![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Abstinence-only sex education.
|
Made link from Sex education: US article. Am tempted to add stub template. Anybody got comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Here.it.comes.again ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The 37% failure rate fact is odd, considering that the FDA lists their failure statistics for testing condoms here ( [1]), and none of them show anything near 37%. I think that, barring some kind of citation on that purported fact, it should be removed from this entry. -- Patswanson 21:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
rofl at downplaying effectiveness of protection. those amish are so zealous—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheWorldWideWeb ( talk • contribs) 9:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Both the first paragraph and the criticism paragraph are obviously POV biased against Abstinence only sex ed. Full disclosure: so am I! However, it would help this article to attempt to represent the other side's view a bit more fairly. Charlie 00:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
"Abstinence only sex education is a form of sex education which emphasizes abstaining from sex, often to the exclusion of all other types of sexual and reproductive health education, particularly regarding birth control and safe sex. [emphasis added]"
Doesn't the only imply to the complete exclusion of other info? SeanMon 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC) (sorry, I forgot to sign initially)
I disagree, without that statement it makes it appear that it only emphasizes abstinence. Quincybuddha
"It has been noted that the same people who encourage Creationism to be taught in American Schools also encouage abstinence-only sex education." I don't think this is necessarily true, and there is no evidence to back it up. I'm removing it. Also, do we really need the family guy reference? Flutefreek 07:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I've moved "Critics consider the promotion of abstinence-only sex education as one of the major efforts by the religious right to suppress sexual activity other than that which occurs between the parties to a lifelong, monogymous relationship" to the criticism section.
I want to ask if anyone support today the POV banner (after some changes). The article it's too short but I dont think there's a POV problem. IsmaelPR 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I note this article doesn't seem to include the names of any prominent groups or persons in American politics that are advocating the teaching of abstinence-only. While I am very familiar with people and groups who would be interested in having abstinence taught as a legitimate option ALONGSIDE information about contraception and so on, I have been searching in vain along the American political landscape for a proponent of the Abstinence-Only position. Could some names of some politicians and groups working for this be provided by someone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.212.137 ( talk) 04:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I added that the message that sex should only occur within the confines of marriage has serious implications for people who do not wish to be married, or cannot be married, especially gay people. I can easily find quotes for this, it is a major criticism of abstinence-only education and I was shocked that it wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article (abstinence-only typically doesn't even mention gay people at all except for discussions about AIDS). It was a huge part of what I learned about abstinence-only in my college human sexuality classes - straight kids are getting misinformed, but gay kids are getting downright disenfranchised and told almost no information that would ever be relevant to their lives.
Quotes would help. However I also think it's self-explanatory and doesn't necessarily require a quote to back it up, it can be pretty easily logically deduced by the definition of abstinence-only as promoting marriage as the expected context for sexual relationships, along with the obvious fact that gay marriage is illegal in most countries. Rglong 08:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The first two sentences of the criticism section seem NPOV right now, but after that the section strays into bias. The positions of critics should be characterized and sourced; there should not be arguments for or against those criticisms in the article. Studies should only be cited if there is going to be a much more in-depth history of the issue written. Right now the criticisms outweigh the discussion of the actual programs.-- emw 04:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Government agencies have reclassified STDs (Sexually transmitted diseases) as STIs (Sexually transmitted infections). Reference to this can be found in this page [2]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damienhunter ( talk • contribs) 12:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
I'm worried that the lead commits an "equal validity" fallacy. As far as I can tell, there are no mainstream medical or public health organizations that advocate abstinence-only sex education. The official positions of the American Psychological Association [3], American Medical Association [4], National Association of School Psychologists [5], Society for Adolescent Medicine and American College Health Association [6] , the American Academy of Pediatrics [7], the American Public Health Association [8] are that comprehensive sex education, not abstinence-only sex education, should be implemented. I'm unable to find any mainstream medical or scientific organization that takes an opposing view. This consensus should be clearly stated in the lead -- and per WP:UNDUE, barring similar citations, there is no need to present opposing views in the same manner. Now, of course there's room to say that religious groups think the focus should be on marriage, not STDs or pregnancy rates -- but as to the question of effectiveness at preventing STDs and pregnancy, WP:UNDUE requires a clear statement of the consensus view as the consensus view. Fireplace ( talk) 00:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Finally, promotion of abstinence as a sole option for adolescents and young adults raises serious human rights concerns, because it involves withholding health- and life-saving information from teenagers. Access to complete and accurate HIV/AIDS and sexual health information is recognized as a basic human right by many international agreements [4,17]. Governments have an obligation to ensure complete and accurate information in publicly supported programs, and adolescents have a right to expect health education provided in public schools to be scientifically accurate and complete. A quote from Do Abstinence-Plus Interventions Reduce Sexual Risk Behavior among Youth? Shari L. Dworkin, John Santelli
A don't forget the question of whether or not abstinence is a religious position and how that effects separation of church and state
I moved a recent addition to the lead section out of the lead and into the criticism section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be kept brief and contain highlights of the article. I saw the addition as too detailed and making a long lead even longer, I also know that maintaining balance in this article's lead has been subject to debate in the past. The editor who made the addition, Dorftrottel, misintrepreted my change as POV-based; I'm actually trying to maintain NPOV. Other thoughts? -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 20:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the generic globalization tag from this article. If you think the tag is deserved, please feel free to restore it -- but please also add a clear explanation right here on this talk page. Your actual concerns are much more likely to be adequately addressed if you identify them. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am in a class and we're revising a wiki article for a project. I have chosen this page and definitely plan to address the globalization issue. I am going to add a section totally related to my edits but I wanted to comment in here because the lack of world view is one of my main focal points. 16:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC) U0552803 ( talk) u0552803
The claim that the only consideration of Abstinence only vs Sex Ed arguments are if abstinence only actually causes abstanment. However, the earlier paragraph points out psychological concerns and the fact that abstinence only does not teach safe sex leading to risky sex when engaged. I did not edit it, I feel someone better educated on this subject than me should do so. 76.177.1.64 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Reading through this article again, it seems that it deals solely with abstinence-only sex education in the united states, exclusively. Do we have any solid information on AO sex-ed elsewhere in the world, besides american efforts to promote it in Africa, etc.? Perhaps much of this content should be moved to a new article branched off from Sex_education#United_States, which in fact links to this article. This article can be left with simply a definition of what AOSE is and a description of views in favor and against it. Does anybody agree? I will start this process within a few days if I don't hear any arguments against. AniRaptor2001 ( talk) 02:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Adding info about new study from University of Pennsylvania showing abstinence education works, also added info on two sources of criticism that have a bias against it for added clarity on their bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery3 ( talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss whether or not Category:Discrimination against homosexuals belongs on this article. The relevant sentence from the article is "The idea that sexual intercourse should only occur within marriage also has serious implications for ... particularly homosexuals living in places where same-sex marriage is not legal or socially acceptable." Two things:
I'm going to add {{ Category unsourced}} in the mean time. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I added a source that was easily searched out that was clear that researchers feel abstinence-only sex education is discriminatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.85 ( talk) 08:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you need convincing of anything but that is beside the point as reliable source is clear that it is. You seem to like deleting sources and categories related to gays so I guess others will have to keep an eye on things. 71.139.19.85 ( talk) 18:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Merely deleting content and categories will not change history. the Bush administration backed off sponsoring faith-based abstinence-only funding because it endorsed carte blanch discrimination against gays. If the article was written well this would be more obvious, simply edit-warring because you want to empty out a homosexual category does not make you virtuous and correct. 71.139.19.85 ( talk) 00:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
For adding to article: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0742039320090508 Rodface ( talk) 00:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The article states that AOSE "emphasizes the teaching of morality that limits sex to that within the bounds of marriage, and that sex before marriage and at a young age has heavy physical and emotional costs" but it fails to explain why its proponents believe sexual activity within the context of marriage is acceptable. Neither pregnancy nor STDs are prevented by a marriage license, nor does being married make either of those problems less serious. So why do AOSE proponents say "no sex until marriage" rather than "no sex ever, at all", which would be more sensible within the context of their basic premise? Pais ( talk) 16:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"Biologically, abstaining from sexual relations is the only way to completely avoid the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases that could otherwise be transmitted exclusively during sexual activity citation needed. "
Took this out because it has needed a citation since september. Also, it's not scientifically accurate--an STD could easily be transmitted to an abstinent person--for example, a cotton swab or used towel. Rare? yes. Unlikely? Yes. But possible. If someone wanted to rewrite this to say something to the effect of "abstinence is the best protection against STDs" and cite it, go ahead.
