The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
Truth, Lies, and the Abstinence Study: Right Again! Print E-mail
By Mary Eberstadt   
Monday, 08 February 2010

Beware that sneaky word, “triumphalism.” It’s neutrally defined by the OED as “excessive exultation over one’s success or achievements.” But it has legitimate uses, particularly in some of the less travelled areas of religious thought. In politics, however, where the word now makes frequent incursions, there’s nothing nuanced about it. “Triumphalism” has become an all-purpose weapon, almost always hurled by the political left against the political right and always with the same purpose: preventing those who can now say “I told you so” from getting to say it.

This brings us to the latest battleground where the word will be surely be making cameo appearances soon, if it has not already: the recent study of abstinence education whose results appear in the new issue of Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine.

“Dramatic” understates the conclusions reached by this new exercise in social science. Led by Dr. John B. Jemmott III of the University of Pennsylvania, researchers tracked 662 African-American students at urban middle schools to reach a result utterly subversive of the secular wisdom about kids and sex: only about a third of the students who attended an abstinence-only class started having sex within the next twenty-four months, compared to half who did after being assigned to other health classes (including, suggestively enough, a “safer-sex” class).

Just how significant is this research, the first peer-reviewed study suggesting that abstinence education might work after all? “Landmark,” as the Washington Post put it. Or consider the word applied by the head of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancya source, incidentally, that no one would accuse of being in the pope’s pocket: “game-changing.” Say what you want about the literary merit of its title: “Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention over 24 Months” has not only galvanized the expected religious and other groups shouted down for years with the feverish incantation that “abstinence doesn’t work.” It has also garnered preliminary respect from some unexpected and significant places.

Which is exactly why the contrary cries of “not really” and “no way” and “yes-but” rippling immediately through the rest of the secular chatter in the study’s wake are so very interesting. Sara Kliff, a blogger for Newsweek, summarized this weirdly obstreperous reaction in a single title: “The New Abstinence-Education Study is Good News. So Why are Liberals Freaking Out about It?”

Good question. And as long as we’re asking, how about this deeper one: Why was abstinence education fought tooth and nail by secularists in the first place?

One, because the people pushing the secular moral agenda understand very well something that nefarious Jesuits of yesteryear were also said to know: the younger the age at which the message is instilled, the greater the chances of success. That is why frank talk about oral sex, for example, long ago migrated from high-school to middle-school classrooms. It’s also why, if our safe-schools czar Kevin Jennings has his wayhe of the “Queering Elementary Education” school of thought even more explicit instruction will soon seep all the way down to the baby-teeth and nap-taking set. These people know better than most what experience and research have shown time and again: the sooner children and adolescents are sexualized, the sooner they will be sexually active. And the sooner they are sexually active, the more promiscuous they will become. Note well: these are not outcomes that our secular education authorities seek to avoid. They are outcomes they are trying to ensure.

Second, in a way that many traditionalists have not understood (though many proactive secularists have), abstinence research stands over a critical fault line in the sexual revolution. If the Jemmott study is correctthat students living in a sexualized popular culture can nonetheless be reasoned into resisting itthen certain currently forbidden corollaries also suggest themselves. Maybe throwing condoms and sexually explicit reading and contraceptive pills at kids makes them more likely to have sex than not doing those things. Maybe traditional religious teaching about these matters is not so much antiquated as it is ferociously and sometimes mendaciously resisted by parties with a terribly large stake in self-exoneration.

And if these things are so, then much else might follow that punches holes in one of the chief fabrications of the timethe notion that modern people, especially young people, cannot possibly understand or follow the old religious rules about sex. Thanks to “Efficacy,” these and more countercultural ideas have now taken a big step back toward the public square. As it goes to show, the American teenager may not in fact be a sexual slave, after all, but a thinking human being susceptible to arguments against promiscuity. Who’da thunk it?

Yet if the University of Pennsylvania study has unexpected implications for the secular side, there may be a different message in all this for religious traditionalists, too. After all, much of the time, watching the world grapple (or more often, not) with all the fallout of the sexual revolution, it’s tempting just to throw up one’s hands and move on. Maybe those compassionate secular people do have a point, we secretly think. Maybe society after the Pill just does offer too many temptations for ordinary mortals to resistespecially ordinary kids who already have social and other strikes against them and just can’t be expected to behave otherwise. Maybe certain people just can’t be reached, period. And maybe the better part of valor is to stand aside as the sexperts of the world medicalize and monopolize and morally dumb down what goes into their heads.

And maybe, just maybe, some subset of 662 African-American middle-school students just proved all of those condescending assumptions wrong. If you wouldn’t mind being labeled a “triumphalist,” you might even call that a triumph.


Mary Eberstadt is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, contributing writer to First Things, and a monthly columnist for TCT. Her latest book is The Loser Letters: A Comic Tale of Life, Death, and Atheism
(Ignatius Press).

© 2010 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info at thecatholicthing dot org

The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.
 

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (5)Add Comment
0
Well. What do you know?
written by Willie, February 09, 2010
Oh! I can just hear it now. This study is a throw back to medieval thinking. Back to the days when the Church controlled our lives, peeking into our bedrooms and condemning all sexual behavior short of procreation. Another example of irrational religious intrusion even into our science.This study is the work of Fundamentalists. The chastity belt is back. And so the liberal elitists are cringing, for only they know what is best. Well, too bad. Here it is. In your face. Abstinence may just work.
0
"Yes, but"
written by Chris, February 09, 2010
If only it were this simple life would be good, but in reading the study, it seems that it specifically leaves out religion. Supposedly the emphasis was on the consequences of early sex, STD's, etc. and not on any moral basis. That is the only reason the members of the MSM would dare even report on this study, much less praise the results. However, I have no problem taking miracles one at a time and in small steps. The results speak for themselves now maybe we can move further down the path.
0
Concur with Chris
written by JJS, February 09, 2010
One of the investigators (interviewed on NPR) made it clear that students were taught to wait until they can bear such consequences. I wonder if a different program, one taught based on moral principles (waiting until marriage) would have been as successful. While I support the RC position on the matter; more studies are needed to show the latter empirically. We'll Hope they'll show such consequences can't be healthily handled outside marriage. Note: this study focused primarily on 12-year olds.
0
Colorado & abstinence
written by Kim Miller, February 11, 2010
The state of Colorado embraced abstinence based education?

Ridgeview Classical Schools Fort Collins, Colorado taught abstinence in gender divided classrooms for years. Until the state embraced abstinence. Now you may teach abstinence, if and only if your teach everything else. Colorado requires health or sex-ed courses to teach everything or nothing. By statue abstinence alone cannot be taught. Wisdom? Unfortunate proof that "someone" really doesn't want teens to abstain.
0
animals or saints?
written by Dan, June 25, 2010
More kids than you might suspect resent what they are being taught. I teach abstinence to confirmation classes, often in lower middle class parishes. I ask them: "Doesn't MTV treat you like you are animals, as though you can't control yourselves and need condoms so you won't kill yourselves?" The implicit criticism in the question resonates with them. I add that the Church takes the opposite view: that they they are not animals, but all potential saints, called to seek holiness.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner