Destiny's Abstinence Programme Proving Critics Wrong
150 young people, primarily from South Auckland and of Maori/Pacific Island descent, will formalize their commitment to Destiny's Absolute Abstinence programme in Mt Wellington this Friday night. The commitment comes off the back of a comprehensive education programme that educates young people on preferred choices when it comes to sex and drug/alcohol use.
Since the launch of Destiny's Absolute Abstinence model, over 700 young people have enrolled in the programme nationwide, with a 78% success rate for those remaining committed to their pledge of abstinence. The pregnancy rate within the programme presently sits at 1.6%.
Not a fan of the religous Right I nevertheless prefer to see people benefiting from some sort of eductaion than becoming welfare dependent, poor (in both senses of the word) parents.
On the basis of the general 15-19 year-old population the pregnancy rate is 2.5 and the birth rate 1.3 but among Maori and Pacific it rises to approximately 5 and 3 percent (the latter are rough calculations).
If on the other hand Destiny's sample is weighted towards younger teenagers (most teenage births are to 18 and 19 year-olds) they may not be making much difference. More detailed information would be useful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Lindsay: You are correct that you don’t know much from their press release and you must know the ages involved as that is important. But it appears that a lot is missing from this report. They say they have a “78% success rate for those remaining committed to their pledge of abstinence.” What does that mean?
It could mean that 78% are celibate or 78% are merely committed to their pledge. And does this mean that a quarter of them have already broken the pledge? How do they know this? If they take a survey by asking them how many are still celibate than you can bet the numbers admitting they are not is much smaller than the actual number.
And we have to know over what period of time they are talking about. In the US abstinence programs delayed sex for teens by about six months. It did not prevent it merely slowed it down. But these fundamentalist programs had a downside as well. They discourage birth control, condoms, etc. So when the abstinence teens did eventually have sex they were less prepared to do so responsibly. They ended up with higher pregnancy rates and higher STD rates. Texas pioneered this program and their teens are the worst in the US in relation to such problems.
I also note that last year Destiny sent out a press release on the same program claiming “a 96 percent success rate”. Now it is down to 78%. That is a huge drop in their “success rate” however they measure it.
I suggest the following as possible. After the 1st 6 months of the program 96% of the teens were still saying they were abstaining. A year and half later 78% say they are abstaining. But there are 400 more teens in this year than last. If the US trend is repeated in New Zealand the newest entries into the program will continue to have a high rate of abstinence (due to the delaying effect). And most of the drop (from 96% to 78%) will be seen in those teens who were there for more than six months. In other words the same trend may well be repeating itself.
If that is true, and I suspect it is, then these teens will delay sex for a few months and then start having sex like other teens. But they will have been discouraged from using condoms so they won’t. They won’t take precautions since that indicates they are planning “to sin”. So it will just happen. And diseases and pregnancies will result in higher numbers than otherwise would have if they knew how to take the precautions to prevent them.
To see that they previously had a success rate of 96% go here: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0505/S00278.htm
Thanks for that analysis. I have written to Destiny asking if they will release further data.
I don't know why there is such hostility to abstinance programs.
They appear to work and there is a vested interest in trying to prove they don't.
My opinion is that the reason why they work is that the people who are given this education are members of groups who are receptive to these ideas in the first place and their peer groups are also receptive to this education reinforcing the message.
Thus the idea that it is ok not to screw around like rabbits and in fact beneficial not to falls on fertile ground and is supported and re-inforced by the recipients peers.
On the other hand modern culture and sex education suggests that if you don't have sex at every opportunity there is something wrong with you, remaining celibate until married or at least in a committed relationship is in someway abnormal.
Do not under estimate the power of peer pressure in this matter.
The sexual revolution and our 'modern' attitudes to sexuality have had a huge impact on teen sexuality.
If it is a cultural norm to remain celibate before marriage, the majority will. If pre marital sex is considered akin to something like picking your nose in public by the culture at large and epecially amongst those with whom you consort it will be rare.
If the one night stand is a cultural norm then the results will be teenage pregnancy and high rates of STDs that we see today.
Conservatives such as myself try and re-inforce the former (especially with our children) and try and promote the idea that sex is a beautiful thing which if kept in its place can help build and sustain long term relationships. And of course it is a pre requiste for the greatest gift of all - our children.
Liberals on the other hand (in my view) cheapen it and in many cases degrade it. A quickie snatched in the toilets of a bar does not do much to re-inforce the bonding aspect that sexuality can play in forging healthy human relationships.
Ian Wishart has just exposed a particularly nasty thing (whether or not a cabinet minister is involved as he claims). A sexuality not based on building human closeness (and creating the next generation) but one based on humiliation, degradation and the infliction of pain. And if you don't think that that is debased then I feel sorry for you.
If
Andrei, It has never been the cultural norm to stay celibate until married.
The sex drive in young people is very strong (lucky them). I always come back to the same thing. Work with the grain - not against it. I am not going to say to my kids don't do it - period. I'd strongly advise them against being casual about sex. It's physically and emotionally risky. Protecting them is my main concern. I'll weigh up how best to do that depending on circumstances.