The article says, "However, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy studied 'three different abstinence-only programs, Teen Aid, Sex Respect, and Values and Choice" and found that for "high school students with the most permissive sexual values, the programs did delay the initiation of sex ...'", but the NCPTP made no such study. The quotation refers to a study performed by a third party (Weed et al. 1992), not research performed by the NCPTP itself. NCPTP describes the results of Weed et al. thusly: "these programs did not significantly delay the initiation of sex, although in one out of six groups of youth (the most permissive high school students), they appeared to significantly delay sexual initiation." I tried but haven't tracked down the Weed et al. study, but the claimed positive result appears very weak because it appears to be a post-hoc subgroup analysis, a notoriously flawed practice. (I need not mention that abstinence only education does not encourage permissive sexual values.) The NCPTP said that the Weed et al. study provided poor evidence for the efficacy of abstinence only-education.
I quote from the NCPTP's summary: "There do not currently exist any abstinence-only programs with strong evidence that they either delay sex or reduce teen pregnancy. However, this does not mean that abstinence-only programs are not effective, nor does it mean that they are effective. It simply means that given the great diversity of abstinence-only programs combined with very few rigorous studies of their impact, there is simply too little evidence to know whether abstinence-only programs delay the initiation of sex." In other words, this meta-study concluded that there is no good evidence that abstinence only education delays sex. On my reading, it appears that this study found no evidence that abstinence only programs are good for anything.
The NCPTP should not be quoted as having performed the work of Weed et al., work that should not be quoted in support of abstinence only education. In short, this sentence should be cut or re-written to accurately reflect the real conclusion of the NCPTP report, namely that they found no evidence that abstinence education effectively promotes abstinence. Flies 1 ( talk) 15:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
(unindent) It seems that when social policy is being formulated, each side will cite "the science" in support of its views. Like, "Doing X is morally (ethically) wrong". Then that side cites any study they can find (preferably in a peer-reviewed scientific journal) which points out the environmental, economic, medical or psychological harm of X. Meanwhile, those who feel X is morally/ethically good (or at least "not bad") cite opposing studies.
Would it be a good policy for Wikipedia to reveal or identify the ideological positions of people who cite scientific studies? (Maybe there is already a policy page that covers this.) I'm looking for one blanket policy that would cover editorial policy on a host of controversial issues. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The NCPTP reference is again quoted as reporting on a study that shows that AOE works in one subgroup. Whatever other considerations prevail, I feel strongly that the sentence reporting on the NCPTP misrepresents the findings of the paper in question. I will try to dig up the "Emerging Answers" NCPTP meta-study and put that in, as the Kirby paper quoted in the article seems mainly relevant as a reply to Rector. In the meantime, I'm editing the sentence to reflect the paper more accurately. Flies 1 ( talk) 19:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I have now removed reference to the original NCPTP study, which, as I said earlier, doesn't seem like an important reference on the subject. In its place, I have described a more recent comprehensive metastudy published by the NCPTP. I took pains to accurately reflect the tone and conclusions of this report. I originally had a few additional sentences regarding the reports recommendations for further research on AOE, but removed them for space considerations, as they seemed to put too much weight on the report in comparison with other material in the section. I left in a reference to the report's findings on comprehensive sex education (CSE), and as I see this as a potentially controversial decision, I wish to make clear the reasons why I did so. Basically, I wanted to provide context for the report's assessment of AOE. If AOE was unsuccessful, what difference would it make if the main alternative, CSE were as well? There would be no reason to recommend against widespread introduction of AOE programs, as the NCPTP did, unless there are other programs that are known to work. Indeed, this to me is the key point in regarding AOE: evidence for it is poor, whereas evidence for alternative programs is good. Without knowing that there is good evidence for CSE, there is no way to contextualize the information that the evidence for AOE is poor. Flies 1 ( talk) 20:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Flies 1 wrote (above):
Actually, according to NPOV, this is not the issue. We are not supposed to decide what "the collective body of evidence supports" because we are not a court of law and it's up to the reader to decide which sources and evidence and reasoning support any particular viewpoint. I hope that no one contributing to this article will attempt to assert one particular POV as true, as that would violate Wikipedia's rule against taking sides.
We should merely describe each side's arguments fairly, summarizing their evidence and reasoning.
Now, as near as I can tell, most studies have found that "comprehensive" sex ed does no harm, and there are only 2 studies showing that "abstinence-only" does any good. This information needs to be in (and stay in) the article. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 21:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible for someone to track down some citations for the various assertions that abstinence-only proponents claim Comprehensive programs promote or lead to more premarital sex? I've heard the argument before, but it'd be nice to find some article somewhere so that it's not just original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.140.144 ( talk) 10:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been doing some searching, and I can't find much in the way of stats on this topic. Are schools, by and large, teaching abstinence-only sex ed? I know my high school didn't. They DID teach that it was a good idea, but they also taught kids about the basic methods of birth control. Is this REALLY a big deal, or is this a political hot-potato that people are pushing when it's really not a problem. The only survey I could find on the topic says "parents are mostly happy with what their schools are teaching." If that's the case, why are people (many of them NOT parents of school age children) so up in arms about this? -- TomXP411 [Talk] 00:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
CONCLUSION: Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.
Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010 Feb;164(2):152-9.
--
95.247.62.132 (
talk)
07:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
First of all, the lack of a NPOV is obvious when you use the phrase "evidence does not support the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education," repeatedly. It also doesn't help when sources like the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, are used without providing context as to who they are.
Anyway, what's far worse is that it's even called abstinence-only sex education and not simply "abstinence-education," as it's called in the SSA. It seems like "abstinence-only" was an invention of the program's opponents. It'd be like naming the "Strategic Defense Initiative" article "Star Wars (missile program)."
I mean, I'll be honest: I'm not neutral and I think a lot of the "confusion" (to put it mildly) is the result of political double-speak. But isn't Wikipedia supposed to be above that?
I do appreciate that an opponent agreed that it lacked a NPOV as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epiphone83 ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I mean, I typed "abstinence education," and it linked to abstinence-only. This NEEDS to be fixed pronto. Like, it needs to be the other way around. Come on, guys. ( 75.18.193.140 ( talk) 15:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC))
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Utah/Gender and Economic Development in the Third World (Spring 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
I am going to be a doing a major update to this page for a class assignment. I will include my outline below. Overall my main areas of focus will be to bring in a global focus on this issue to see where the world stands on abstinence only sex education (ABSO) vs the US because the page is a little US heavy right now. In addition, I will be adding a gender perspective to this article as it neglects to discuss how the consequences differ for male vs females in the ABSO realm. As you can see in the outline below, I am keeping most of the current sections untouched - I simply want to add the global perspective and that of gender differences. This outline is preliminary and although I have done research I haven't completed it yet so I can't say what the entire result will look like. But this is for a class so it won't be half done, I will be putting a lot of time into these edits.
