How is Abstinence-Only Sex Education Like South Africa’s Driving Exam?

[ImmortalDragon]

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/how-is-abstinence-only-sex-education-like-south-africas-driving-exam/

November 14, 2007, 1:16 pm

How is Abstinence-Only Sex Education Like South Africa’s Driving Exam?

By Ryan Hagen

South Africa has had, for the last dozen years, what may be the world’s most difficult driver’s license exam. It’s an exercise in extremely defensive driving. Test examiners take off points for, among other things, failure to check all mirrors every seven seconds. An applicant can fail instantly if he lets his car roll backwards even an inch when stopping or starting, or simply if his test examiner hasn’t met his daily failure quota. In a recent Times article, Michael Wines writes that passing the test requires an applicant to “imagine that he is driving a live claymore mine under assault by guerillas in bumper cars.”

So South Africa must have the safest roads in the world, right? Well, no. The fatality rate per mile is five times higher than that of the United States, and rising fast. Why? Because the test is so hard, and the accompanying bureaucratic process so byzantine, that it acts as a strong disincentive for South Africans to get proper driver training. Many people simply drive without a license or buy one off the black market. So the unintended consequences of South Africa’s rigorous licensing program seem pretty plain: there is more bad driving as a result.

Turn now to the United States, where the Federal Government has spent upwards of $1 billion over the last decade on abstinence-only sex education. (Call it defensive dating.) The idea is that not teaching students about contraception, safe sex, etc., will lead to better outcomes, including less unwanted pregnancies and fewer sexually transmitted diseases.

Except … it turns out that teenagers are circumventing their abstinence education and having sex anyway. Studies have repeatedly shown that abstinence-only students have almost the same number of sexual partners, and have sex almost as early, as students who receive traditional sex ed. In fact, abstinence-only programs may actually increase the risk of STDs and unintentional teen pregnancies. That’s because those abstinence-only students who do have sex tend to be less likely to use protection.

That’s one of the reasons why New York State recently canceled its abstinence-only program, passing up millions of dollars in Federal aid. Congress nevertheless appears ready to continue funding for similar programs. Maybe abstinence-only would work better if the classes were administered by one of those stern South African driving examiners.

[Larry]

Oh, come on. Those two things aren't alike at all.

After all, if the entire lesson consists of "Just say No", how hard can the test be?

[Destino]

So the solution is a license to have sex that is reached via a test easy enough that people won't avoid it.

brilliant.

[EersSkins05]

I'll never know why "They'll do it anyway" is not an acceptible argument to the abstinence-only crowd.

[Larry]

Oh, I think there's something to be said for the argument that "they'll always rob banks, but that doesn't mean society should run classes in how to rob banks with less risk".

(Now, me, I'm in favor of sex ed favoring abstinence. Where I have a problem is when the "abstinence only" crowd begins to demand that sex ed must withhold information on things like condoms. I'm pro-abstinence. I'm just anti-ignorance.)

[PleaseBlitz]

The solution to South Africa's driving problem is clear: Require every car to have a spear mounted on the steering wheel, pointing directly at the driver's heart.

[mjah]

Regardless of what's going on in South Africa, abstinence-only sex ed is an incredibly idiotic idea. Just a massive hemorrhage of stupid. (IMHO)

Pro-abstinence is one thing. I'm right with you on that one. But abstinence-only? For every kid? Get real.

Larry's parenthetical statement is right on the money. Strongly encourage kids not to have sex. Even tell them flat-out not to. That's fine. In fact, that's the most you can do under any sex ed curriculum. But for crying out loud, give them the basic information about diseases, pregnancy, and protection. That basic level of education does not constitute an endorsement of any kind.

[ACW]

Oh, I think there's something to be said for the argument that "they'll always rob banks, but that doesn't mean society should run classes in how to rob banks with less risk".

(Now, me, I'm in favor of sex ed favoring abstinence. Where I have a problem is when the "abstinence only" crowd begins to demand that sex ed must withhold information on things like condoms. I'm pro-abstinence. I'm just anti-ignorance.)

:applause: on the second paragraph, on the first.