Lindsay I respectfully beg to differ and I think the evidence is against you.
You know the NZ figures for unmarried mothers. And you know that has increased manyfold since the 1950s. Yet during the 50s contraception was not freely available especially not for the unmarried. The pill didn't even exist, except in a lab maybe. And abortion was illegal.
To be sure a pregnancy may have resulted in a "shotgun wedding" and who knows how common that was. But overall this suggests that sexual activity amongst the unmarried was far far less common than it is today. And that would be driven by societal attitudes and the consequences and shame surrounding unwed birth (or for that matter contracting a STD)
But the reality has to be when becoming pregnant while unmarried was stigmatized and shameful it was extremely rare for an unmarried woman to give birth.
The surge in unmarried mothers has co-incided with freely available contraception and the losening of our attitudes toward sex.
I'll also suggest to you that the rates of teenage pregnancy and unwed mothers in contemporary Iran is minute. The punishment for such is draconian (including the death penalty for 14 year old girls). Something to be abhored by the way not something I would recommend or endorse in any way.
Which brings me back to the point of my original comment. If you look at the data on people who have been through abstinance programs dispassionately it is undeniable that they have far lower rates of unwed pregnancy than those who don't. But it is not the abstinance programs per se that bring this about. It is a far bigger picture where these children are associated with communities which look unfavourably on unmarried sex and provide other outlets and support for those who follow this path. These children in many cases will have grown up with different set of underlying assumptions about who they are and what life is about.
And that is probably why abstinance education is such a hot button issue to some. The apparent success of it undermines those who preach the sexual liberation message.
bu
Andrei, I don't make statements without evidence.
"To be sure a pregnancy may have resulted in a 'shotgun wedding' and who knows how common that was."
In 1924 a study showed that 77 percent of firstborns were conceived outside marriage. By 1971 it was 80 percent. Clearly people have not routinely remained celibate until marriage.
"But the reality has to be when becoming pregnant while unmarried was stigmatized and shameful it was extremely rare for an ummarried woman to give birth."
No. There were 1016 ex-nuptial births in 1896, just under 2,000 in 1948 and 9,000 in 1971. (I very much doubt Maori births are included in the early numbers)
Otherwise I am not arguing with you Andrei. Changing attitudes to sex have resulted in casual childbearing - a bad thing. If you go back to my comment I said I favoured kids getting some sort of education if it reduced this. But I can't accept Destiny's claims of success without knowing more about them. And the first comment from anonymous certainly gives reason to ask questions.
Andrei seems to confuse scepticism with hostility. They don’t appear to work. They merely delay when sex begins by about six months on average and when those teens do have sex a greater number of them end up pregnant and with STDs because they are far less likely to take precautions. If slightly delayed, but higher rates of pregnancy and STDs, are what you call success then I guess you have an unusually definition of success.
After fantasising that they work you then posit a theory for it. Check your premises. They don’t work.
There is an obvious logical fallacy in the silly idea “if it is a cultural norm to remain celibate before marriage, the majority will.” Now conservatives argue that it was the cultural norm at some golden age of the past. If that were the case then the majority must have always remained celibate and thus there could be no problem today where the majority are not celibate. You can argue it was the norm and that many followed it but you can’t say the majority would and then complain that they don’t today. Somewhere that majority had to become a minority which is contrary to your thesis.
It is equally absurd to say that one night stands are the cultural norm. Celibacy is not the norm today but neither is rampant promiscuity. Between a virgin and a whore there is a lot of territory to cover.
By the way, while I don’t have access to the books right now, I remember reading a history of sexuality in Puritan times in the American colonies. The number of pregnancies out of wedlock was very high indeed.
Andrei is talking out of his rear. Texas implemented these abstinence programs in their high schools when George Bush was governor there. That was quite a time ago now. And they are among the highest teen pregnancy and STD rates in the US. Lubbock, Texas was a pioneer in this program and they now have a pregnancy rate that is 10% higher than the state average and the state average is among the highest in the US. The program has been in place for 10 years, surely enough time to indoctrinate the kids into celibacy. Teen pregnancy rates have fallen there, as they have across the US including the states where abstinence programs don’t exist. But the decline in Texas has been lower than the national decline. On the other hand STDs rates have gone through the roof there while falling in the US as a whole.
How can you say that “it is undeniable that they have far lower rates” of such things? The data does not support your claim.
In addition I pointed to Destiny’s own press releases showing that the longer time that passes the higher the failure rate. They started out saying they had an undefined success rate of 96% last year. Now they say 76%. Most the failures I suggest would be in the first batch to go through the program. So if you just took them as the sample and not the new recruits who would be more likely to still be holding to the program, I think you will find the actual failure rate for them would be around 50%. In other words give them a year and the first recruits are no different than the public at large.
And for the record I think abstinence for teens is the best policy for them to follow. But I’m naive enough to think that school classes will get them to do that. They teach English in the school and math too but that doesn’t mean the kids can write or add.
And Andrei you disagree with Lindsay at your own peril. She knows more about this sort of thing than anyone in NZ and can surround you with the stats to prove her point until you’re dizzy with confusion.
anonymous;
There is hostility towards abstinence programs, maybe not so much in NZ but it is a political issue in the USA in part because some programs involve federal funding.
As it happens I'll trade statistics with anyone fearlessly.
You say
"They merely delay when sex begins by about six months on average and when those teens do have sex a greater number of them end up pregnant and with STDs because they are far less likely to take precautions."
and cite no source.
Allow me to do it for you
After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges.
(I assume this is the source for your contention as it is the most frequently cited one)
Now if you read this paper and have any knowledge of mathematical statistics you will see the fundamental flaw in this paper right off the bat. The author has cheated and done so for political purposes actually quite commonly seen in the academic discipline of sociology.
Even without understanding mathematical statistics a close reading of the paper will reveal that the Author has excluded some number of those who (self) report Abstinence pledges. And there is much hand waving and verbal sleight of hand throughout the paper in order for the author to make her case.
And Lindsay herself has "cheated" on this very thread.
Here
"No. There were 1016 ex-nuptial births in 1896, just under 2,000 in 1948 and 9,000 in 1971. (I very much doubt Maori births are included in the early numbers)"
She cites raw numbers which I'm sure are accurate but she should cite this a percentage of live births, which of course would far more be revealing especially in light of this post above "Single mothers, many problems."
But we are all on the same page over the really important and fundamental question and which is "How do we get people to take personal responsibility for the successful raising of the next generation?" And this has always been a fundamental question for human societies. Those that do it well thrive and those that don't fall by the wayside.
A significant proportion of Lindsay's posts discuss this very issue and rail against the numbers of children who are dependant on Government support for their very survival and how parents have abrogated their responsibilities for their own.
And I agree
Where we differ, maybe, is the best way to resolve this (it can never be entirely fixed because humans are imperfect to say the least).
Teaching kids self restraint with regards to their sexuality may not be the full answer but each one who takes the message on board and goes on to live a life of self responsibility makes for one less person dependant on the state for their livelihood. And thats got to be a good thing.
Andrei said; 'And Lindsay herself has "cheated" on this very thread.
Here
"No. There were 1016 ex-nuptial births in 1896, just under 2,000 in 1948 and 9,000 in 1971. (I very much doubt Maori births are included in the early numbers)"
She cites raw numbers which I'm sure are accurate but she should cite this a percentage of live births, which of course would far more be revealing especially in light of this post above "Single mothers, many problems." '
Hang on there, Andrei. I cited these stats only to disprove your statement that births to unmarried mothers were "extremely rare". In 1896 they made up 5.6% of all births or one in 18. I don't think that is an extremely rare occurrence.
Cheating? Thanks.
Lindsay I put "cheating" in quotes on purpose. And the reason for that is you cannot compare the raw numbers from 1896, 1948,1970 and 2004 in any meaningful way.
If you say in 1896 5.6% of births were ex nuptial that is fine it can be compared roughly with the 2004 figure (not exactly because the very definition of marriage has changed in the intervening years). It would be interesting to compare the other years rates but particularly 1970s rate with 1896 because that is when a huge cultural shift in our societies attitudes to marriage, divorce and child bearing more or less began.
But you do say in 20042004 45% were ex nuptial - a huge difference - no? With those numbers at hand we can avoid weasel words like "extremely rare" and let the numbers speak for themselves.
"with a 78% success rate for those remaining committed to their pledge of abstinence"
How do they know??
Not being pregnant is the only test, and no one ever knows if the boys have been abstinent.
Could just as legitimately promote masturbation among and between teens as a means of "birth control".
Andrei, I believe the change in attitudes began before the seventies.
The percentage of ex-nuptial births doubled from roughly 10 to 20 percent between the late forties and the early seventies. Then the widened entitlement to welfare hastened the increase.
Correction. (I hate books that contain incorrect information...almost as bad as blogs that contain incorrect information:-))
I was a bit suspicious about the 20 percent figure so double-checked with the NZ Yearbook. In 1971 there were 8,981 ex-nuptial births out of 64,460 - just under 14 percent. The 1896 figure is right because that did come from a Yearbook.
My original source was Family Matters, Child Welfare in Twentieth Century NZ.
LibetyScott has a good point. And it is pertinent to the one raised here that Desitny has kept secret, so far as i can tell, what "success rate" means. You can't tell if someone is abstaining just by asking them. Ted Haggard told his congregation he wasn't gay. Ooops, he lied. And in this sort of surrounding the temptation to lie is very high.
If they have only 78% success rate and they are using verbal assurances as the means of determining that (what else could they do? follow them 24 hours a day?) then if people lie they have no way to know except by pregnancy. And since half their members probably can't get pregnant they start out with a strong "success rate". Unless Destiny decides to tell the truth about what this means the whole press release from them is meaningless.
And Lindsay is right Andrei, you said that pregnancy outside marriage was rare in the past and her numbers showed it was no rare. That was all she needed to do to rebut your claim and shifting the argument after the fact doesn't work.
Abstinence only programs would seem to be worst that useless, particularly in the US. Monbiot has just recently written an article on this here;
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/07/28/politically-transmitted-disease/
Post a Comment