Rationale behind abstinence only programs?

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin
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

Um, that's what I was trying to tell you.

It's obvioulsy tramsmitted by skin to skin contact. Whether the virus passes through a condom seems to be a matter of debate.

The Public Health Agency of Canada apparently thinks so.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin
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

Um, that's what I was trying to tell you.

It's obvioulsy tramsmitted by skin to skin contact. Whether the virus passes through a condom seems to be a matter of debate.

The Public Health Agency of Canada apparently thinks so.

There appears to be no evidence that it passes through the pores of manufactured condoms; more importantly, it doesn't matter since in most cases there is infected skin not covered by the condom.

Anyone who tells you that you can have sex with someone who has HPV without a high risk of infection is lying.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gravity
Condoms have a 1 in 6 failure rate. Abstinence works 100% of the time.

Why give your kids a revolver to play with ??

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."

so because condoms aren't 100% effective, we shouldn't be encouraging their use at all? abstinence-only programs have already been proven ineffective.

edit: IMO, the answer is more education, not less. teens are going to have sex. short of castration, chastity belts, or locking them up, there's not much that can be done to prevent it. we should educate them about the potential risks as much as possible, as long as we don't go into the realm of fallacy (like the tears can spread aids sex-ed).

 

[Riprorin]

Do you think that your federal health organization just made it up?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Do you think that your federal health organization just made it up?

I suspect the confusion comes from the difference between natural latex, and finished product condoms.

You clearly think that "1 Lytle C.David et al. An In Virto Evaluation of Condoms as Barriers to a Small Virus. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 1997; 24(3): 161-164.
" was made up. (specific reference on the King County site).

Once again - for HIV, intact condoms prevent the spread of HIV if properly used.

For HPV, the question is moot - whether condoms stop the virus or not (and I've cited evidence that they do), transmission is still highly likely.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gravity
Condoms have a 1 in 6 failure rate. Abstinence works 100% of the time.

Why give your kids a revolver to play with ??

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."

so because condoms aren't 100% effective, we shouldn't be encouraging their use at all? abstinence-only programs have already been proven ineffective.

We should be encouraging abstinence and monogamy with condoms as a very poor fall back position for those who lack self-control and can't practice the former.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
We should be encouraging abstinence and monogamy with condoms as a very poor fall back position for those who lack self-control and can't practice the former.

You should be encouraging people to understand all of the risks of sexual activity, and make their choices based on that. Any other strategy requires a moral conviction that premarital sex is bad, or alternatively, requires downplaying risks, which is also counter-productive to the wellbeing of young people.

 

[Riprorin]

What do you think the pros and cons are for premarital sex are specifically relating to teens?

Can you list them out for me in two columns?

 

[Last Rezort]

SEX=FUN
BABIES=BAD
STD=BAD
ABORTION=BAD

 

[Riprorin]

Depression = bad
Suicide = bad

Link

The researchers found that teens who had not initiated sex or drug abuse had the lowest levels of depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts. The highest levels were seen in youth with patterns that included illegal drug abuse and risky sexual behavior. The scientists also observed that although girls were less likely than boys to pursue high-risk behaviors, girls who did were more vulnerable to depression and suicidal behaviors.

 

[Riprorin]

Fighting, binge drinking, smoking cigarettes, using cocaine or sniffing glue = bad

Multiple Sex Partners Indicates Trouble for Teens - More Likely to Drink and Drug, Study Says

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Depression = bad
Suicide = bad

Link

The researchers found that teens who had not initiated sex or drug abuse had the lowest levels of depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts. The highest levels were seen in youth with patterns that included illegal drug abuse and risky sexual behavior. The scientists also observed that although girls were less likely than boys to pursue high-risk behaviors, girls who did were more vulnerable to depression and suicidal behaviors.

Risky behaviours would include unprotected sex, I imagine.

What are you trying to prove?

Short of a direct moral imperative to stop youth from having sex, withholding information, or providing misinformation about birth control and STD protection can only do harm to young people.

You can't provide such an imperative that persists beyond the bounds of religion, and therefore you can't make a legitimate case to keep sex education out of public schools, which is really what this boils down to.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Fighting, binge drinking, smoking cigarettes, using cocaine or sniffing glue = bad

Multiple Sex Partners Indicates Trouble for Teens - More Likely to Drink and Drug, Study Says

There is a difference between sex being seen with risky behaviors and sex CAUSING risky behaviors.

