Abstinence programs: lessons in futility?

[conjur]

You live on a farm, Cyclo? You sure have a lot of hay around to build your strawmen.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Y'know, most of us figure out how to have sex whether someone explains it to us or not. It's not exactly rocket-science (well... for some of us it is😛).

Your patronizing attitude towards young adults is quite dangerous - more information makes people more able to make informed decisions, not less. If you want to indoctrinate your own children to not have sex for religious reasons, then go ahead, and good luck. Otherwise, why are you so interested in controlling the lives of other people's children?

Yes, people know how to have sex long before you teach them sex ed. Therefore, you have a choice: tell them that having sex is A-OK or tell them not to do it. If you pussy-foot around and tell them they shouldn't but, at the same time, show them an alternative, can you pretend that they won't be more likely to NOT abstain?

Originally posted by: conjur
You live on a farm, Cyclo? You sure have a lot of hay around to build your strawmen.

Maybe you'd care to point one out then. Of course, that would require analyzing an analogy, which is asking a bit much for this forum.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
You live on a farm, Cyclo? You sure have a lot of hay around to build your strawmen.

Maybe you'd care to point one out then. Of course, that would require analyzing an analogy, which is asking a bit much for this forum.

How about three of them?




"While I'd prefer you not use heroine, here's a guide on how to use it safely in case you ever decide to."

"While I'd prefer you not throw rocks at cars off interstate overpasses, here are the basic physics equations you need to determine how to throw them to hit oncoming cars."

"While I'd prefer you not play Russian Roulette, here's how to load a gun and fire it safely in case you ever feel the need."

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
That's because you're twisting the logic to suit your opinion.

A more accurate representation is:

"While I'd prefer if you refrained from having sex at such a young age, should you get into a situation where it happens, I want you to be fully educated on the dangers of unprotected sex."

"While I'd prefer you not use heroine, here's a guide on how to use it safely in case you ever decide to."

"While I'd prefer you not throw rocks at cars off interstate overpasses, here are the basic physics equations you need to determine how to throw them to hit oncoming cars."

"While I'd prefer you not play Russian Roulette, here's how to load a gun and fire it safely in case you ever feel the need."

All of these things people in middle/high school are wont to do. Do we teach them how to do it safely, or do we beat it into their heads that these things are unacceptable? By telling them how to do it 'safely', you're setting them up for failure.

perhaps it hasnt occured to you that one does not, in fact, require a pamphlet to have sex. heroin is (although a relatvily intuitive process) slightly more complicated as are your other example. sex is something that prevades all of our world. look around at how the objects around you work...kids grow up putting the right shaped blocks in the right shaped holes, building models, putting together puzzles and charging their cell phones.
they know how to put 1 and 1 together.

i dont understand how telling them the truth could possibly hurt them more than lying and keeping information from them.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
How about three of them?

Analogy:
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance

Strawman:
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2 : a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Still waiting.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Yes, people know how to have sex long before you teach them sex ed. Therefore, you have a choice: tell them that having sex is A-OK or tell them not to do it. If you pussy-foot around and tell them they shouldn't but, at the same time, show them an alternative, can you pretend that they won't be more likely to NOT abstain?
You can't pretend anything - you have no true comparison group. Across cultural differences, open attitudes to sex education lead to less youth-sex in Europe than in America, but that could be a result of other cultural differences.

I'm not pussy-footing around anything - but I don't think sex is 'bad'. It's a choice everyone has to make - and you can't make an informed choice if you're not informed.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I'm not pussy-footing around anything - but I don't think sex is 'bad'. It's a choice everyone has to make - and you can't make an informed choice if you're not informed.

And teenagers are well-equipped to make that decision after you tell them that it's cool and here's how to do it? Sure, sex isn't bad, but are teenage pregnancy and STDs? I'll assume that you will agree that these things are not desirable. Then, the debate is on how to decrease them by the largest margin. This study offers no insight into which is better, so it's a wash.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
How about three of them?

Analogy:
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance

Strawman:
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2 : a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Still waiting.

I believe his listed things which fall under definition 1 merely because those points are easily refuted and serve no purpose in the main argument other than to toss weak analogies at each other. I'm sure that if you really tried, you too could find analogies that sound very pleasing.

"While I prefer you not go into deep waters, here's some swimming lessons"
"While I prefer you never to own a gun, please take gun safety courses if you do"

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

And teenagers are well-equipped to make that decision after you tell them that it's cool and here's how to do it? Sure, sex isn't bad, but are teenage pregnancy and STDs? I'll assume that you will agree that these things are not desirable. Then, the debate is on how to decrease them by the largest margin. This study offers no insight into which is better, so it's a wash.

