo.com)
Thanks Jana, will be interesting to exchange views and info from 2 different cultures!
Mathia, keep up the good work!
At the risk of derailing, I am amazed by people who leave wholly irrelevant comments talking about their academic qualifications and ownership of property when other people are trying to have a conversation on the substance of things. Some of these appeared on Glass Castle too, and it’s really baffling to me. As far as I can tell, they must have some kind of warped hierarchical mindset where (1) everyone should be definitively sorted into castes based on educational attainment and wealth and (2) those in the ‘higher’ castes should have power, or have some kind of consequent moral right, to call the shots in the case of any disagreement. I suspect that if you scratch the surface many of the people who espouse such attitudes are racist as well, because there’s clearly a strange kind of social Darwinism thing going on there. Highly bizarre and I have to say, rather frightening.
Thanks Jolene, and for the email too! = )
i don’t know whether to feel sad or happy for people who derive happiness from having a certificate or house. On one hand I feel sorry that they have nothing more meaningful to be happy about; on the other hand, it takes that little to make them happy…….
Came over here from solo bear’s blog.
Mrs Tan may be appear snobbish, but that’s only in response to the delusions of grandeur and intellectual elitism exhibited by mathia:
mathialee said, on July 14, 2009 at 10:59 am
Most people are ambivalent and ignorant, who would go with the conservative vote just to be kiasu/kiasi
I suggest dousing your foot in satay sauce before eating it.
Regards.
Hi Henry Lui,
I concede that sounds arrogant on my part. Apologies.
What i meant to say is that many people are not aware of the details of the situation (ie. ignorant) because they don’t see the relevance of these details to their lives (ambivalant). But yes, I should hav phrased it better.
Since this was the only thing that got you pissed, then I assume you are in agreement to everything else?
Thanks for that support.