From the Washington Post article:
Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.
"There is no data in this study to support the 'abstain until marriage' programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.
But abstinence supporters disputed that, saying that the new program is equivalent to many other well-designed abstinence curricula that are thorough, tailor their messages to students' ages and provide detailed information.
"For our critics to use marriage as the thing that sets the program in this study apart from federally funded programs is an exaggeration and smacks of an effort to dismiss abstinence education rather than understanding what it is," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association.
The study released Monday involved 662 African American students from four public middle schools in a city in the Northeastern United States. It was conducted between 2001 and 2004.
Students were randomly assigned to go through one of the following: an eight-hour curriculum that encouraged them to delay having sex; an eight-hour program focused on teaching safe sex; an eight- or 12-hour program that did both; or an eight-hour program focused on teaching them other ways to be healthy, such as eating well and exercising. The abstinence-only portion involved a series of sessions in which instructors talked to students in small groups about their views about abstinence and their knowledge of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. They also conducted role-playing exercises and brainstorming sessions designed to correct misconceptions about sex and sexually transmitted diseases, encourage abstinence and offer ways to resist pressure to have sex.
Over the next two years, about 33 percent of the students who went through the abstinence program started having sex, compared with about 52 percent who were taught only safe sex. About 42 percent of the students who went through the comprehensive program started having sex, and about 47 percent of those who learned about other ways to be healthy did.
The abstinence program had no negative effects on condom use, which has been a major criticism of the abstinence approach.
"The take-home message is that we need a variety of interventions to address an epidemic like HIV, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy," said Jemmott, adding that he thinks the program would be equally effective among other age and racial or ethnic groups.
"There are populations that really want an abstinence intervention. They are against telling children about condoms," he said. "This study suggests abstinence programs can be part of the mix of programs that we offer."
The problem with all these discussions is of course that the increasing polarization of US political and social discourse makes it more and more difficult to have a reasonable discussion of issues like this, which many people want to decide on ideological and religious or anti-religious grounds only.
Many parents, myself included, give their children messages with a marked abstinence content, in the sense that I have pointed out to them that early sexual activity does not seem to have good consequences, and that (leaving legal aspects aside) sex, though a good thing in itself, is certainly not to be hurried into as a result of peer pressure or a sense that one will be left behind the rest. On the other hand I do not give them any kind of 'wait till marriage' message either. Having said that, I also want them to know that the no-no above all no-nos is unprotected sex. So you could say that I am in favor of a 'reasonable abstinence + condoms too' policy in my private life.
How does one set public policy in such matters? Well, at least one can try to consider the whole range of the evidence in a non-polemical way, but always keep in mind the huge costs to the public purse in terms of welfare and young women lost to education and training as a result of high levels of inappropriately young motherhood.
Historically, the US has not done as well as one might have hoped from the world's leading economy in this field.