Or are we arguing that otherwise good teenagers, when they start having sex, will start doing coke as a result?

 

[Riprorin]

You said that "You should be encouraging people to understand all of the risks of sexual activity."

That's what I'm doing.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Fighting, binge drinking, smoking cigarettes, using cocaine or sniffing glue = bad

Multiple Sex Partners Indicates Trouble for Teens - More Likely to Drink and Drug, Study Says

There is a difference between sex being seen with risky behaviors and sex CAUSING risky behaviors.

Or are we arguing that otherwise good teenagers, when they start having sex, will start doing coke as a result?

Read for yourself. I posted it here so you won't even have to open the lisk I posted previously.

Teenage girls who have sex with more than one partner in a short period of time are likely to engage in other risk behaviors such as fighting, binge drinking, smoking cigarettes, using cocaine or sniffing glue, according to results from a national survey of American high school youth.

The study of more than 3,000 female students appears in the American Journal of Health Behavior.

Having sexual intercourse with multiple partners increases the risk of pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and resulting damage to reproductive health. Other studies have shown that girls are starting to have sex at younger ages, and an earlier start to sexual intercourse often leads to multiple sexual partner behavior.

Donna E. Howard, Dr.P.H., and Min Qi Wang, Ph.D., of the University of Maryland, based their study on information from the 1999 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Out of the total of 15,349 high school students who participated in the national survey, Howard and Wang focused on the 3,288 girls who reported ever having sexual intercourse.

Among these sexually experienced adolescents, Howard says, 24 percent reported no sexual partners in the past three months, about 63 percent had one and 13 percent had two or more recent sexual partners.

Besides fighting, drinking and substance abuse, girls with multiple sexual partners were also likely to have had unprotected sex the last time they had sexual intercourse, another dangerous behavior that only compounds the risks of sex with many partners.

Sexually active girls increasingly limited themselves to just one recent partner as they progressed through high school, she notes. Ninth graders reported more recent multiple sexual-partner behavior, but then odds of having more than one partner declined for girls in the 11th and 12th grades.

One possible explanation, Howard says, is that the younger adolescents may be experimenting with their sexuality and intimacy while, by the late years of high school, they may be involved in stable, longer-term dating relationships.

While this may seem small encouragement to worried parents, it underscores the necessity to examine sexual risk behaviors grade by grade. Howard says that educating girls before ninth grade may pay off in reduced sexual activity and its negative health consequences. Ninth grade marks an important transition for girls, she says. Not only must they deal with a new school, but they may also meet and date older boys, and be exposed to changing norms and pressures about sex.

Howard further notes that since risky behavior is more common among dropouts or teens who are absent frequently from school, her findings may actually underestimate the problem.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
You said that "You should be encouraging people to understand all of the risks of sexual activity."

That's what I'm doing.

Most of those things aren't risks, they are 'correlates'. Causation normally runs only one way, and I can't see any evidence that sex leads to more drug use, though you only need to step into a nightclub to see that drug use tends to lead to more sex.

 

[Rainsford]

You know what's interesting, there is this idea that abstinence is the safest alternative for preventing STDs. But I'm not a scientist, I'm an engineer. If I was a scientist, I'd look at the fact that not having sex makes sex pretty safe. As an engineer, I look at how many people are actually not having sex. Abstinence as a theory might be great, but in practice it is terrible at making sex safe. Why? Because people don't do it. No matter how much you complain and bitch and moan, abstinence doesn't work because people don't do it (if you'll pardon the pun).

But can we blame the concept for peoples' failure to follow it? Maybe, maybe not, but it really doesn't matter. Abstinence is a flawed idea, not because not having sex doesn't make sex safe, but because people won't not have sex (that was a confusing sentence, sorry ). Advocates are saying "teenage sex wouldn't be a problem if teenagers would stop having sex". Maybe so, but despite all the attempts at abstinence education, teenagers are still having sex. It would seem fairly obvious that more education won't help, the problem is that teenagers are going to have sex anyways. So I think we need a better plan.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You know what's interesting, there is this idea that abstinence is the safest alternative for preventing STDs. But I'm not a scientist, I'm an engineer. If I was a scientist, I'd look at the fact that not having sex makes sex pretty safe. As an engineer, I look at how many people are actually not having sex. Abstinence as a theory might be great, but in practice it is terrible at making sex safe. Why? Because people don't do it. No matter how much you complain and bitch and moan, abstinence doesn't work because people don't do it (if you'll pardon the pun).

But can we blame the concept for peoples' failure to follow it? Maybe, maybe not, but it really doesn't matter. Abstinence is a flawed idea, not because not having sex doesn't make sex safe, but because people won't not have sex (that was a confusing sentence, sorry ). Advocates are saying "teenage sex wouldn't be a problem if teenagers would stop having sex". Maybe so, but despite all the attempts at abstinence education, teenagers are still having sex. It would seem fairly obvious that more education won't help, the problem is that teenagers are going to have sex anyways. So I think we need a better plan.

i am a christian, and even my church would disagree with those ideas by the other religious organization.

I dont think withholding information is the answer. Education is key to becoming a sexually responsible person. Everyone needs to be informed about sex, its risks and rewards. The catholic church rule that birth control should not be used is crazy. Stopping the development of possible cures and preventions for diseases is not the answer either because there are cases where the disease can be transmitted without sexual contact or by rape.

However, stopping promiscuous sex between unmarried individuals is not without its own merit. This should be an important part. If abstinence poicies arent preventing these teens from we need to do something else which will. do whatever it takes. Lock them up...Use Chastity belts...Create laws against sex for anyone under 21 who is not married...with penalties of fines or jail time. Sex needs to be regulated as such at any cost, because it does have so many potential risks.

I am not advocating removal or limiting of sex education... but something absolutely needs to be done to stop promiscuous & teenage sex.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin
You said that "You should be encouraging people to understand all of the risks of sexual activity."

That's what I'm doing.

Most of those things aren't risks, they are 'correlates'. Causation normally runs only one way, and I can't see any evidence that sex leads to more drug use, though you only need to step into a nightclub to see that drug use tends to lead to more sex.

Exactly my point. I realize that these things often go together, but that doesn't mean they cause each other. What's the famous statistics line? Coorelation does not imply causation, right?

For example, people who have a lot of money are generally better educated than people who don't have a lot of money. I don't think anyone would argue that having money makes you better educated. They might go together, but if I give you 1 million dollars, that's not going to make you any better educated.

For teenagers, sex is partially a rebellious behavior, like drugs and drinking and whatever else. Teenagers who are more rebellious are more likely to engage in ALL of those activities, but the activities themselves don't cause each other. A non-rebellious teenager who decides to have sex with his girlfriend isn't going to say, "hey, that was pretty cool...let's go do heroin".

There are tons and tons of examples of this. People in rural areas are more likely to own pickups, buying a pickup won't make you a farmer. Porn stars are usually pretty attractive, becoming a porn star won't make you any hotter. I could go on and on, but the point is that causation isn't as easy to show as people would like. And just because two things happen together, it doesn't mean they caused each other. Maybe they did, but you need to actually show HOW that is true.

 

[shortylickens]

However, stopping promiscuous sex between unmarried individuals is not without its own merit. This should be an important part. If abstinence poicies arent preventing these teens from we need to do something else which will. do whatever it takes. Lock them up...Use Chastity belts...Create laws against sex for anyone under 21 who is not married...with penalties of fines or jail time. Sex needs to be regulated as such at any cost, because it does have so many potential risks.

I am not advocating removal or limiting of sex education... but something absolutely needs to be done to stop promiscuous & teenage sex.

Normally I would consider myself a liberal, but that just crossed the line into Communism. (Practiced communism, not ideal.)

As with all things that people want to control, I have to ask you this. Why do you want my governent to control things that you cant control?. If you are not capable of handling your kids, why should I (as a taxpayer and federal employee) ?
Same goes for stuff on TV. If you dont like what your kids are watching on TV you tell them to turn it off. If they are willing disobey their own parents what do you think a slow, bumbling government can do? Aside from opressing everyone and making my life more miserable. (I also feel the same way about gun control.)

