Michael Ames is a free-lance writer and former publisher of The Street.
The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a federally funded, seven-year survey tracking teen sex practices released its findings last week, and the results are surprising. Or, they are not really surprising at all, depending on your perspective.
As outlined by the Washington Post, the study found that although teens who take "virginity pledges" are likely to delay sex, once active they are less likely to use condoms, far more inclined to experiment with oral and anal sex, and suffer from similar rates of sexually transmitted disease infection as teens who did not take the pledge.
These are not slight statistical differences. Of teenage virgins, 13 percent of those who took an abstinence pledge said they had engaged in either oral or anal sex. With plain old, "non-pledging" virgins, however, the rate plunges to 2 percent.
Considered alongside the Christian Right's clamoring for "abstinence-only" programs, this study highlights the dangers of faith-based, as opposed to fact-based education.
Abstinence-only programs, to reiterate, intentionally omit any mention of birth control, save chastity, from their curriculum. No condoms, no pill? No problem! Safe sex is no longer the smart choice; the options for curious teens are "no sex," or the equally enticing "no sex."
Still not convinced that these programs are bunk?
A congressional report released in December found that the vast majority of federally funded abstinence programs—11 of 13 investigated—provide "false, misleading or distorted information" about vital aspects of sex education.
According to the New York Times, the report cited programs that taught that condoms fail to prevent HIV 31 percent of the time and that touching another's genitals could cause pregnancy.
So just who are these folks shoving students' heads into the sands of ignorance?
The leader of the free world, President Bush, requested $206 million in federal funding for abstinence-only programs this year as part of his faith-based initiatives.
Odd. One might surmise that a president who fundamentally opposes gay coupling—see constitutional amendment banning gay marriage—would be unlikely to support education programs that increase rates of teen sodomy.
The irony is immaculate.
With contraceptive knowledge being withheld from youths, does it come as any surprise that wanna-be virgins aren't using condoms when they eventually concede to temptations of the flesh? Or that, as a side effect of their state-sponsored ignorance, they think that oral and anal sex experiments don't count as "real sex"?
It would be great if, by simply taking an oath or signing a card or wearing a ring, teens could find the self-control of monks and nuns. To expect this from every kid, though, is a foolish fantasy. Instead, more now take a pledge of purity and then fight church-sponsored repression by finding loopholes of a less pure sort.
Abstinence should be taught for what it is: the one truly safe form of birth control. But it should not be taught at the expense of deleting other, more pragmatic and proven approaches to sexual education.