It's not a wash at all - most teenagers who are having sex aren't doing it like rabbits - if you're going to have sex a few times, and you take precautions, your chances of pregnancy or an STD are quite low, even if you're unlucky enough to happen upon a partner who DOES have an STD. Tell kids that condoms don't really work, and when they decide to have sex, why would they bother with a condom (they aren't exactly mood-enhancing, whatever else they might be).

Kids already know that sex is fun - they figure out how to touch themselves around age zero, and really never let up unless they're lead to feel guilty about it to a sufficient degree, and even then they just do it and feel guilty for the most part.

I had a rather extensive sex education in school, and never once did a teacher try to tell us that 'sex is cool you should all be having sex', so unless sex education is very different where you come from, I really think that's a red herring - nothing in 'give people information' implies 'encourage them to make a particular choice'. Attempting to coerce kids through fear and silence isn't a particularly effective strategy.

The way to reduce pregnancy and STDs the most is obvious - don't encourage people to have sex if they aren't willing to accept the real risks involved, be completely honest about what those risks are, instead of downplaying them, or making it sound like having sex is a virtual death-sentence, and try to ensure that when people do have sex, they aren't doing it in an irresponsible, unprotected fashion.

Whatever else you might claim, if you can make sure that every person having sex is using a condom, every time (unless they want to be pregnant, or are in a commited relationship with less disruptive birth control), that is better than a modest reduction in the frequency of sex, coupled with no emphasis on safer-sex practices. And AO can't even demonstrate a reduction in sexual activity, let alone a reduction along with at least equally responsible behaviour by people who do have sex.

Every time someone tries to make this argument, it essentially comes to a religious-moral position - that's fine if you believe that, but you have to realize that from a utilitarian perspective, the 'moral' path does not necessarily yield the most positive results.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
How about three of them?

Analogy:
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance

Strawman:
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2 : a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Still waiting.

I believe his listed things which fall under definition 1 merely because those points are easily refuted and serve no purpose in the main argument other than to toss weak analogies at each other. I'm sure that if you really tried, you too could find analogies that sound very pleasing.

"While I prefer you not go into deep waters, here's some swimming lessons"
"While I prefer you never to own a gun, please take gun safety courses if you do"

The argument from analogy isn't exactly a strawman, it's just a bad analogy. In fact it's very hard to find a good analogy for sex - you can't compare it to eating or breathing, because abstinence IS an option, but you cant compare it to something frivolous either, because the drive towards sex is very real. It is a completely natural impulse, but one which you CAN choose not to follow. I honestly don't think there is a good analogue for this in the human experience.

 

[conjur]

Ok...call it a red herring then. 😉



In any event, CycloWizard was just babbling on incoherently and he knows it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
It's not a wash at all - most teenagers who are having sex aren't doing it like rabbits - if you're going to have sex a few times, and you take precautions, your chances of pregnancy or an STD are quite low, even if you're unlucky enough to happen upon a partner who DOES have an STD. Tell kids that condoms don't really work, and when they decide to have sex, why would they bother with a condom (they aren't exactly mood-enhancing, whatever else they might be).

Kids already know that sex is fun - they figure out how to touch themselves around age zero, and really never let up unless they're lead to feel guilty about it to a sufficient degree, and even then they just do it and feel guilty for the most part.

I had a rather extensive sex education in school, and never once did a teacher try to tell us that 'sex is cool you should all be having sex', so unless sex education is very different where you come from, I really think that's a red herring - nothing in 'give people information' implies 'encourage them to make a particular choice'. Attempting to coerce kids through fear and silence isn't a particularly effective strategy.

The way to reduce pregnancy and STDs the most is obvious - don't encourage people to have sex if they aren't willing to accept the real risks involved, be completely honest about what those risks are, instead of downplaying them, or making it sound like having sex is a virtual death-sentence, and try to ensure that when people do have sex, they aren't doing it in an irresponsible, unprotected fashion.

Whatever else you might claim, if you can make sure that every person having sex is using a condom, every time (unless they want to be pregnant, or are in a commited relationship with less disruptive birth control), that is better than a modest reduction in the frequency of sex, coupled with no emphasis on safer-sex practices. And AO can't even demonstrate a reduction in sexual activity, let alone a reduction along with at least equally responsible behaviour by people who do have sex.

Every time someone tries to make this argument, it essentially comes to a religious-moral position - that's fine if you believe that, but you have to realize that from a utilitarian perspective, the 'moral' path does not necessarily yield the most positive results.

You just wave your hands and say 'It is so!', but that doesn't make it so. The entire point of this thread is to declare that abstinence-based education doesn't work. Unfortunately, the study provided in the OP doesn't support that assertion to any degree. I'm not impressed by your falling back on the 'oh, your opinion differs with mine, so you must be basing it on some religious position.' What a crock. :roll:

Originally posted by: conjur
Ok...call it a red herring then. 😉

In any event, CycloWizard was just babbling on incoherently and he knows it.

Not sure why I bother even reading your gibberish. You refuse to wage an argument and just attack me instead, but I fall for it every time.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You just wave your hands and say 'It is so!', but that doesn't make it so. The entire point of this thread is to declare that abstinence-based education doesn't work. Unfortunately, the study provided in the OP doesn't support that assertion to any degree. I'm not impressed by your falling back on the 'oh, your opinion differs with mine, so you must be basing it on some religious position.' What a crock. :roll:

Sadly for your argument, the best available evidence suggests that AO does not accomplish much - a better comparison, however, would be between full-education and AO, within the same state, or 'similar' states.

I don't mind that your opinion differs from mine - I'm challenging you to provide evidenc,( or even a well-reasoned argument!) that restricting access to information aloows people to make better, more informed choices. I really don't think you can do it, because I don't think it can be done.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Ok...call it a red herring then. 😉

In any event, CycloWizard was just babbling on incoherently and he knows it.

Not sure why I bother even reading your gibberish. You refuse to wage an argument and just attack me instead, but I fall for it every time.

When you engage your logic circuits, why don't post a thread and ask the mods to sticky it so we'll all know.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Sadly for your argument, the best available evidence suggests that AO does not accomplish much - a better comparison, however, would be between full-education and AO, within the same state, or 'similar' states.

Great, AO doesn't do much. How much, relatively speaking, does safe-sex ed do? You can't say, can you? That's the entire point - you're just waving your hands and assuming that it would be better.

I don't mind that your opinion differs from mine - I'm challenging you to provide evidenc,( or even a well-reasoned argument!) that restricting access to information aloows people to make better, more informed choices. I really don't think you can do it, because I don't think it can be done.

There's a difference between restricting access to information and actively presenting information. By teaching something in public schools, you're saying that whatever it is is OK - even that it is supported.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
When you engage your logic circuits, why don't post a thread and ask the mods to sticky it so we'll all know.

LOL... You're going to tell me about logic? You're a waste of perfectly good air.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
When you engage your logic circuits, why don't post a thread and ask the mods to sticky it so we'll all know.

LOL... You're going to tell me about logic? You're a waste of perfectly good air.

I'm not the one that went off on babbling tangents, am I? Nope.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Sadly for your argument, the best available evidence suggests that AO does not accomplish much - a better comparison, however, would be between full-education and AO, within the same state, or 'similar' states.

Great, AO doesn't do much. How much, relatively speaking, does safe-sex ed do? You can't say, can you? That's the entire point - you're just waving your hands and assuming that it would be better.

I don't mind that your opinion differs from mine - I'm challenging you to provide evidenc,( or even a well-reasoned argument!) that restricting access to information aloows people to make better, more informed choices. I really don't think you can do it, because I don't think it can be done.

There's a difference between restricting access to information and actively presenting information. By teaching something in public schools, you're saying that whatever it is is OK - even that it is supported.

I seem to recall being taught about what constitutes plagiarism, and probably learned enough to do it without being caught. I didn't interpret that as encouraging me to do so - do you?

Unfortunately, the best available evidence is cross-cultural and international, but you'll find that Cubans have safer sex than their no-condoms-allowed African equals. ('coincidentally', they're one of the few 3rd-world-ish nations to avoid a true AIDs problem).

By teaching it in public schools, you're saying 'if you decide to do this, here is what you should know'. My classes certainly emphasized that there is exactly one way to have zero risk of 'bad outcomes' from sex. To claim that sex-education encourages sex is a red herring - there is no reason for that to be the case.

Edit - I also learned that if you are involved in injection drugs, it is extremely important for your safety that you not share needles - does that mean the school was trying to get me to use injectible drugs? I hope not, because if so, they failed miserably.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I seem to recall being taught about what constitutes plagiarism, and probably learned enough to do it without being caught. I didn't interpret that as encouraging me to do so - do you?