Teens are supposed to disobey anyhow. Being illegal doesnt actually stop the act, it just punishes them afterwards. And BTW, when people turn 18 they are legal adults. At that point it is perfectly acceptable to screw up their own lives or not. Depending on how well they were raised. Having served in the Navy for 8 years, I dont think its reasonable to ask me to kill and die for my country, but not have sex.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

However, stopping promiscuous sex between unmarried individuals is not without its own merit. This should be an important part. If abstinence poicies arent preventing these teens from we need to do something else which will. do whatever it takes. Lock them up...Use Chastity belts...Create laws against sex for anyone under 21 who is not married...with penalties of fines or jail time. Sex needs to be regulated as such at any cost, because it does have so many potential risks.

I am not advocating removal or limiting of sex education... but something absolutely needs to be done to stop promiscuous & teenage sex.

Normally I would consider myself a liberal, but that just crossed the line into Communism. (Practiced communism, not ideal.)

As with all things that people want to control, I have to ask you this. Why do you want my governent to control things that you cant control?. If you are not capable of handling your kids, why should I (as a taxpayer and federal employee) ?
Same goes for stuff on TV. If you dont like what your kids are watching on TV you tell them to turn it off. If they are willing disobey their own parents what do you think a slow, bumbling government can do? Aside from opressing everyone and making my life more miserable. (I also feel the same way about gun control.)

Teens are supposed to disobey anyhow. Being illegal doesnt actually stop the act, it just punishes them afterwards. And BTW, when people turn 18 they are legal adults. At that point it is perfectly acceptable to screw up their own lives or not. Depending on how well they were raised. Having served in the Navy for 8 years, I dont think its reasonable to ask me to kill and die for my country, but not have sex.

and the fact that the government thinks you should not drink alcohol until your 21 is also communistic? they both have similar consequences in number and severity, and should both be regulated equally.

I have no problem controlling my kids and preventing them from having sex. I want the government to control all the kids whose parents cant control them. Controlling my kids does not stop the spread of disease. it does not stop the peer pressure from those who are doing it onto those who are not. it does not stop the pain my child feels when one of their peers commits suicide from depression, or drops out of school due to a pregnancy.

Lest you forget or do not understand proper parenting, the best way to instill into a person not to do something is to punish them for the undesired behavior.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: sao123

and the fact that the government thinks you should not drink alcohol until your 21 is also communistic? they both have similar consequences in number and severity, and should both be regulated equally.

I have no problem controlling my kids and preventing them from having sex. I want the government to control all the kids whose parents cant control them. Controlling my kids does not stop the spread of disease. it does not stop the peer pressure from those who are doing it onto those who are not. it does not stop the pain my child feels when one of their peers commits suicide from depression, or drops out of school due to a pregnancy.

Lest you forget or do not understand proper parenting, the best way to instill into a person not to do something is to punish them for the undesired behavior.

chemical castration
daily "supplements" of MPA, you can put it in school milk boxes
gradually wean them off it in their early thirties, perhaps some testerone supplements to return the individual to normal sexual profinity
logical, efficient, effective

 

[illustri]

/thats "testosterone" of course

 

[shortylickens]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: sao123

and the fact that the government thinks you should not drink alcohol until your 21 is also communistic? they both have similar consequences in number and severity, and should both be regulated equally.

I have no problem controlling my kids and preventing them from having sex. I want the government to control all the kids whose parents cant control them. Controlling my kids does not stop the spread of disease. it does not stop the peer pressure from those who are doing it onto those who are not. it does not stop the pain my child feels when one of their peers commits suicide from depression, or drops out of school due to a pregnancy.

Lest you forget or do not understand proper parenting, the best way to instill into a person not to do something is to punish them for the undesired behavior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You'll notice I didnt bring up alcohol. I have many opinions on that subject but didnt want to get into it here.

I agree with you about parenting. But I think you ignored my point. If those parent cant control their kids what do you want from a govt that cant stop them from drinking? We all know its illegal. But they still do it.
And I do believe a smarter (better educated) society is the real answer to civilizations problems.

Dont know how anybody else feels on the subject, but I am all for spanking. Right up to the point that I can no longer chase them down. By that time in their lives I plan to have something else. Maybe cutting off their car insurance or cell phones.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What do you think the pros and cons are for premarital sex are specifically relating to teens?

Can you list them out for me in two columns?

Still waiting 3chord.