Abstinence-only sex education may be more effective than safe sex education at delaying teenage sexual activity after all, according to a recent University of Pennsylvania study, but Boston University students are skeptical.
The study, conducted by professors John Jemmott, Loretta Jemmott and Geoffrey Fong from 2001 to 2004, sought to “evaluate the efficacy of an abstinence-only intervention in preventing sexual involvement in young adolescents,” according to the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, which published the study.
In the study, a group of 662 black students in the sixth and seventh grades were divided into four sex education groups including an eight-hour abstinence-only course, an eight-hour safe sex-only course, and an eight to 12-hour course combining the two methods.
The participants were then asked to report their sexual behavior over the next 24 months.
Ultimately, the study found that an estimated 33.5 percent of the abstinence-only course participants began having sex during the two-year period as opposed to 52 percent of the safe sex-only course participants. 42 percent of those in the combined course reported having sex.
Though the study favored abstinence as a more effective method in preventing teenage sex, BU students, for the most part, said they disagreed with the study’s conclusion.
To explain her disillusionment with abstinence-only education, College of Communication senior Alyson Isaac used her college experiences to argue against the theory.
“This past weekend, my roommate had a situation “down there’ and she didn’t even know what a vulva was,” Isaac said. “Abstinence just doesn’t teach you anything.”
“Bet you she went to Catholic school,” COM senior Tessa Olson said in reference to Isaac’s story, and to the common endorsement of abstinence-only sex education by Catholic institutions. “[Abstinence] is similar to the D.A.R.E. program: it’s totally ineffective.”
College of Arts and Sciences senior Benjamin Kaiser said he understood the two sides of the debate between safe sex and abstinence.
“I was taught both. The best way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence,” Kaiser said. “But sex is going to come up at some point, and there needs to be prevention. So teach abstinence first but also teach safe measures as a precaution.”
School of Education sophomore Katy Carlebach said the kind of sexual education provided ought to depend on the audience receiving it.
“It entirely depends on the community. If there’s a high number of teenage pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases, then greater precautions need to be taken, and safe sex should be taught,” she said.
SED sophomore Albert Paez said he found the study to be eye-opening.
“You always hear that abstinence doesn’t work, but this study shows that one form of sex education doesn’t necessarily work better than another,” he said.
CAS graduate students Cyrus Kosar said he found the study’s focus on sexual activity of little importance, and, moreover, found its results unreliable.
“If kids are attending safe sex classes they are more likely to have sex safely,” Kosar said.
“The study should focus on sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, not just sexual activeness.”
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