Are you going to threaten to kick kids out of school if they get caught having sex? They tell you what plagiarism is - and tell you that if you do it, you're done. You're doing the opposite - telling teens what sex is and how to get away with it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I seem to recall being taught about what constitutes plagiarism, and probably learned enough to do it without being caught. I didn't interpret that as encouraging me to do so - do you?

Are you going to threaten to kick kids out of school if they get caught having sex? They tell you what plagiarism is - and tell you that if you do it, you're done. You're doing the opposite - telling teens what sex is and how to get away with it.

How to get away with it? If they are going to have sex wouldn't you want them to know how to get away with it meaning not get pregnant, get STD's or Aids?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How to get away with it? If they are going to have sex wouldn't you want them to know how to get away with it meaning not get pregnant, get STD's or Aids?

"If they are going to have sex". As both sides have been stating all along in this thread, there will be people who do or don't have sex regardless of which sex ed method is applied. Some people who will have sex will or will not practice safe sex regardless of which sex ed method is applied. Therefore, the question is whether or not we can decrease the number having sex via abstinence-only education or if we should just skip that and move straight to safe sex education.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How to get away with it? If they are going to have sex wouldn't you want them to know how to get away with it meaning not get pregnant, get STD's or Aids?

"If they are going to have sex". As both sides have been stating all along in this thread, there will be people who do or don't have sex regardless of which sex ed method is applied. Some people who will have sex will or will not practice safe sex regardless of which sex ed method is applied. Therefore, the question is whether or not we can decrease the number having sex via abstinence-only education or if we should just skip that and move straight to safe sex education.

I think the better question is whether sex-ed leads to people who do have sex, having safer sex.

The answer to that is pretty clear, when you look at nations which do and do not encourage safe sex practices. AO is working really well in Africa.

BTW what is 'getting away with it'?

Doesn't that presume that having sex is wrong?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How to get away with it? If they are going to have sex wouldn't you want them to know how to get away with it meaning not get pregnant, get STD's or Aids?

"If they are going to have sex". As both sides have been stating all along in this thread, there will be people who do or don't have sex regardless of which sex ed method is applied. Some people who will have sex will or will not practice safe sex regardless of which sex ed method is applied. Therefore, the question is whether or not we can decrease the number having sex via abstinence-only education or if we should just skip that and move straight to safe sex education.

Actually, we kind of the beginning of a more analytical equation here.

1. I think we can safely say that birth control deson't always work. Therefore even if 100% of the people not adhering to abstinance use it, there will be some accidental pregnancies and STDs

2. If we taught only abstinance only there will be some people that ignore that nad have kids anyway. They will have a much higher chance of getting pregnant or catching an STD.

So really what it comes down to is in which case do we have the most unwanted pregnancies and STD's because both cases are far from perfect. Also, I think this needs to be a more inclusive discusion of all ages. The 30 year old single is as much a part of this discusion as anyone else. You can assume that they will know how to use birth control but in an abstiance only world, birth control has a negative connotation and is far less likely to be used. Abstinance only was realistic ina world where the average age to marry was 18 but not in modern society where people wait till 28+ to get married. Like I mentioned before the only people I knew to get pregnant accidentally where taught abstinance only. Both have value and both should be taught.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I think the better question is whether sex-ed leads to people who do have sex, having safer sex.

The answer to that is pretty clear, when you look at nations which do and do not encourage safe sex practices. AO is working really well in Africa.

BTW what is 'getting away with it'?

Doesn't that presume that having sex is wrong?

What it comes down to is that you still have no evidence of safe sex education working. It's been employed in this country for decades - where are the results?

'Getting away with it' indicates that they didn't catch an STD or become pregnant/impregnate someone.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I think the better question is whether sex-ed leads to people who do have sex, having safer sex.

The answer to that is pretty clear, when you look at nations which do and do not encourage safe sex practices. AO is working really well in Africa.

BTW what is 'getting away with it'?

Doesn't that presume that having sex is wrong?

What it comes down to is that you still have no evidence of safe sex education working. It's been employed in this country for decades - where are the results?

'Getting away with it' indicates that they didn't catch an STD or become pregnant/impregnate someone.

It works across international boundaries - there's always a problem with this sort of thing though.

If I said to you, 'we want to study sex education, and we want your child in the study; they will either receive full sex-ed, AO, or no education at all, and the assignment will be random' what would you say, as a parent?

You work with what you have - it's clear that sex education encourages safer sex behaviour, but as far as its effect on abstinence, in the absence of within-state studies, it's really hard to say due to cultural differences.