Tuesday, January 17, 2006

At The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez thinks the following is "good sense:"

"I'm always a little bit irritated when I hear the criticism of abstinence, because abstinence is absolutely 100 percent effective in eradicating a sexually transmitted disease," Mrs. Bush said....

Let me spell this out really slowly. The question is not whether abstinence itself is effective. The question is whether spending money telling people about abstinence is effective. If people are going to have sex regardless of what you tell them at school, then if you are serious about preventing STDs, you ought to spend your energy talking about safe sex instead.

In fact, while research has shown that educating people about condom use creates lasting effects, there is not a single study demonstrating any long-term benefits from abstinence education.


At 9:28 AM, Blogger Kate Marie said...

Alex, I take your point that the issue is which programs (not which "safe sex" methods) are most effective, but are there any studies that suggest that safer-sex education is effective in preventing STD's, other than HIV? [Condoms don't prevent some kinds of STDs.] I've read several things that have mentioned, in passing, an "STD epidemic" among young people.

At 3:15 PM, Blogger alex said...

Hmmm, I don't know. Obviously, I'm not an expert on the subject, and perhaps someone better informed would know of a study that points one way or the other.

Incidentally, the Laura Bush comment discussed in this post was made in the context of a discussion of AIDS in africa.


Post a Comment

<< Home