In its June 11 editorial the Herald-Leader said, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” in regard to sexuality education.  Unfortunately, the article also proved that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing in the hands of a journalist.  The editorial blaming “abstinence-only” programs for the increase in oral sex among teenagers wonderfully illustrates how inadequate knowledge leads to false assumptions and bad conclusions.

The most blatant fallacy was in blaming “abstinence-only” education for the prevalence of oral sex among middle school students.  Only one middle school in Fayette County even has “abstinence-only” education.  And, be assured, the educators are very clear about the dangers of oral sex.

Abstinence-only programs in central Kentucky’s high schools (and the one middle school) not only make it a point to define what abstinence is – abstinence from intimate sexual activity, not just abstinence from intercourse.  The programs also offer explanations regarding the physiology and psychology of healthy vs. unhealthy choices.  Educators offer facts about pregnancy, emotional consequences and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including explicit information on the many ways they may be passed from one person to another. 

Some people believe that the idea behind the abstinence movement is to keep teenagers in the dark.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Abstinence-only programs provide teenagers with medically accurate information and much needed encouragement to make wise choices.  If teens lack information the abstinence movement is hardly to blame. 

Here are some interesting points to consider:  “comprehensive” sex education programs have been taught since the 70’s and STD rates continued to rise.  It is only recently that some STD growth, along with teen pregnancy, has begun to slow, stop, or decrease.   And it is only recently that the abstinence movement began.  Some studies indicate that this could be more than a coincidence.

What abstinence programs lack is the kind of mixed messages present in many “comprehensive” sex education programs.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has recently listed five comprehensive sex education programs as “Programs that Work.”  A closer look seems to indicate otherwise.  On that list are Focus on Kids, Becoming a Responsible Teen, Reducing the Risk, Be Proud! Be Responsible!, and Get Real about AIDS.  Though these programs usually give lip service to abstinence, saying that it is the best way to prevent pregnancy and STDs, most don’t go into detail about what abstinence means. 

Instead, messages like these confuse the meaning of abstinence.  The programs often list ways to be close to your partner without having intercourse like bathing together, engaging in mutual masturbation and sensuous feeding, etc.  They suggest using grocery store items like jelly, honey and maple syrup as “lubricants”.  A CDC endorsed website goes even further to explain how to use those lubricants with a plastic wrap barrier for oral sex. 

There are other phrases like “alternatives to intercourse,” used on Planned Parenthood’s website, that can easily be confused with abstinence.  Some of the “alternatives” include kissing each other’s body parts, stimulating your partner’s sex organs with your hands, rubbing genitals against each other and, yes, oral sex.  Some STDs, like Human Papillomavirus (HPV), can be transmitted during all of these activities, with or without a condom.

To be fair, these programs do strongly advise the use of condoms and other methods of contraception in order to “protect” or “reduce” the risk of pregnancy and STDs.  But this  brings me to another point.  Even worse than too little information is false information.

The “protection” touted by comprehensive sex education programs is not much protection at all.  According to the Surgeon General’s report last summer, there is no scientific evidence that shows that condoms are effective in protecting against the majority of STDs.  In fact, studies have only shown them to reduce the risk of HIV transmission, gonorrhea in men, and Herpes Simplex Virus-2 in women.  Other studies show that condoms have had no effect on diseases like HPV, which causes 99% of cervical cancer cases (killing more American women annually than does AIDS).  And what about the plastic wrap and jelly?  Is this safe enough sex for your child? 

When it comes down to it, articles like the Herald Leader’s editorial just disseminate the myth that abstinence education equals no information, an incorrect assumption that should have been researched.  What is at issue in this debate is not who gives information and who doesn’t, but what do we really want our kids to have—truth, real truth--or consequences?

Meredith is policy analyst for The Family Foundation of Kentucky, a nonprofit educational organization focusing on public policy issues affecting families in Kentucky.