I am adding two sections under effectiveness that will specifically discuss the global north and the global south. The effectiveness of ABSO and STIs is very different when practiced in these two arenas. I'm then going to mirror the Sex Education page with the view of ABSO "around the world". These are the countries which I have good reason to think I will find the most data, but cannot be sure yet. Lastly, I will be adding the Gender Inequalities section. The sub sections are areas I hope to highlight, but the direction may change with further research.
1. Description
2. Background
3. Discussion
4. Effectiveness
a. Global North
i. STI/HIV prevention
ii. Unplanned pregnancy prevention
b. Global South
i. STI/HIV prevention
ii. Unplanned pregnancy prevention
5. Sex Education around the world
a. Africa
i. Uganda
ii. Sub-Saharan region
b. Asia
i. India
c. Europe
i. Netherlands
ii. France
d. Americas
i. United States
ii. Canada
e. Oceania
i. Australia
6. Gender Inequality Consequences
a. Ages of first sexual encounter
b. Extra-marital sex
c. Family Planning after marriage
Please let me know if you disagree with any of the proposed changes, would like to contribute or have references or articles (etc) that may be helpful. Thanks! 16:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC) U0552803 ( talk)
I have decided to revise this page and the page on “Sex-Education in the United States as a part of a class assignment. I intend to broaden the scope of the article away from the United States and explore international efforts and campaigns, the role of religion, pros and cons of abstinence-only sex education, and funding. Basically, I would like to bring the attention of this article away from the United States and more toward global impact. There are a lot of great ideas proposed on the talk page that have not yet been addressed that seem like reasonable enough suggestions. One of the main issues I see brought up is the terminology and language of the article being biased in one way or another. I plan on ensuring that terms used are the current official terms being used by accredited organizations and that the revisions are on the side of objectivity and fact.
I plan on adding a “Legal definition” and “Comprehensive sex education” section under the existing “Description” heading. I will add sections on “Teen pregnancy”, “STI rates”, and “LGBTQ relationships” under the heading of “Effectiveness”. I have decided to split the section called “Discussion” into two sections; “Rationale”, with the subheading “Role of religion”, and “Criticism”. This should help clarify some of the points the article was trying to make by separating them into sides of the argument. I have also decided to add a “Global impact” section, with the subheadings “Role of religion in sex education outreach” and “Impact on the HIV/AIDS epidemic”. Ideally, this will allow the article to expand to something more general than what is currently online. I would like to incorporate separate pages and links to the other page on which I will be working. I will integrate links to “Virginity pledges”, “Religious views on birth control” and “Teen pregnancy” into the article, which already exist in the “See also” section.
Is there any issue with any of these proposals? All contributions are welcome. Do you think that the "Impact on the HIV/AIDS epidemic warrants its own section or a note within another? BSchilling ( talk) 07:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Great work on the global impact section. If there is literature on it, I would add more information about the global impact of abstinence-only sex education, perhaps some statistics or the countries it effects, rather than focusing solely on one U.S. organization. You used a variety of sources to present a more diverse perspective, which was great. To further improve the quality of your article, focus on polishing up grammar and adding relevant images. I look forward to reading your future contributions! Aqjiang ( talk) 21:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank so much for all of these great edits! I believe the most relevant things you can work on right is providing more specific details about the sources in the "Global Impact" section in order to improve Neutral Point of View. Other than that, a few grammar edits will make this page very comprehensive and accurate. Good work! Magenstat ( talk) 00:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Cali11298, the way you edited the Abstinence-only sex education article is not the way you are supposed to be editing as far as the WP:Neutral policy goes, which is why I reverted you; see what I stated in that that edit summary. People commonly misunderstand what being neutral means on Wikipedia. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse; it means following what the sources state and giving them the appropriate weight -- WP:Due weight. WP:Due weight essentially (and usually) means that we give the vast majority of our weight to what the vast majority of sources state on a topic, and that we do not give the minority view or aspect too much weight. As seen in that edit summary, yes, I also questioned your newness; this is because I don't think that you are new to editing Wikipedia. And because I don't think you are new to editing Wikipedia, I expect you to follow the rules better than an actual WP:Newbie would.
Doc James, you worked on the Effectiveness section of this article; for example, here. Are you aware of any good scholarly sources that report abstinence-only sex education is significantly effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy, the spread of STIs, etc.? From what I know of the research, it is consistent that abstinence-only sex education is largely or generally ineffective in that regard. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There is not a single high quality source that says it is useful and lots that say it isn't. Thus we can say "evidence does not support". Calling science "liberal elitist" is not an argument that holds much weight here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
We state the conclusions of science as fact. We never use popular press and we do not use primary sources to refute secondary ones Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Cali is in fact correct here, in regards to the wording and the blanket statement. If anyone involved in this debate had actually bothered to read the actual resources cited in the article (instead of arguing what they think is the case) they would know that what Cali states is almost an exact quote from the first resource. And I quote: "Even though there does not exist strong evidence that any particular abstinence program is effective at delaying sex or reducing sexual behavior, one should not conclude that all abstinence programs are ineffective. "
Obviously some editors here are not only NOT familiar with the subject matter, but hadn't even bothered reading the sources in the article which they seem to state the exact opposite of what they're claiming. The first reference source, for example, repeatedly notes in its study that claims that abstinence only programs are ineffective is an INCORRECT conclusion. In fact, on the very first page of the study it warns AGAINST making such a blanket conclusion. I'm not sure why some did not bother to actually check the references, whereas with others this does seem to be a pattern. In fact, the first reference actually notes that abstinence only programs, while they tend to be less effective than comprehensive programs, can still demonstrate positive outcomes, hence the authors repeated stating that such blanket statements, such as those made by Fly22 are false and misleading. Again I quote: " A second program appeared to decrease the frequency of sex and reduce the number of sexual partners."
Cali, obviously there is a problem here regarding some editors and POV regarding certain socio-political issues. Even a quick glance at the resources, in fact the actual opening warning of the first resource, states exactly what you claimed about blanket statements. This is not a matter of debate or opinion, but instead incredibly ironic. I would suggest bringing the issue to the attention of other editors whom do not have the this sort of track record regarding certain socio-political issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxx12345 ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Doc, if you have the time, I would very strongly suggest actually reading the citations in this article. What they actually say as compared to what some statements in the article itself say vary quite a bit. So far I've read several of the studies cited in the article, and actually they all note that abstinence only programs can work and can be effective. They're all saying comprehensive approaches are better, certainly. Know in the opening where it says "Evidence does not support the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education.[1]"? The citation quoted actually does not state that, at all. It specifically states that this conclusion is actually false. In 10 such approaches, 2 of them in fact showed encouraging results. Not sure why the article states, literally, the exact opposite of what the cited source states. It seems like people haven't actually read these sources and just either lied or tried making up their own facts believing no one would bother reading their citations. Actually, so far, every one of these studies all say the same thing in general: comprehensive approaches are superior, but abstinence only programs can be effective. Literally every single one of these I've read so far all said that, Doc.
Perhaps you and others might want to read what the resources actually state because they're not stating what people here seem to think they state. People don't need to find more resources, they, including the editors, just have to bother reading the resources actually provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxx12345 ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Maxxx12345 ( talk) 07:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: Maxxx12345's understanding of Wikipedia's rules is obviously flawed. See here for why I will be ignoring Maxxx12345. Flyer22 ( talk) 08:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Also note that, as seen above, Maxxx12345 accusing me of making a blanket statement that abstinence-only sex education is completely ineffective is false, and that I attempted to compromise with Cali11298 with "generally" wording. Doc James did not like the "generally" wording. And, well, anyone who actually reads this entire discussion knows the rest. Flyer22 ( talk) 08:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This study from the late 2000s is mentioned in the article as if it were equivalent to other studies. However, its goal was to have less adolescent sex, measured by self-report 24 months later. Nobody else tries to get this result; they strive for fewer instances of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Why should this study be given so much WP:WEIGHT? I don't see its relevance. Binksternet ( talk) 02:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Teens being abstinent scientifically reduces their risk for STD's and unplanned pregnancies. No one disputes that abstinence is an effective means to reduce STD's and pregnancy. In fact every comprehensive-sex program include abstinence as an approach to prevent these problems, they also include contraception and other safe-sex approaches, but abstinence is always included in the approaches to reduce teen pregnancy in any program; no program shames anyone against choosing abstinence. (None that I have read anyway.
