From Sampler to Sower

In my last post on this subject, True Love, Waiting and Purity Pledges, I questioned just how newsworthy the recent study by Janet Rosenbaum really is.  The study in question examines how effective purity pledges are in delaying the onset of sexual activity in teenagers by comparing students who report having made such a pledge with students from similar familial, religious and relational backgrounds who did not report making a pledge.

The study finds, ”Adolescents who take virginity pledges are not less sexually active than closely matched adolescents who do not take pledges, but they are less likely to use birth control and condoms.”

Previously, I reflected on what the first part of that finding should suggest about how we minister to teens.  Today I’d like to examine the implications of the second part of that finding – the fact that those who make purity pledges are significantly less likely than non-pledgers to use condoms or birth control if and when they do have sex.

Surprising Results

Actually, the study findings regarding significantly decreased condom use among purity pledgers who do have sex is not surprising at all.  This is something those who study the intended and unintended consequences of Abstinence Only Sex Education (ASOE) have known for a long time.

The question is, if failure to use condoms consistently and correctly significantly increases the risk of pregnancy and certain STD’s, why aren’t we teaching our kids about contraceptives?  Why do so many family advocacy groups argue against such education?

In part it’s a matter of perception.  The argument claims that educating children about contraceptives sends a mixed message. It is tantamount to telling students “You shouldn’t have sex before marriage, but we know this is an unrealistic and unattainable goal.”  And one can see some merit to the argument.

Take for example the actions of the Bisbee, Arizona school board who in April earned the attention of Family News in Focus by distributing gift bags to all prom attendees which included, among other things, condoms.  One can see how such action creates the perception that school officials expect students to have sex on prom night, and that such sexual activity is normal.

It is also a matter of implementation.  Those who argue in favor of ASOE point out that so-called comprehensive sex education (CSE) typically gives very little attention to abstinence. The Heritage Foundation’s study “Comprehensive Sex Education vs Authentic Abstinence: a study of competing curricula (PDF)” found that what they call “authentic abstinence” curricula devoted, on average, over half of its page content to promoting abstinence and 17% towards healthy relationships and marriage, as opposed to CSE programs which devoted only 4.7% of page content to abstinence and did not include any instruction about relationships and marriage.

These are both very valid concerns about CSE, and should give pause to anyone who wants truly comprehensive sex education that addresses not only the physiological but the emotional and relational aspects of sexuality.  But that’s where the surprising results come into play.

Despite the logical argument that teaching both abstinence and the importance of consistent, correct use of contraceptive for those who fail to abstain sends mixed messages, the fact remains: education about consistent, correct use of contraceptives does not increase sexual activity among students, nor does it decrease the average age of sexual debut. In other words, logical arguments aside, teaching students about condoms does not cause them to have more sex, or to have it sooner.

This is the truth about contraceptive education that eight years of ASOE policy at the federal level has obscured.  Despite research like that done by Sellers, McGraw, and McKinlay (1994), S Guttmacher, et al (1997), FF Furstenburg, et al. (PDF, 1997) ,  Mark Schuster, et al (1998), and Susan Blake, et al. (2003), ASOE advocates not only resist teaching about condoms, they attempt to hide the fact that such education has no negative effect (and according to some studies a positive effect) on the attempt to prevent teenage sexual activity.

In 2002, the CDC removed its online fact sheet for public health personnel  ”Condoms and Their Use in Preventing HIV Infection and other STDs (PDF),” replacing it with a revised version entitled “Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (PDF).”  (The former fact sheet is now only available from sites other than the CDC, and the CDC’s URL for the former fact sheet now re-directs readers to the latter.)

Among the changes in the document was the removal of any mention of the research that shows that education about the consistent and correct use of contraceptives does not increase teenage sexual activity.   Apparently the CDC does not want public health personnel to realize that education about contraceptives does not increase sexual activity among teens.

Implications for Youth Ministry

So, taken together, what do these two facts – that ASOE has the unintended consequence of reducing contraceptive use among sexually active teens, and that CSE does not increase sexual activity among teens – mean for youth workers and parents?

First we must take into account the legitimate concerns about CSE.

If we are going to teach students about the consistent and correct use of contraceptives, we must make sure we do so in a way that does not send mixed messages.

But is that even possible?

I believe it is, and I believe that we have an example of such teaching in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

³Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

⁴“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ ⁵and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? ⁶So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

⁷“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

⁸Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. ⁹I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

This story from Matthew 19 deals directly with the question of sending mixed messages.  The Pharisee’s want Jesus’ ruling on the legitimacy of divorce so that they can figure out what side of their debates he weighs in on.  Jesus responds by saying that divorce has never been a part of God’s plan for marriage.

“But didn’t God give Moses provisions for divorce in the law?” they ask.

Granted, none of this has anything to do with contraceptives yet, but notice Jesus’ response.  Essentially he says the divorce provisions there are to protect people from some of the ugliest consequences of deviating from God’s plan for marriage.  Hebrew divorce law provided at least some protection for the rights of women in a society that treated them like property.  It ensured that should a husband choose to discard his wife, he must release her from her obligations to him so that she could remarry.

