Skwim
Veteran Member
.
"Five studies that measure abstinence-only programs' effects found no significant evidence that these programs help delay onset of intercourse. Evaluations of 30 abstinence-plus programs for sexuality and HIV education show these programs do not increase adolescent sexual intercourse."
source
Half of all new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in the United States and two thirds of all sexually transmitted diseases (STD) occur among young people under the age of 25. It is estimated that by the end of high school, nearly two thirds of American youth are sexually active, and one in five has had four or more sexual partners. Despite these alarming statistics, less than half of all public schools in the United States offer information on how to obtain contraceptives and most schools increasingly teach abstinence-only-until-marriage (or "abstinence-only") education. There is little evidence that abstinence-only programs are successful in encouraging teenagers from delaying sexuality activity until marriage, and consequently, avoiding pregnancy, or STD or HIV infection. Comprehensive sex education, which emphasizes the benefits of abstinence while also teaching about contraception and disease-prevention methods, has been proven to reduce rates of teen pregnancy and STD infection.
source
Over the past decade, the US federal government has heavily promoted programs that advocate sexual abstinence as the key strategy for dealing with adolescent sexuality, but studies are demonstrating that [abstinence only] has little impact on teen sexual behavior or in preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). As a result, health professionals and government officials are working to end the programs and to expand funding for other types of sexual education initiatives, and many states have refused federal funding for abstinence-only programs.
source
Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancy (ORadj = .4, 95% CI = .22– .69, p = .001) than those who received no formal sex education, whereas there was no significant effect of abstinence-only education (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .38–1.45, p = .38). Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .8, 95% CI = .51–1.31, p = .40), but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .49–1.02, p = .06). Neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex education significantly reduced the likelihood of reported STD diagnoses (ORadj = 1.7, 95% CI = .57–34.76, p = .36 and ORadj = 1.8, 95% CI = .67–5.00, p = .24 respectively).
source
Not a single abstinence-only program has been proven to help youth delay sex for a significant period of time, help youth decrease their number of sex partners, or reduce sexually transmitted infection or pregnancy rates among teens.
source
A new review of U.S. sexuality education policies and programs reaffirms the harms of abstinence-only-until-marriage (AOUM) programs and the importance of investing in comprehensive sexuality education.
“While sexual abstinence can be a healthy choice for some adolescents, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are highly problematic,” says Laura Lindberg, review coauthor and Guttmacher principal research scientist. “These programs withhold important sexual health knowledge and provide medically inaccurate information that compromises young people’s healthy sexual development.”
In theory, abstinence is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy and STIs. However, many adolescents who intend to practice abstinence fail to actually do so, and they often fail to use condoms or other forms of contraception when they do have intercourse. Considerable scientific evidence accumulated over the past 20 years has found that AOUM programs are not effective at preventing pregnancy or STIs, nor do they have a positive impact on age at first sexual intercourse, number of sexual partners or other behaviors.
source
.
"Five studies that measure abstinence-only programs' effects found no significant evidence that these programs help delay onset of intercourse. Evaluations of 30 abstinence-plus programs for sexuality and HIV education show these programs do not increase adolescent sexual intercourse."
source
Half of all new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in the United States and two thirds of all sexually transmitted diseases (STD) occur among young people under the age of 25. It is estimated that by the end of high school, nearly two thirds of American youth are sexually active, and one in five has had four or more sexual partners. Despite these alarming statistics, less than half of all public schools in the United States offer information on how to obtain contraceptives and most schools increasingly teach abstinence-only-until-marriage (or "abstinence-only") education. There is little evidence that abstinence-only programs are successful in encouraging teenagers from delaying sexuality activity until marriage, and consequently, avoiding pregnancy, or STD or HIV infection. Comprehensive sex education, which emphasizes the benefits of abstinence while also teaching about contraception and disease-prevention methods, has been proven to reduce rates of teen pregnancy and STD infection.
source
Over the past decade, the US federal government has heavily promoted programs that advocate sexual abstinence as the key strategy for dealing with adolescent sexuality, but studies are demonstrating that [abstinence only] has little impact on teen sexual behavior or in preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). As a result, health professionals and government officials are working to end the programs and to expand funding for other types of sexual education initiatives, and many states have refused federal funding for abstinence-only programs.
source
Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancy (ORadj = .4, 95% CI = .22– .69, p = .001) than those who received no formal sex education, whereas there was no significant effect of abstinence-only education (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .38–1.45, p = .38). Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .8, 95% CI = .51–1.31, p = .40), but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .49–1.02, p = .06). Neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex education significantly reduced the likelihood of reported STD diagnoses (ORadj = 1.7, 95% CI = .57–34.76, p = .36 and ORadj = 1.8, 95% CI = .67–5.00, p = .24 respectively).
source
Not a single abstinence-only program has been proven to help youth delay sex for a significant period of time, help youth decrease their number of sex partners, or reduce sexually transmitted infection or pregnancy rates among teens.
source
A new review of U.S. sexuality education policies and programs reaffirms the harms of abstinence-only-until-marriage (AOUM) programs and the importance of investing in comprehensive sexuality education.
“While sexual abstinence can be a healthy choice for some adolescents, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are highly problematic,” says Laura Lindberg, review coauthor and Guttmacher principal research scientist. “These programs withhold important sexual health knowledge and provide medically inaccurate information that compromises young people’s healthy sexual development.”
In theory, abstinence is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy and STIs. However, many adolescents who intend to practice abstinence fail to actually do so, and they often fail to use condoms or other forms of contraception when they do have intercourse. Considerable scientific evidence accumulated over the past 20 years has found that AOUM programs are not effective at preventing pregnancy or STIs, nor do they have a positive impact on age at first sexual intercourse, number of sexual partners or other behaviors.
source
.