The major critiques of abstinence-only education is that barely reduces the amount of teens delaying sex, while also not teaching them how to use contraceptives therefore the teens will eventual have sex and then not know how to use contraceptives.
This study is relevant since it touches solely on the topic of a purely secular abstinence-only education nowhere mentioned in the article. It was also federally funded and is now the number one study cited by abstinence-only proponents.
For examples of how this study significantly impacted the debate according to the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html
"'This new study is game-changing,' said Sarah Brown, who leads the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. 'For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex'"
"Longtime critics of the approach praised the study, saying it provides strong evidence that such programs can work and might merit taxpayer support.
'One of the things that's exciting about this study is that it says we have a new tool to add to our repertoire,' said Monica Rodriguez, vice president for education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States".
"The Obama administration eliminated more than $170 million in annual federal funding targeted at abstinence programs after a series of reports concluded that the approach was ineffective. Instead, the White House is launching a $114 million pregnancy prevention initiative that will fund only programs that have been shown scientifically to work -- a program the administration on Monday proposed expanding to $183 million."
BUT "Based on the findings, Obama administration officials said programs like the one evaluated in the study could be eligible for federal funding.
'No one study determines funding decisions, but the findings from the research paper suggest that this kind of project could be competitive for grants if there's promise that it achieves the goal of teen pregnancy prevention,' said Nicholas Papas, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services."
In conclusion for the WP:Scope contention; this study has been the pillar for defending abstinence-only education and has been cited by the Obama Administration officials as possibly providing federal-funding back to Abstinence-only programs. Which is pretty big impact on this debate and abstinence does reduce Teen pregnancies! it is one of the benefits of being abstinent as the HHS has said in that Washington post article
After reading the wp:article you cited Doc James, I'll certainly concede my initial article was an improper source
Would this be the primary medical source your looking for Doc James?
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2010/02/theory-based-abstinence-education/
It's from "Penn Medicine is one of the world's leading academic medical centers, dedicated to the related missions of medical education, biomedical research, and excellence in patient care. Penn Medicine consists of the Raymond and Ruth Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania (founded in 1765 as the nation's first medical school) and the University of Pennsylvania Health System, which together form a $4.3 billion enterprise." John D. Rockerduck ( talk) 01:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll admit that I'm a novel editor at best, I'm not sure how my latest edits which included medical websites and that are NOT the popular press violated WP:MEDRS. http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2010/02/theory-based-abstinence-education/ Please explain how this violates WP:MEDRS isn't Penn medicine a medical review journal of Penn State? I seriously don't know how this violated WP:MEDRS, please explain John D. Rockerduck ( talk) 11:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Just a note there's been a brief discussion over at Wikiproject Med about this primary source cited in the article. If we're following WP:MEDRS, it should probably be removed, but there are three reviews citing it:
I haven't looked at what the reviews actually say, so I'm just dropping by to point them out to any active editors here that are interested in looking them over for content that shows if mention of the study is warranted here. The first review has 40 citations, while the remaining two have one and no citations, respectively, so the first source might be the most useful. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 02:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
There was a sentence on Christian right saying this
Numerous scientific, peer-reviewed studies show that such programs do not limit teen pregnancy over the long run. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
The two sources I added to that sentence are based on the MEDRS recommendation to search on Trip (search engine), at the highest level of quality, a meta-analysis and canadian guidelines.
A user is contesting this, calling for the inclusion of references supporting abstinence-only sex education. They propose five sources, one a Heritage foundation one, one abstinence.org, one from the "Institute for Research and evaluation" a group set up in Salt Lake City, Utah, to promote abstinence education interventions, and the American College of Pediatricians, an anti-gay organisation, along with one in JAMA pediatrics
A few comments - the paper notes "It was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected."
In the commentary: "A common concern about abstinence-only interventions is that they have the unintended effect of reducing condom use, ie, that children exposed to such interventions are subsequently less likely to use condoms if they have sexual intercourse.20,21,36 However, a randomized controlled trial37 and a literature review38 found no effects of abstinence interventions on condom use. Similarly, in this trial the abstinence-only intervention participants did not differ in self-reported consistent condom use compared with the control group.
The results of this trial should not be taken to mean that all abstinence-only interventions are efficacious. This trial tested a theory-based abstinence-only intervention that would not meet federal criteria for abstinence programs and that is not vulnerable to many criticisms that have been leveled against interventions that meet federal criteria.19,20,36 It was not moralistic and did not criticize the use of condoms. Moreover, it had several characteristics associated with effective sexual risk-reduction interventions. It was theory-based and tailored to the target population based on qualitative data and included skill-building activities. It addressed the context of sexual activity and beliefs about the consequences of sexual involvement derived from the target population."
One thing that stands out is that the "target behavior" is known to the participants - meaning that there are possible recall problems and pressure to provide socially desirable answers when self-reporting behavior.
Some discussion is here.
If anyone has opinions on whether that paper meets MEDRS then feel free to discuss on Talk:Christian right#MEDRS and abstinence promotion groups
-- Aronzak ( talk) 06:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
References
No abstinence-only sex education program has been shown to increase the likelihood that young people will delay first intercourse for any longer than those who do not receive such programs. This is in contrast to the results of "abstinence-plus" programs that strongly encourage youth to be abstinent but also encourage youth to use condoms and contraceptives if they do have intercourse; these programs have been found to delay first intercourse for an appreciable time period. Many studies with very strong research designs have demonstrated that programs with common characteristics, (such as that they clearly focus on reducing specific sexual risk-taking behaviours, provide directly relevant information, give students the opportunity to develop the motivation and personal insight to use the information, and help them develop the necessary behavioural skills), can delay sexual intercourse, reduce its frequency, and increase use of condoms and other contraceptives
Programmes emphasising contraceptive use and distribution decreased pregnancy rates compared with abstinence-based programmes, and with sex-education programmes without knowledge building (ES 0.1996 versus 0.0623 versus 0.0818, respectively).
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Could there or should there be a more substantive description of AOE (in general, all AOE programs) and those programs that qualify for federal funding? The programs that qualify for federal funding are a subset of all AOE programs, but the reverse is not true. It would also be helpful to establish that while CSE vs. AOE have been studied and found to have X differences in outcomes, but CSE fs. AOE (federal-funding qualified definition) has Y differences in outcomes. Skberry889 ( talk) 16:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Abstinence-only sex education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Abstinence-only sex education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
As seen here, I reverted HenryMP02 on changing "Evidence does not support the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education" to "Evidence is inconclusive as to the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education over comprehensive sex education." Some other rewording was reverted in the process. I believe that the "evidence does not support" wording was added by Doc James. HenryMP02, why do you believe this wording is inaccurate? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The section Abstinence-only sex education#Religion is not a section, rather a See Also list. When that is removed (which is necessary), all that's left is a wholly unsourced statement.
The section Abstinence-only sex education#Funding blatantly steps on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK among various WP:NOT. Please rewrite to remove the "I suck at term papers" tone.
Also, in skimming over the References, I note that there's frequent abuse of W'pedia standards. For starters,
More later, of course.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
16:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at Rice University supported by the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2014 Fall term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Abstinence-only sex education.
|
Made link from Sex education: US article. Am tempted to add stub template. Anybody got comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Here.it.comes.again ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The 37% failure rate fact is odd, considering that the FDA lists their failure statistics for testing condoms here ( [1]), and none of them show anything near 37%. I think that, barring some kind of citation on that purported fact, it should be removed from this entry. -- Patswanson 21:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
rofl at downplaying effectiveness of protection. those amish are so zealous—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheWorldWideWeb ( talk • contribs) 9:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Both the first paragraph and the criticism paragraph are obviously POV biased against Abstinence only sex ed. Full disclosure: so am I! However, it would help this article to attempt to represent the other side's view a bit more fairly. Charlie 00:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
"Abstinence only sex education is a form of sex education which emphasizes abstaining from sex, often to the exclusion of all other types of sexual and reproductive health education, particularly regarding birth control and safe sex. [emphasis added]"
Doesn't the only imply to the complete exclusion of other info? SeanMon 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC) (sorry, I forgot to sign initially)
I disagree, without that statement it makes it appear that it only emphasizes abstinence. Quincybuddha
"It has been noted that the same people who encourage Creationism to be taught in American Schools also encouage abstinence-only sex education." I don't think this is necessarily true, and there is no evidence to back it up. I'm removing it. Also, do we really need the family guy reference? Flutefreek 07:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I've moved "Critics consider the promotion of abstinence-only sex education as one of the major efforts by the religious right to suppress sexual activity other than that which occurs between the parties to a lifelong, monogymous relationship" to the criticism section.
I want to ask if anyone support today the POV banner (after some changes). The article it's too short but I dont think there's a POV problem. IsmaelPR 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I note this article doesn't seem to include the names of any prominent groups or persons in American politics that are advocating the teaching of abstinence-only. While I am very familiar with people and groups who would be interested in having abstinence taught as a legitimate option ALONGSIDE information about contraception and so on, I have been searching in vain along the American political landscape for a proponent of the Abstinence-Only position. Could some names of some politicians and groups working for this be provided by someone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.212.137 ( talk) 04:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I added that the message that sex should only occur within the confines of marriage has serious implications for people who do not wish to be married, or cannot be married, especially gay people. I can easily find quotes for this, it is a major criticism of abstinence-only education and I was shocked that it wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article (abstinence-only typically doesn't even mention gay people at all except for discussions about AIDS). It was a huge part of what I learned about abstinence-only in my college human sexuality classes - straight kids are getting misinformed, but gay kids are getting downright disenfranchised and told almost no information that would ever be relevant to their lives.
Quotes would help. However I also think it's self-explanatory and doesn't necessarily require a quote to back it up, it can be pretty easily logically deduced by the definition of abstinence-only as promoting marriage as the expected context for sexual relationships, along with the obvious fact that gay marriage is illegal in most countries. Rglong 08:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The first two sentences of the criticism section seem NPOV right now, but after that the section strays into bias. The positions of critics should be characterized and sourced; there should not be arguments for or against those criticisms in the article. Studies should only be cited if there is going to be a much more in-depth history of the issue written. Right now the criticisms outweigh the discussion of the actual programs.-- emw 04:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Government agencies have reclassified STDs (Sexually transmitted diseases) as STIs (Sexually transmitted infections). Reference to this can be found in this page [2]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damienhunter ( talk • contribs) 12:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
I'm worried that the lead commits an "equal validity" fallacy. As far as I can tell, there are no mainstream medical or public health organizations that advocate abstinence-only sex education. The official positions of the American Psychological Association [3], American Medical Association [4], National Association of School Psychologists [5], Society for Adolescent Medicine and American College Health Association [6] , the American Academy of Pediatrics [7], the American Public Health Association [8] are that comprehensive sex education, not abstinence-only sex education, should be implemented. I'm unable to find any mainstream medical or scientific organization that takes an opposing view. This consensus should be clearly stated in the lead -- and per WP:UNDUE, barring similar citations, there is no need to present opposing views in the same manner. Now, of course there's room to say that religious groups think the focus should be on marriage, not STDs or pregnancy rates -- but as to the question of effectiveness at preventing STDs and pregnancy, WP:UNDUE requires a clear statement of the consensus view as the consensus view. Fireplace ( talk) 00:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Finally, promotion of abstinence as a sole option for adolescents and young adults raises serious human rights concerns, because it involves withholding health- and life-saving information from teenagers. Access to complete and accurate HIV/AIDS and sexual health information is recognized as a basic human right by many international agreements [4,17]. Governments have an obligation to ensure complete and accurate information in publicly supported programs, and adolescents have a right to expect health education provided in public schools to be scientifically accurate and complete. A quote from Do Abstinence-Plus Interventions Reduce Sexual Risk Behavior among Youth? Shari L. Dworkin, John Santelli
A don't forget the question of whether or not abstinence is a religious position and how that effects separation of church and state
I moved a recent addition to the lead section out of the lead and into the criticism section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be kept brief and contain highlights of the article. I saw the addition as too detailed and making a long lead even longer, I also know that maintaining balance in this article's lead has been subject to debate in the past. The editor who made the addition, Dorftrottel, misintrepreted my change as POV-based; I'm actually trying to maintain NPOV. Other thoughts? -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 20:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the generic globalization tag from this article. If you think the tag is deserved, please feel free to restore it -- but please also add a clear explanation right here on this talk page. Your actual concerns are much more likely to be adequately addressed if you identify them. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am in a class and we're revising a wiki article for a project. I have chosen this page and definitely plan to address the globalization issue. I am going to add a section totally related to my edits but I wanted to comment in here because the lack of world view is one of my main focal points. 16:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC) U0552803 ( talk) u0552803
The claim that the only consideration of Abstinence only vs Sex Ed arguments are if abstinence only actually causes abstanment. However, the earlier paragraph points out psychological concerns and the fact that abstinence only does not teach safe sex leading to risky sex when engaged. I did not edit it, I feel someone better educated on this subject than me should do so. 76.177.1.64 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Reading through this article again, it seems that it deals solely with abstinence-only sex education in the united states, exclusively. Do we have any solid information on AO sex-ed elsewhere in the world, besides american efforts to promote it in Africa, etc.? Perhaps much of this content should be moved to a new article branched off from Sex_education#United_States, which in fact links to this article. This article can be left with simply a definition of what AOSE is and a description of views in favor and against it. Does anybody agree? I will start this process within a few days if I don't hear any arguments against. AniRaptor2001 ( talk) 02:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Adding info about new study from University of Pennsylvania showing abstinence education works, also added info on two sources of criticism that have a bias against it for added clarity on their bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery3 ( talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss whether or not Category:Discrimination against homosexuals belongs on this article. The relevant sentence from the article is "The idea that sexual intercourse should only occur within marriage also has serious implications for ... particularly homosexuals living in places where same-sex marriage is not legal or socially acceptable." Two things:
I'm going to add {{ Category unsourced}} in the mean time. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I added a source that was easily searched out that was clear that researchers feel abstinence-only sex education is discriminatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.85 ( talk) 08:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you need convincing of anything but that is beside the point as reliable source is clear that it is. You seem to like deleting sources and categories related to gays so I guess others will have to keep an eye on things. 71.139.19.85 ( talk) 18:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Merely deleting content and categories will not change history. the Bush administration backed off sponsoring faith-based abstinence-only funding because it endorsed carte blanch discrimination against gays. If the article was written well this would be more obvious, simply edit-warring because you want to empty out a homosexual category does not make you virtuous and correct. 71.139.19.85 ( talk) 00:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
For adding to article: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0742039320090508 Rodface ( talk) 00:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The article states that AOSE "emphasizes the teaching of morality that limits sex to that within the bounds of marriage, and that sex before marriage and at a young age has heavy physical and emotional costs" but it fails to explain why its proponents believe sexual activity within the context of marriage is acceptable. Neither pregnancy nor STDs are prevented by a marriage license, nor does being married make either of those problems less serious. So why do AOSE proponents say "no sex until marriage" rather than "no sex ever, at all", which would be more sensible within the context of their basic premise? Pais ( talk) 16:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"Biologically, abstaining from sexual relations is the only way to completely avoid the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases that could otherwise be transmitted exclusively during sexual activity citation needed. "
Took this out because it has needed a citation since september. Also, it's not scientifically accurate--an STD could easily be transmitted to an abstinent person--for example, a cotton swab or used towel. Rare? yes. Unlikely? Yes. But possible. If someone wanted to rewrite this to say something to the effect of "abstinence is the best protection against STDs" and cite it, go ahead.
The article says, "However, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy studied 'three different abstinence-only programs, Teen Aid, Sex Respect, and Values and Choice" and found that for "high school students with the most permissive sexual values, the programs did delay the initiation of sex ...'", but the NCPTP made no such study. The quotation refers to a study performed by a third party (Weed et al. 1992), not research performed by the NCPTP itself. NCPTP describes the results of Weed et al. thusly: "these programs did not significantly delay the initiation of sex, although in one out of six groups of youth (the most permissive high school students), they appeared to significantly delay sexual initiation." I tried but haven't tracked down the Weed et al. study, but the claimed positive result appears very weak because it appears to be a post-hoc subgroup analysis, a notoriously flawed practice. (I need not mention that abstinence only education does not encourage permissive sexual values.) The NCPTP said that the Weed et al. study provided poor evidence for the efficacy of abstinence only-education.
I quote from the NCPTP's summary: "There do not currently exist any abstinence-only programs with strong evidence that they either delay sex or reduce teen pregnancy. However, this does not mean that abstinence-only programs are not effective, nor does it mean that they are effective. It simply means that given the great diversity of abstinence-only programs combined with very few rigorous studies of their impact, there is simply too little evidence to know whether abstinence-only programs delay the initiation of sex." In other words, this meta-study concluded that there is no good evidence that abstinence only education delays sex. On my reading, it appears that this study found no evidence that abstinence only programs are good for anything.
The NCPTP should not be quoted as having performed the work of Weed et al., work that should not be quoted in support of abstinence only education. In short, this sentence should be cut or re-written to accurately reflect the real conclusion of the NCPTP report, namely that they found no evidence that abstinence education effectively promotes abstinence. Flies 1 ( talk) 15:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
(unindent) It seems that when social policy is being formulated, each side will cite "the science" in support of its views. Like, "Doing X is morally (ethically) wrong". Then that side cites any study they can find (preferably in a peer-reviewed scientific journal) which points out the environmental, economic, medical or psychological harm of X. Meanwhile, those who feel X is morally/ethically good (or at least "not bad") cite opposing studies.
Would it be a good policy for Wikipedia to reveal or identify the ideological positions of people who cite scientific studies? (Maybe there is already a policy page that covers this.) I'm looking for one blanket policy that would cover editorial policy on a host of controversial issues. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 20:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The NCPTP reference is again quoted as reporting on a study that shows that AOE works in one subgroup. Whatever other considerations prevail, I feel strongly that the sentence reporting on the NCPTP misrepresents the findings of the paper in question. I will try to dig up the "Emerging Answers" NCPTP meta-study and put that in, as the Kirby paper quoted in the article seems mainly relevant as a reply to Rector. In the meantime, I'm editing the sentence to reflect the paper more accurately. Flies 1 ( talk) 19:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I have now removed reference to the original NCPTP study, which, as I said earlier, doesn't seem like an important reference on the subject. In its place, I have described a more recent comprehensive metastudy published by the NCPTP. I took pains to accurately reflect the tone and conclusions of this report. I originally had a few additional sentences regarding the reports recommendations for further research on AOE, but removed them for space considerations, as they seemed to put too much weight on the report in comparison with other material in the section. I left in a reference to the report's findings on comprehensive sex education (CSE), and as I see this as a potentially controversial decision, I wish to make clear the reasons why I did so. Basically, I wanted to provide context for the report's assessment of AOE. If AOE was unsuccessful, what difference would it make if the main alternative, CSE were as well? There would be no reason to recommend against widespread introduction of AOE programs, as the NCPTP did, unless there are other programs that are known to work. Indeed, this to me is the key point in regarding AOE: evidence for it is poor, whereas evidence for alternative programs is good. Without knowing that there is good evidence for CSE, there is no way to contextualize the information that the evidence for AOE is poor. Flies 1 ( talk) 20:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Flies 1 wrote (above):
Actually, according to NPOV, this is not the issue. We are not supposed to decide what "the collective body of evidence supports" because we are not a court of law and it's up to the reader to decide which sources and evidence and reasoning support any particular viewpoint. I hope that no one contributing to this article will attempt to assert one particular POV as true, as that would violate Wikipedia's rule against taking sides.
We should merely describe each side's arguments fairly, summarizing their evidence and reasoning.
Now, as near as I can tell, most studies have found that "comprehensive" sex ed does no harm, and there are only 2 studies showing that "abstinence-only" does any good. This information needs to be in (and stay in) the article. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 21:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible for someone to track down some citations for the various assertions that abstinence-only proponents claim Comprehensive programs promote or lead to more premarital sex? I've heard the argument before, but it'd be nice to find some article somewhere so that it's not just original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.140.144 ( talk) 10:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been doing some searching, and I can't find much in the way of stats on this topic. Are schools, by and large, teaching abstinence-only sex ed? I know my high school didn't. They DID teach that it was a good idea, but they also taught kids about the basic methods of birth control. Is this REALLY a big deal, or is this a political hot-potato that people are pushing when it's really not a problem. The only survey I could find on the topic says "parents are mostly happy with what their schools are teaching." If that's the case, why are people (many of them NOT parents of school age children) so up in arms about this? -- TomXP411 [Talk] 00:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
CONCLUSION: Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.
Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010 Feb;164(2):152-9.
--
95.247.62.132 (
talk)
07:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
First of all, the lack of a NPOV is obvious when you use the phrase "evidence does not support the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education," repeatedly. It also doesn't help when sources like the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, are used without providing context as to who they are.
Anyway, what's far worse is that it's even called abstinence-only sex education and not simply "abstinence-education," as it's called in the SSA. It seems like "abstinence-only" was an invention of the program's opponents. It'd be like naming the "Strategic Defense Initiative" article "Star Wars (missile program)."
I mean, I'll be honest: I'm not neutral and I think a lot of the "confusion" (to put it mildly) is the result of political double-speak. But isn't Wikipedia supposed to be above that?
I do appreciate that an opponent agreed that it lacked a NPOV as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epiphone83 ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I mean, I typed "abstinence education," and it linked to abstinence-only. This NEEDS to be fixed pronto. Like, it needs to be the other way around. Come on, guys. ( 75.18.193.140 ( talk) 15:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC))
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Utah/Gender and Economic Development in the Third World (Spring 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
I am going to be a doing a major update to this page for a class assignment. I will include my outline below. Overall my main areas of focus will be to bring in a global focus on this issue to see where the world stands on abstinence only sex education (ABSO) vs the US because the page is a little US heavy right now. In addition, I will be adding a gender perspective to this article as it neglects to discuss how the consequences differ for male vs females in the ABSO realm. As you can see in the outline below, I am keeping most of the current sections untouched - I simply want to add the global perspective and that of gender differences. This outline is preliminary and although I have done research I haven't completed it yet so I can't say what the entire result will look like. But this is for a class so it won't be half done, I will be putting a lot of time into these edits.
I am adding two sections under effectiveness that will specifically discuss the global north and the global south. The effectiveness of ABSO and STIs is very different when practiced in these two arenas. I'm then going to mirror the Sex Education page with the view of ABSO "around the world". These are the countries which I have good reason to think I will find the most data, but cannot be sure yet. Lastly, I will be adding the Gender Inequalities section. The sub sections are areas I hope to highlight, but the direction may change with further research.
1. Description
2. Background
3. Discussion
4. Effectiveness
a. Global North
i. STI/HIV prevention
ii. Unplanned pregnancy prevention
b. Global South
i. STI/HIV prevention
ii. Unplanned pregnancy prevention
5. Sex Education around the world
a. Africa
i. Uganda
ii. Sub-Saharan region
b. Asia
i. India
c. Europe
i. Netherlands
ii. France
d. Americas
i. United States
ii. Canada
e. Oceania
i. Australia
6. Gender Inequality Consequences
a. Ages of first sexual encounter
b. Extra-marital sex
c. Family Planning after marriage
Please let me know if you disagree with any of the proposed changes, would like to contribute or have references or articles (etc) that may be helpful. Thanks! 16:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC) U0552803 ( talk)
I have decided to revise this page and the page on “Sex-Education in the United States as a part of a class assignment. I intend to broaden the scope of the article away from the United States and explore international efforts and campaigns, the role of religion, pros and cons of abstinence-only sex education, and funding. Basically, I would like to bring the attention of this article away from the United States and more toward global impact. There are a lot of great ideas proposed on the talk page that have not yet been addressed that seem like reasonable enough suggestions. One of the main issues I see brought up is the terminology and language of the article being biased in one way or another. I plan on ensuring that terms used are the current official terms being used by accredited organizations and that the revisions are on the side of objectivity and fact.
I plan on adding a “Legal definition” and “Comprehensive sex education” section under the existing “Description” heading. I will add sections on “Teen pregnancy”, “STI rates”, and “LGBTQ relationships” under the heading of “Effectiveness”. I have decided to split the section called “Discussion” into two sections; “Rationale”, with the subheading “Role of religion”, and “Criticism”. This should help clarify some of the points the article was trying to make by separating them into sides of the argument. I have also decided to add a “Global impact” section, with the subheadings “Role of religion in sex education outreach” and “Impact on the HIV/AIDS epidemic”. Ideally, this will allow the article to expand to something more general than what is currently online. I would like to incorporate separate pages and links to the other page on which I will be working. I will integrate links to “Virginity pledges”, “Religious views on birth control” and “Teen pregnancy” into the article, which already exist in the “See also” section.
Is there any issue with any of these proposals? All contributions are welcome. Do you think that the "Impact on the HIV/AIDS epidemic warrants its own section or a note within another? BSchilling ( talk) 07:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Great work on the global impact section. If there is literature on it, I would add more information about the global impact of abstinence-only sex education, perhaps some statistics or the countries it effects, rather than focusing solely on one U.S. organization. You used a variety of sources to present a more diverse perspective, which was great. To further improve the quality of your article, focus on polishing up grammar and adding relevant images. I look forward to reading your future contributions! Aqjiang ( talk) 21:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank so much for all of these great edits! I believe the most relevant things you can work on right is providing more specific details about the sources in the "Global Impact" section in order to improve Neutral Point of View. Other than that, a few grammar edits will make this page very comprehensive and accurate. Good work! Magenstat ( talk) 00:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Cali11298, the way you edited the Abstinence-only sex education article is not the way you are supposed to be editing as far as the WP:Neutral policy goes, which is why I reverted you; see what I stated in that that edit summary. People commonly misunderstand what being neutral means on Wikipedia. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse; it means following what the sources state and giving them the appropriate weight -- WP:Due weight. WP:Due weight essentially (and usually) means that we give the vast majority of our weight to what the vast majority of sources state on a topic, and that we do not give the minority view or aspect too much weight. As seen in that edit summary, yes, I also questioned your newness; this is because I don't think that you are new to editing Wikipedia. And because I don't think you are new to editing Wikipedia, I expect you to follow the rules better than an actual WP:Newbie would.
Doc James, you worked on the Effectiveness section of this article; for example, here. Are you aware of any good scholarly sources that report abstinence-only sex education is significantly effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy, the spread of STIs, etc.? From what I know of the research, it is consistent that abstinence-only sex education is largely or generally ineffective in that regard. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There is not a single high quality source that says it is useful and lots that say it isn't. Thus we can say "evidence does not support". Calling science "liberal elitist" is not an argument that holds much weight here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
We state the conclusions of science as fact. We never use popular press and we do not use primary sources to refute secondary ones Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Cali is in fact correct here, in regards to the wording and the blanket statement. If anyone involved in this debate had actually bothered to read the actual resources cited in the article (instead of arguing what they think is the case) they would know that what Cali states is almost an exact quote from the first resource. And I quote: "Even though there does not exist strong evidence that any particular abstinence program is effective at delaying sex or reducing sexual behavior, one should not conclude that all abstinence programs are ineffective. "
Obviously some editors here are not only NOT familiar with the subject matter, but hadn't even bothered reading the sources in the article which they seem to state the exact opposite of what they're claiming. The first reference source, for example, repeatedly notes in its study that claims that abstinence only programs are ineffective is an INCORRECT conclusion. In fact, on the very first page of the study it warns AGAINST making such a blanket conclusion. I'm not sure why some did not bother to actually check the references, whereas with others this does seem to be a pattern. In fact, the first reference actually notes that abstinence only programs, while they tend to be less effective than comprehensive programs, can still demonstrate positive outcomes, hence the authors repeated stating that such blanket statements, such as those made by Fly22 are false and misleading. Again I quote: " A second program appeared to decrease the frequency of sex and reduce the number of sexual partners."
Cali, obviously there is a problem here regarding some editors and POV regarding certain socio-political issues. Even a quick glance at the resources, in fact the actual opening warning of the first resource, states exactly what you claimed about blanket statements. This is not a matter of debate or opinion, but instead incredibly ironic. I would suggest bringing the issue to the attention of other editors whom do not have the this sort of track record regarding certain socio-political issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxx12345 ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Doc, if you have the time, I would very strongly suggest actually reading the citations in this article. What they actually say as compared to what some statements in the article itself say vary quite a bit. So far I've read several of the studies cited in the article, and actually they all note that abstinence only programs can work and can be effective. They're all saying comprehensive approaches are better, certainly. Know in the opening where it says "Evidence does not support the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education.[1]"? The citation quoted actually does not state that, at all. It specifically states that this conclusion is actually false. In 10 such approaches, 2 of them in fact showed encouraging results. Not sure why the article states, literally, the exact opposite of what the cited source states. It seems like people haven't actually read these sources and just either lied or tried making up their own facts believing no one would bother reading their citations. Actually, so far, every one of these studies all say the same thing in general: comprehensive approaches are superior, but abstinence only programs can be effective. Literally every single one of these I've read so far all said that, Doc.
Perhaps you and others might want to read what the resources actually state because they're not stating what people here seem to think they state. People don't need to find more resources, they, including the editors, just have to bother reading the resources actually provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxx12345 ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Maxxx12345 ( talk) 07:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: Maxxx12345's understanding of Wikipedia's rules is obviously flawed. See here for why I will be ignoring Maxxx12345. Flyer22 ( talk) 08:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Also note that, as seen above, Maxxx12345 accusing me of making a blanket statement that abstinence-only sex education is completely ineffective is false, and that I attempted to compromise with Cali11298 with "generally" wording. Doc James did not like the "generally" wording. And, well, anyone who actually reads this entire discussion knows the rest. Flyer22 ( talk) 08:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This study from the late 2000s is mentioned in the article as if it were equivalent to other studies. However, its goal was to have less adolescent sex, measured by self-report 24 months later. Nobody else tries to get this result; they strive for fewer instances of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Why should this study be given so much WP:WEIGHT? I don't see its relevance. Binksternet ( talk) 02:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Teens being abstinent scientifically reduces their risk for STD's and unplanned pregnancies. No one disputes that abstinence is an effective means to reduce STD's and pregnancy. In fact every comprehensive-sex program include abstinence as an approach to prevent these problems, they also include contraception and other safe-sex approaches, but abstinence is always included in the approaches to reduce teen pregnancy in any program; no program shames anyone against choosing abstinence. (None that I have read anyway.