“But it was not this way from the beginning,” Jesus adds.  In other words, just because God made provision for your protection, it does not imply that He is giving you permission.  Divorce is still a violation of his design for marriage.  It still has ugly consequences from which no amount of legislation can shield you.  And it still grieves His heart.

Did you catch that?  Protection does not imply permission.  If we teach our teens about the consistent and correct use of contraceptives in such a way that stresses this fact, I believe we avoid sending them mixed messages.  Especially if we point out that, like divorce laws, this protection cannot shield them from all the consequences of abandoning God’s plan for sex.  But that’s a subject to which we’ll return.  For now, suffice it to say that we can teach students how to protect themselves without implying they have our permission to reject God’s plan.  At least that’s what Jesus did with divorce.

If we are going to teach students about the consistent and correct use of contraceptives, we must make sure the protection provided by contraceptives does not overshadow the vital importance of abstinence.

Comprehensive sex education that mentions abstinence only in passing is less than comprehensive, especially given the fact that contraceptives only protect against some of the consequences of premarital sexual activity.  And CSE that implies that sexual activity is normative, healthy and expected for teenagers is far from acceptable.  But again, I believe we can instruct teens about the protections that contraceptives provide without falling into these errors.

Secondly, we must make sure that we do not exaggerate.

This too is a two-fold danger.

Some ASOE programs exaggerate the unreliability of contraceptives.  For an example, one needs only to look again at the changes made to the CDC fact sheet about condoms.  I understand the reasoning behind such exaggerations.  It’s an attempt to scare teenagers out of having premarital sex by making sure they know there’s no way they can do it safely.  And at the most basic level that is true.  There is no way you can safely engage in premarital sex because contraceptives only protect against some of the dangers. However, if we distort the truth about those dangers against which the consistent and correct use of contraceptives can protect, it is no wonder the student we influence are less likely to use them if they do have sex.  We must teach the truth about the efficacy of condoms and other contraceptives.

However, some CSE programs exaggerate the efficacy of condoms.

Latex and polyurethane condoms only protect against some STD’s, specifically those that are transmitted through the contact of bodily fluids with mucous membranes.  Some STD’s (and STI’s – sexually transmitted infections) can be transmitted by skin-to-skin contact.  Condoms only protect against these kinds of STD’s like Herpes and HPV when infected areas are covered by the condom, which is not always the case.

Secondly, the key to the efficacy of condoms, as limited as it may be, is their consistent and correct use.  If there is one demographic that does not use them consistently and correctly, it is adolescents.  Add to that the way that the urgency of sexual temptation causes adolescents to act without fully thinking out the consequences and you have a recipe for disaster.  CSE must stress that contraceptives provide protection only if used correctly every time.

Thirdly, while condoms, when used consistently and correctly, do a very good job of protecting the body from some of the physical consequences of sexual activity, they are completely ineffective in protecting against the emotional, relational and spiritual consequences of sexual activity.  CSE is not comprehensive if it fails to educate students about these additional consequences.

In our True Love Waits curriculum, we teach students that sex changes things.  It’s consequences are more than just physical.

• Sex changes our current relationships.  Time that should be spent creating true emotional and relational intimacy and forming the foundation of a lasting relationship is instead spent creating a premature physical bond through sexual intimacy, and the quality and stability of the relationship is thus undermined.
• Sex changes the length of our relationships. Sex was created by God to create a physical bond between two people.  And it does.  We become attached to those with whom we have sex.  As a result sexually active partners sometimes stay in unhealthy and dysfunctional relationships which would have ended long ago, were it not for an unwillingness to experience the pain of breaking the physical attachment created by sex.
• Sex changes our future relationships. It undermines trust and commitment by introducing the constant fear of comparison and the dissatisfaction that such comparisons sometimes bring.  It also causes us to bring the unneeded baggage of guilt and shame into our future relationships.  What is more, research shows the more times we break the bond of physical intimacy, the easier it is for us to do it again.  The relational glue of sexual intimacy, which was designed by God to strengthen the real intimacy between husband and wife, becomes less effective.
• Sex changes our relationship with God. One cannot willingly rebel against God’s clear design for one’s life without damaging this relationship.  Just as premarital sex introduces guilt and shame into our future relationships, it also poisons our relationship with God.

And while condoms do provide protection from some of the physical effects of sex, condoms can do nothing to protect our minds, our hearts or our souls.

Finally, we as youth ministers must make sure parents have the right information on which to base their decisions.

Whether it is deciding what to teach their children at home or it is being advocates of effective sex education in schools, parents need to make right decisions about what and when to teach their children.  And as long as we are basing our decisions on the faulty perception that somehow teaching students about contraceptives will cause them to have more sex and to have it sooner, our decisions will always be flawed.

Unfortunately there aren’t a lot of voices out there letting parents know this truth.  And as soon as anyone points this fact out, they typically are lumped in as “one of them” who thinks all teens will and should be having sex.  Parents need to hear strong advocates of abstinence acknowledge the fact that just because a teen knows about a condom does not mean they will have sex.  If we really are to be ministers to not only the teens but also the whole family, we must help families have accurate and complete information.

Click here to see the rest of our True Love Waits posts all in one place.

(photo courtesy of riekhavoc on flickr)