[twa]

I think Larry nailed it, but do abstinence only programs really not give them the basic information about condoms,diseases, pregnancy, and protection?

It is my understanding they do provide basic info on all of the above :whoknows:

Personally I think the sex-ed programs are next to useless no matter which one it is.

[Predicto]

I think Larry nailed it, but do abstinence only programs really not give them the basic information about condoms,diseases, pregnancy, and protection?

It is my understanding they do provide basic info on all of the above :whoknows:

Not as far as I know. That is the "only" part of "Abstinence Only."

[twa]

Not as far as I know. That is the "only" part of "Abstinence Only."

From what I understand the "only" is a emphasis that it is only by abstinence that there is no risk of disease or pregnancy,but there is a lot of information on condoms,disease ect. in the program.

Any of the younger bunch had a course they remember???

added

I did find this

http://www.wvdhhr.org/MCFH/ICAH/Abstinence/index.htm

[Destino]

I think Larry nailed it, but do abstinence only programs really not give them the basic information about condoms,diseases, pregnancy, and protection?

It is my understanding they do provide basic info on all of the above :whoknows:

Personally I think the sex-ed programs are next to useless no matter which one it is.

I've seen so many stories of the misinformation being taught in abstinence only programs. The thing people don't stop to consider is that if I saw those stories... so did every teenager. They spend more time online then anyone. How much credibility do people think those classes have anymore? Kids aren't stupid they're just inexperienced. You lie to them and they'll react the same way if someone lies to you - they'll mark that source is completely unreliable.

STD's should be studied in biology. Sexual Ed shouldn't be a disease course, it should be called sexual ethics, options, and consequences. Kids are sexually active and they should be talked to clearly on the subject. Not get some nervous gym teacher that focuses on AIDS to avoid talking about sex. Sex causes more problems then getting sick and the motives behind having sex have nothing to do with health.

[Zguy28]

I remember in High School it was an Abstinence-preferred program. They stressed that it was 100% safe if you abstained, but that no other form of protection could ensure more than 99%.

They should show them pictures of people with herpes flareups to scare them. What we got was some lame movie where Molly Ringwald accidently got pregnant.

[Destino]

I remember in High School it was an Abstinence-preferred program. They stressed that it was 100% safe if you abstained, but that no other form of protection could ensure more than 99%.

They should show them pictures of people with herpes flareups to scare them. What we got was some lame movie where Molly Ringwald accidently got pregnant.

We got a nervous gym teacher then looked like he was going to cry when someone asked him about anal. Poor **** turned it into a clinical speech to avoid any discussion or questions relating to sex.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

The answer to this issue isn't abstinance education in schools. It never has been and never will be.

The answer is very simple... Nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to purchase condoms. Nobody should be allowed to have an abortion. Any couple that brings a new life into the world would be required to marry and raise the child.

I think you'd see a pretty dramatic reduction in sexual activity by minors if that set of circumstances were in place.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

The answer to this issue isn't abstinance education in schools. It never has been and never will be.

The answer is very simple... Nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to purchase condoms. Nobody should be allowed to have an abortion. Any couple that brings a new life into the world would be required to marry and raise the child.

I think you'd see a pretty dramatic reduction in sexual activity by minors if that set of circumstances were in place.

hmm..

I doubt that Mass. I think you would see a lot more poverty and screwed up individuals.

[isle-hawg]

Schools only job is to address sex in the scientific/biologically/health way. Leave the moral teaching to the parents.

[81artmonk]

Well, considering that just say no is it, and other worldly influences like tv, movies, friends and magazines say just do it, it's kind of hard to think that a single influence without any kind of backing for it from home, school or society in general is going to work or be successful.

If I tell a kid that drugs are bad and to just say no, than send him to a neighborhood where drugs are everywhere, and a home where mom and dad deal the drugs, how can anyone expect that person to stay off drugs

However that isn't to say that the concept is wrong. If one says no and doesn't do drugs, it works. Just like Abstenance, it's worked every time it's tried, 100% success rate.

[Larry]

I think Larry nailed it, but do abstinence only programs really not give them the basic information about condoms,diseases, pregnancy, and protection?

It is my understanding they do provide basic info on all of the above :whoknows:

The only one I've read about specifically was in a state I lived in, when it came up for a referendum on the ballot. (Don't remember if I was living in Oklahoma or Florida at the time.)

The law specifically forbid any mention of condoms other than their failure rate.

(It wasn't mentioned which "failure rate" they were required to mention. For example, I've read about a study which looked at people who were regularly, knowingly having sex with partners who were HIV positive. And in those cases, when the condom was properly worn (no mention of what "properly worn" meant), the condoms were 100% effective at preventing HIV. OTOH, I've also read about "studies" that claim that condoms fail something like 80% of the time, but they're measuring "failure" by inflating the condom with Helium under pressure.)

Going from memory, it also forbid any mention of homosexuality, of any form of contraception, of oral or anal sex, and several other topics I don't remember.

In short, as near as I could tell, the abstinence education bill that was on the ballot consisted mostly of things that teachers were forbidden to mention.

[kuraitengai]

I'll never know why "They'll do it anyway" is not an acceptible argument to the abstinence-only crowd.

seriously

(Now, me, I'm in favor of sex ed favoring abstinence. Where I have a problem is when the "abstinence only" crowd begins to demand that sex ed must withhold information on things like condoms. I'm pro-abstinence. I'm just anti-ignorance.)

if all the people around me thought like you, id never have to disagree with them.

but seriously. a friend of mine from church teaches abstinence only classes in the public school system. i wont even get into the debate with him or even most of the other people at my church cuz they will just be spouting off excuses on why they shouldnt teach it. but it is irresponsible to NOT give all the facts so people can best protect themselves.

[Predicto]

However that isn't to say that the concept is wrong. If one says no and doesn't do drugs, it works. Just like Abstenance, it's worked every time it's tried, 100% success rate.

The concept isn't wrong as a way to live your life.

It is pretty useless if it is the only information presented on these issues - assuming of course that your actual goal is to help the maximum number of young people avoid ill-advised pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

[the krabber]

I think Larry nailed it, but do abstinence only programs really not give them the basic information about condoms,diseases, pregnancy, and protection?

It is my understanding they do provide basic info on all of the above :whoknows:

Personally I think the sex-ed programs are next to useless no matter which one it is.

When I had health class at a Christian high school, we had a week of absinence-only sex ed. They brought in a special teacher for the subject.

The one slide that sticks out in my mind is this picture of a bullet coming out of a gun with a condom on it. The caption says "Is it safe now?"

The message that they were trying to send was that practicing safe sex and using a condom doesnt always prevent STDs or pregnancy. The inadvertent lesson that they tought was that it doesnt matter if you play with fire, either way youll get burned, so it doesnt really matter if you use a condom or not.

[twa]

Thanks Krabber...did they give much relevant info on condom use,diseases ect.?...or was it simply avoid sex ?

btw..interesting that you got the impression(lesson) that it doesnt really matter if you use a condom or not.

Any suggestions on improving the program?

[the krabber]

Id go with what Larry said. Tell them that no sex is the best way to go, but inform them of ways that they can protect against disease and pregnancy.

Pretty simple. Except for moral implications in religious schools, I dont understand why they dont just do that now.

[twa]

The answer to this issue isn't abstinance education in schools. It never has been and never will be.

The answer is very simple... Nobody under the age of 18 should be allowed to purchase condoms. Nobody should be allowed to have an abortion. Any couple that brings a new life into the world would be required to marry and raise the child.

I think you'd see a pretty dramatic reduction in sexual activity by minors if that set of circumstances were in place.

You are sure of a different mindset than this bunch in NM ...care to donate?

http://www.krqe.com/Global/story.asp?S=7349865&nav=menu588_2

Restoring the funds will reduce the squeeze on cash-strapped students, added Ambrosia Ortiz.

"So they don't have to make a choice between their birth control and their cell phone bill or their birth control and their gym membership and their birth control," Ortiz said. "These are choices women that women shouldn't have to make.

"Birth control should be very affordable."

The students also were accepting donations trying to raise enough money to offset the price of the increase for those students who can't afford birth control now