The major critiques of abstinence-only education is that barely reduces the amount of teens delaying sex, while also not teaching them how to use contraceptives therefore the teens will eventual have sex and then not know how to use contraceptives.
This study is relevant since it touches solely on the topic of a purely secular abstinence-only education nowhere mentioned in the article. It was also federally funded and is now the number one study cited by abstinence-only proponents.
For examples of how this study significantly impacted the debate according to the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html
"'This new study is game-changing,' said Sarah Brown, who leads the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. 'For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex'"
"Longtime critics of the approach praised the study, saying it provides strong evidence that such programs can work and might merit taxpayer support.
'One of the things that's exciting about this study is that it says we have a new tool to add to our repertoire,' said Monica Rodriguez, vice president for education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States".
"The Obama administration eliminated more than $170 million in annual federal funding targeted at abstinence programs after a series of reports concluded that the approach was ineffective. Instead, the White House is launching a $114 million pregnancy prevention initiative that will fund only programs that have been shown scientifically to work -- a program the administration on Monday proposed expanding to $183 million."
BUT "Based on the findings, Obama administration officials said programs like the one evaluated in the study could be eligible for federal funding.
'No one study determines funding decisions, but the findings from the research paper suggest that this kind of project could be competitive for grants if there's promise that it achieves the goal of teen pregnancy prevention,' said Nicholas Papas, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services."
In conclusion for the WP:Scope contention; this study has been the pillar for defending abstinence-only education and has been cited by the Obama Administration officials as possibly providing federal-funding back to Abstinence-only programs. Which is pretty big impact on this debate and abstinence does reduce Teen pregnancies! it is one of the benefits of being abstinent as the HHS has said in that Washington post article
After reading the wp:article you cited Doc James, I'll certainly concede my initial article was an improper source
Would this be the primary medical source your looking for Doc James?
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2010/02/theory-based-abstinence-education/
It's from "Penn Medicine is one of the world's leading academic medical centers, dedicated to the related missions of medical education, biomedical research, and excellence in patient care. Penn Medicine consists of the Raymond and Ruth Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania (founded in 1765 as the nation's first medical school) and the University of Pennsylvania Health System, which together form a $4.3 billion enterprise." John D. Rockerduck ( talk) 01:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll admit that I'm a novel editor at best, I'm not sure how my latest edits which included medical websites and that are NOT the popular press violated WP:MEDRS. http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2010/02/theory-based-abstinence-education/ Please explain how this violates WP:MEDRS isn't Penn medicine a medical review journal of Penn State? I seriously don't know how this violated WP:MEDRS, please explain John D. Rockerduck ( talk) 11:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Just a note there's been a brief discussion over at Wikiproject Med about this primary source cited in the article. If we're following WP:MEDRS, it should probably be removed, but there are three reviews citing it:
I haven't looked at what the reviews actually say, so I'm just dropping by to point them out to any active editors here that are interested in looking them over for content that shows if mention of the study is warranted here. The first review has 40 citations, while the remaining two have one and no citations, respectively, so the first source might be the most useful. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 02:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
There was a sentence on Christian right saying this
Numerous scientific, peer-reviewed studies show that such programs do not limit teen pregnancy over the long run. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
The two sources I added to that sentence are based on the MEDRS recommendation to search on Trip (search engine), at the highest level of quality, a meta-analysis and canadian guidelines.
A user is contesting this, calling for the inclusion of references supporting abstinence-only sex education. They propose five sources, one a Heritage foundation one, one abstinence.org, one from the "Institute for Research and evaluation" a group set up in Salt Lake City, Utah, to promote abstinence education interventions, and the American College of Pediatricians, an anti-gay organisation, along with one in JAMA pediatrics
A few comments - the paper notes "It was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected."
In the commentary: "A common concern about abstinence-only interventions is that they have the unintended effect of reducing condom use, ie, that children exposed to such interventions are subsequently less likely to use condoms if they have sexual intercourse.20,21,36 However, a randomized controlled trial37 and a literature review38 found no effects of abstinence interventions on condom use. Similarly, in this trial the abstinence-only intervention participants did not differ in self-reported consistent condom use compared with the control group.
The results of this trial should not be taken to mean that all abstinence-only interventions are efficacious. This trial tested a theory-based abstinence-only intervention that would not meet federal criteria for abstinence programs and that is not vulnerable to many criticisms that have been leveled against interventions that meet federal criteria.19,20,36 It was not moralistic and did not criticize the use of condoms. Moreover, it had several characteristics associated with effective sexual risk-reduction interventions. It was theory-based and tailored to the target population based on qualitative data and included skill-building activities. It addressed the context of sexual activity and beliefs about the consequences of sexual involvement derived from the target population."
One thing that stands out is that the "target behavior" is known to the participants - meaning that there are possible recall problems and pressure to provide socially desirable answers when self-reporting behavior.
Some discussion is here.
If anyone has opinions on whether that paper meets MEDRS then feel free to discuss on Talk:Christian right#MEDRS and abstinence promotion groups
-- Aronzak ( talk) 06:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
References
No abstinence-only sex education program has been shown to increase the likelihood that young people will delay first intercourse for any longer than those who do not receive such programs. This is in contrast to the results of "abstinence-plus" programs that strongly encourage youth to be abstinent but also encourage youth to use condoms and contraceptives if they do have intercourse; these programs have been found to delay first intercourse for an appreciable time period. Many studies with very strong research designs have demonstrated that programs with common characteristics, (such as that they clearly focus on reducing specific sexual risk-taking behaviours, provide directly relevant information, give students the opportunity to develop the motivation and personal insight to use the information, and help them develop the necessary behavioural skills), can delay sexual intercourse, reduce its frequency, and increase use of condoms and other contraceptives
Programmes emphasising contraceptive use and distribution decreased pregnancy rates compared with abstinence-based programmes, and with sex-education programmes without knowledge building (ES 0.1996 versus 0.0623 versus 0.0818, respectively).
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Could there or should there be a more substantive description of AOE (in general, all AOE programs) and those programs that qualify for federal funding? The programs that qualify for federal funding are a subset of all AOE programs, but the reverse is not true. It would also be helpful to establish that while CSE vs. AOE have been studied and found to have X differences in outcomes, but CSE fs. AOE (federal-funding qualified definition) has Y differences in outcomes. Skberry889 ( talk) 16:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Abstinence-only sex education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Abstinence-only sex education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
As seen here, I reverted HenryMP02 on changing "Evidence does not support the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education" to "Evidence is inconclusive as to the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education over comprehensive sex education." Some other rewording was reverted in the process. I believe that the "evidence does not support" wording was added by Doc James. HenryMP02, why do you believe this wording is inaccurate? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The section Abstinence-only sex education#Religion is not a section, rather a See Also list. When that is removed (which is necessary), all that's left is a wholly unsourced statement.
The section Abstinence-only sex education#Funding blatantly steps on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK among various WP:NOT. Please rewrite to remove the "I suck at term papers" tone.
Also, in skimming over the References, I note that there's frequent abuse of W'pedia standards. For starters,
More later, of course.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
16:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at Rice University supported by the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2014 Fall term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)