Most studies I've seen show that the ABC method of containing AIDS and other STDs seems to be by far the most effective, whereas abstinence-only education seems to not be nearly as effective, yet it's still promoted by the right as the only viable option. Why is this? What's the logical explaination for this?
Rationale behind abstinence only programs?
- Thread starter ZeGermans
- Start date
because teenagers are innocent little flowers and shouldn't be exposed to sinful things like sex.
Bible thumpers don't want our kids to be taught evolution, or the act of sex that plays a major part of evolution.
Condoms have a 1 in 6 failure rate. Abstinence works 100% of the time.
Why give your kids a revolver to play with ??
Why give your kids a revolver to play with ??
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
He got it out of his a$$ since it sounds so much better with the revolver analogy.
Condoms are somewhat over 90% effective in preventing stuff like AIDS.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,081
- 136
Abstinence only works if you're ugly
Seriously though, kids are going to have sex no matter what you do, why would you not want to educate them?
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Often neglected is that those statistics are annual failure rates, for people using a method consistently and correctly (not sure how often they assume you have sex though; once a week would be a reasonable guess I suppose). One for one, the effectiveness is much higher.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
Because in an ideal world, abstinence is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and the spread of disease...if people don't have sex until they are married, it kind of reduces the probability of there being unwanted children out of wedlock and waking up with nasty surprises in their nether regions.
However, we do not live in an ideal world...people will get horny, and they will engage in sex...therefore, under those conditions, it is noble to preach abstinence while also instructing people in the proper use of birth control and protection.
However, we do not live in an ideal world...people will get horny, and they will engage in sex...therefore, under those conditions, it is noble to preach abstinence while also instructing people in the proper use of birth control and protection.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
CycloWizard, who usually argues better than most strong pro-life/AO supporters, is promising a logical argument based on non-controversial ethical principles, in favour of AO, which I'm interested in seeing, though he hasn't posted it yet.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,028
- 4,653
- 126
The idea behind abstinence only programs is that some people like to push their morals so hard that they are willing to accept some very disturbing casualties along the way. To them, morals > everything.
Thus they'd be willing to have more teenage pregnancy, more abortions, and more STDs rather than let the kids hear anything other than their moral argument.
I, on the other hand, perfer to use logic. A recent study of kids who pledged to be virgins actually were more likely to engage in other forms of sexual activity than kids who didn't pledge to be virgins. Also those who pledged to be virgins were equal to or more likely to get an STD (the study was a bit unclear). Conclusion: that form of education just doesn't stop sexual activity.
Instead, I support an abstinence is best program but also include education for when you reach the point where you finally do have sex. Education is a good thing. People with this education are less likely to have sex, less likely to get pregnant, less likely to have an abortion, and less likely to have an STD than abstinence only programs. To me, those are good things.
Thus they'd be willing to have more teenage pregnancy, more abortions, and more STDs rather than let the kids hear anything other than their moral argument.
I, on the other hand, perfer to use logic. A recent study of kids who pledged to be virgins actually were more likely to engage in other forms of sexual activity than kids who didn't pledge to be virgins. Also those who pledged to be virgins were equal to or more likely to get an STD (the study was a bit unclear). Conclusion: that form of education just doesn't stop sexual activity.
Instead, I support an abstinence is best program but also include education for when you reach the point where you finally do have sex. Education is a good thing. People with this education are less likely to have sex, less likely to get pregnant, less likely to have an abortion, and less likely to have an STD than abstinence only programs. To me, those are good things.
Nor are condoms effective in preventing STDs.
"Condoms may reduce your chances of getting HPV, and should be used to prevent transmission of other STIs, such as chlamydia and gonorrhea. However condoms do not provide absolute protection because HPV is transmitted through skin-to-skin contact, and the virus is small enough to pass through a condomHPV is transmitted through skin-to-skin contact, and the virus is small enough to pass through a condom."
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Wrong - the AIDS virus can pass through the pores in natural latex, but not normal condoms; natural latex condoms are recommended for birth control only. Any condom that claims HIV protection needs to have pores too small for the HIV virus to pass.
HPV is spread despite condom use because the infection area is often not completely covered by the condom.
You should correct your government then.
Public Health Agency of Canada - What Everyone Should Know About Human Papillomavirus (HPV): Questions and Answers
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
King County???
Anyway, here's an interesting article:
"HPV is passed from partner to partner. HPV is a skin virus, which means that a blood test won't detect it. There is no direct test for HPV, actually: Pap smears do not detect the virus, they detect changes the virus causes in cervical cells. HPV lives in the skin cells, and genital skin-to-skin contact is the most likely path of transmission. This means CONDOMS WILL PROBABLY NOT PROTECT YOU! If the virus is present in skin not covered by the condom, and that skin touches your skin, you're out of luck.
That's what happened to me. I used condoms everytime, but I still got it."
Life with HPV is not very easy
Anyway, here's an interesting article:
"HPV is passed from partner to partner. HPV is a skin virus, which means that a blood test won't detect it. There is no direct test for HPV, actually: Pap smears do not detect the virus, they detect changes the virus causes in cervical cells. HPV lives in the skin cells, and genital skin-to-skin contact is the most likely path of transmission. This means CONDOMS WILL PROBABLY NOT PROTECT YOU! If the virus is present in skin not covered by the condom, and that skin touches your skin, you're out of luck.
That's what happened to me. I used condoms everytime, but I still got it."
Life with HPV is not very easy
Abstinence is a very effective birth control measure.
But you must remember that preventing STDs is just one reason why abstinence is taught. Sex is a pretty big deal for most people, its an emotional and physical connection unlike any other and so it is held in high regard by those "bible thumpers" you love to hate. Christians are the ones who respect sex, not the ones who abuse it and strip it of its value and wonder why STDs and abortions are so prevalent. Frankly it seems pretty obvious to me that if people didn't have casual sex, 99% of problems related to sex would cease to exist. In addition, I would argue that there are emotional and psycological benefits to such a decision, and I bet I could find many people who'd agree with me on that. (But probably not the people in this thread.)
But you must remember that preventing STDs is just one reason why abstinence is taught. Sex is a pretty big deal for most people, its an emotional and physical connection unlike any other and so it is held in high regard by those "bible thumpers" you love to hate. Christians are the ones who respect sex, not the ones who abuse it and strip it of its value and wonder why STDs and abortions are so prevalent. Frankly it seems pretty obvious to me that if people didn't have casual sex, 99% of problems related to sex would cease to exist. In addition, I would argue that there are emotional and psycological benefits to such a decision, and I bet I could find many people who'd agree with me on that. (But probably not the people in this thread.)
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
i thought the failure rate was something like 10-12%
but when used "correctly" the rate dropped by a bit.
the solution would seem to be to educate people that they can use more than one form of birth-control, not to tell them to use none.
to suggest that a condom is essentially as good as using nothing 1 out of 6 times seems like poor teaching skills.
but when used "correctly" the rate dropped by a bit.
the solution would seem to be to educate people that they can use more than one form of birth-control, not to tell them to use none.
to suggest that a condom is essentially as good as using nothing 1 out of 6 times seems like poor teaching skills.
whoops. went to edit and i guess i quoted.
accidentally triggering...just another reason to properly educate!
accidentally triggering...just another reason to properly educate!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter