Surprise, surprise . . . abstinence only ed sux

[BaliBabyDoc]

CNN

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Teens who pledge to remain virgins until marriage have the same rates of sexually transmitted diseases as those who don't pledge abstinence, according to a study that examined the sex lives of 12,000 adolescents.

Those who make a public pledge to abstain until marriage delay sex, have fewer sex partners and get married earlier, according to the data, gathered from adolescents ages 12 to 18 who were questioned again six years later. But the two groups' STD rates were statistically similar.

The problem, the study found, is that those virginity "pledgers" are much less likely to use condoms.
------------------------------------------------------------
The study also found that in communities where at least 20 percent of adolescents pledged the STD rates for everyone combined was 8.9 percent. In communities with less than 7 percent pledgers, the STD rate was 5.5 percent.

"It is the combination of hidden sex and unsafe sex that creates a world where people underestimate the risk of STDs," Bearman said.

Interesting study . . . and take note this study is under peer-review.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sux?

Sorry, no it doesn't. I checked. I'm not that double jointed.

 

[BDawg]

But, the bible says it doesn't suck. Counter that...

 

[daniel1113]

Hahaha... this article is pointless.

Of course just about any group of people that participates in sexual intercourse will have a similar STD rate... they are all having sex whether or not they pledged abstinence or not.

However, I guarantee those that chose abstinence and stuck with it didn't have a single STD.

 

[alphatarget1]

maybe it's time for conservatives to realize that when two teenagers of opposite sex are laying around the bed naked they'd want to have sex?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
maybe it's time for conservatives to realize that when two teenagers of opposite sex are laying around the bed naked they'd want to have sex?

Since teenagers are always just laying around naked on a bed...
It's not like non sexually active teenagers don't have urges, they just realize the importance of controlling them. It's called self-control, try it sometime.

 

[DealMonkey]

Somehow, the results of this study don't surprise me. Plus, the more you ask teenagers not to do something, the more they're gonna do it. You can take those statistics to the bank.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Hahaha... this article is pointless.

Of course just about any group of people that participates in sexual intercourse will have a similar STD rate... they are all having sex whether or not they pledged abstinence or not.

However, I guarantee those that chose abstinence and stuck with it didn't have a single STD.

Good job of missing the entire point of the article.

Those who pledged abstinence failed to remain abstinent and obtained STDs in roughly the same % as those who didn't pledge abstinence.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Hahaha... this article is pointless.

Of course just about any group of people that participates in sexual intercourse will have a similar STD rate... they are all having sex whether or not they pledged abstinence or not.

However, I guarantee those that chose abstinence and stuck with it didn't have a single STD.

Good job of missing the entire point of the article.

Those who pledged abstinence failed to remain abstinent and obtained STDs in roughly the same % as those who didn't pledge abstinence.

Didn't miss the point, Conjur. However, unlike you, I am able to see the real story in this article.

If all of the teens that pledged abstinence went out and had "protected" sex instead, the STD rate would have been much higher. So, abstinence is the way to go if you have the will power and desire to do it (or not do "it").

Not to mention, millions of dollars is spent each year on sexual education in schools, and it has the same STD rate as free education? Abstinence isn't the option that "sux" here. Sorry.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course it sux, it's supposed to.

The abstinence only crowd is really opposed to any kind of sex-ed at all. By creating programs that don't work, they'll be able to point out the obvious, use that a a reason to stop sex-ed altogether. self-fulfilling prophesy.

Much the same methods are being applied to SS and Public Schools.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Hahaha... this article is pointless.

Of course just about any group of people that participates in sexual intercourse will have a similar STD rate... they are all having sex whether or not they pledged abstinence or not.

However, I guarantee those that chose abstinence and stuck with it didn't have a single STD.

Good job of missing the entire point of the article.

Those who pledged abstinence failed to remain abstinent and obtained STDs in roughly the same % as those who didn't pledge abstinence.

Didn't miss the point, Conjur. However, unlike you, I am able to see the real story in this article.

If all of the teens that pledged abstinence went out and had "protected" sex instead, the STD rate would have been much higher. So, abstinence is the way to go if you have the will power and desire to do it (or not do "it").

Not to mention, millions of dollars is spent each year on sexual education in schools, and it has the same STD rate as free education? Abstinence isn't the option that "sux" here. Sorry.

Nope, you missed it. Sailed right over your head.

The study also found that in communities where at least 20 percent of adolescents pledged the STD rates for everyone combined was 8.9 percent. In communities with less than 7 percent pledgers, the STD rate was 5.5 percent.

The STD rate was lower in communities where fewer people pledged abstinence. That means those pledging abstinence are failing to remain celibate and are having more unprotected sex as they are not taught about protection.

 

[DealMonkey]

Yup, abstinence programs: Just more faith-based nonsense that doesn't work -- right HoP? Let's keep our kids totally ignorant and wag our fingers at them not to have sex. Sure, that'll work. Oh brother.

Someone should alert the Department of Health and Human Services that there's a problem. We wouldn't want them to spend $73 Million in FY2004 for no good reason . . . Christ, they've already wasted $55 Mil last year.

 

[b0mbrman]

and get married earlier, according to the data

The study also found that in communities where at least 20 percent of adolescents pledged the STD rates for everyone combined was 8.9 percent. In communities with less than 7 percent pledgers, the STD rate was 5.5 percent.

As this wasn't a controlled experiment, you could probably give a lot more credit to the kids' socioeconomic background...

I'm sure we all have our ideas of what sort of kids are taking this "pledge"

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Good point. Just asking kids to make a pledge is wreckless. You need to give kids practical advice and constant encouragement.

In any case, the only argument against abstinence is that it's too hard to adhere to. Ha. Send your teenage daughter to volunteer at a homeless single-mother hostel for a month (i.e. give her sufficient input on the possibly negatives because they're bombarded with the positives on TV every day) and see how easily she stays with abstinence.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Good point. Just asking kids to make a pledge is wreckless. You need to give kids practical advice and constant encouragement.

In any case, the only argument against abstinence is that it's too hard to adhere to. Ha. Send your teenage daughter to volunteer at a homeless single-mother hostel for a month (i.e. give her sufficient input on the possibly negatives because they're bombarded with the positives on TV every day) and see how easily she stays with abstinence.

Better yet, get her on birth control pills and show her how to use condoms and why only condoms can prevent STDs.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Good point. Just asking kids to make a pledge is wreckless. You need to give kids practical advice and constant encouragement.

In any case, the only argument against abstinence is that it's too hard to adhere to. Ha. Send your teenage daughter to volunteer at a homeless single-mother hostel for a month (i.e. give her sufficient input on the possibly negatives because they're bombarded with the positives on TV every day) and see how easily she stays with abstinence.

Better yet, get her on birth control pills and show her how to use condoms and why only condoms can prevent STDs.

Only abstinence can prevent STDs Condoms don't protect you against everything and are not 100% effective.

CkG

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Good point. Just asking kids to make a pledge is wreckless. You need to give kids practical advice and constant encouragement.

In any case, the only argument against abstinence is that it's too hard to adhere to. Ha. Send your teenage daughter to volunteer at a homeless single-mother hostel for a month (i.e. give her sufficient input on the possibly negatives because they're bombarded with the positives on TV every day) and see how easily she stays with abstinence.

Better yet, get her on birth control pills and show her how to use condoms and why only condoms can prevent STDs.

Yes, because condoms protect you from the psychological damage as well.

All I'm suggesting is that you let your kids observe the possible negative results of sex. It's called educating them. Teach them about birth-control too if you like. Do you have a problem with my suggestion? Is it not the wisest course to always know the positives and negatives?

And condoms can't prevent STDs, they just lower your chances. Abstinence prevents 100% of STDs and unwanted pregnancy and psychological trauma.

 

[DealMonkey]

Sure I would definitely encourage them NOT to have sex if at all possible. What I primarily object to are the faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed and a good strong knowledge base for these kids. A two-pronged approach might be most effective of all.

What "psychological damage" are you referring to?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Sure I would definitely encourage them NOT to have sex if at all possible. What I primarily object to are the faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed and a good strong knowledge base for these kids. A two-pronged approach might be most effective of all.

What "psychological damage" are you referring to?

As I said, two-pronged is fine. Anything other than "we know you're going to do it so here's a bag of condoms".

Psychological damage? You have to be a pretty dense guy to not realize the emotional significance of sex. For both genders, losing a partner with whom you have been sexually intimate can (please note, for the idiots, the use of the word 'can' and not the word 'always'...these both have very different meanings and if you are confused consult a dictionary at your local library or ask the same friend or family member helping you browse right now to direct you to dictionary.com) make you feel devalued. Coping with or avoiding these feelings, just like any trauma, can lead to self-esteem issues, self-destructive behavior, or worse.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Sure I would definitely encourage them NOT to have sex if at all possible. What I primarily object to are the faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed and a good strong knowledge base for these kids. A two-pronged approach might be most effective of all.

What "psychological damage" are you referring to?

As I said, two-pronged is fine. Anything other than "we know you're going to do it so here's a bag of condoms".

Psychological damage? You have to be a pretty dense guy to not realize the emotional significance of sex. For both genders, losing a partner with whom you have been sexually intimate can (please note, for the idiots, the use of the word 'can' and not the word 'always'...these both have very different meanings and if you are confused consult a dictionary at your local library or ask the same friend or family member helping you browse right now to direct you to dictionary.com) make you feel devalued. Coping with or avoiding these feelings, just like any trauma, can lead to self-esteem issues, self-destructive behavior, or worse.

Losing a partner? Huh? Yes HoP I understand the emotional strings that go along with sex. I think plenty of people, myself included, had sex before age 18 and didn't suffer any psychological damage. I think you're villifying sex unnecesarily. There are always going to be a few kids with problems. You know that. Don't ruin the experience for everyone else, just because of a small minority.

 

[Jhhnn]

And condoms can't prevent STDs, they just lower your chances. Abstinence prevents 100% of STDs and unwanted pregnancy and psychological trauma.

I'm not prepared to argue against abstinence-first programs, not at all. Encouraging abstinence isn't a bad policy, but it's obviously not 100% effective, not by a long shot. For the teens who receive no further sex-ed, but engage in sex anyway, what it comes down to is that 100% of nothing is still nothing, and that's likely what they'll use to protect themselves from pregnancy and std's. I strongly suspect that the reason many of the pledge takers marry young is that they're already pregnant...

That's lousy policy, and an attempt to push some people's morality onto the population as a whole.

The whole thing kinda reminds me of the Iraqi invasion scenario- flowers in the streets, heads in the sand, and that's how a lot of folks deal with their teens' sexuality. "Missy took the abstinence pledge, so now I can quit worrying..."

Uh-huh, believe what you want, but my own kids will have the knowledge and wherewithall to implement plan "B", whether they learn it at school or not. Teen abstinence is as deeply flawed a plan as ever existed, seeing as how it contradicts the whole of human history and evolution. It's a contrivance of modern society, in many ways a good one, but that doesn't change the simple fact it runs counter to the way God made us...

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Sure I would definitely encourage them NOT to have sex if at all possible. What I primarily object to are the faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed and a good strong knowledge base for these kids. A two-pronged approach might be most effective of all.

Your "faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed" are rare at best. Of course, you and the other anit-religion folks out there will find any excuse to blame churches for societal problems.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Sure I would definitely encourage them NOT to have sex if at all possible. What I primarily object to are the faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed and a good strong knowledge base for these kids. A two-pronged approach might be most effective of all.

Your "faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed" are rare at best. Of course, you and the other anit-religion folks out there will find any excuse to blame churches for societal problems.

You must be in heaven, daniel, as ignorance is bliss:

Rare at best?

Bush's abstinence program:

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/7943995.htm

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is proposing to double spending on sexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS despite a lack of evidence that such programs work

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Sure I would definitely encourage them NOT to have sex if at all possible. What I primarily object to are the faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed and a good strong knowledge base for these kids. A two-pronged approach might be most effective of all.

Your "faith-based abstinence programs that leave out sex ed" are rare at best. Of course, you and the other anit-religion folks out there will find any excuse to blame churches for societal problems.

Hmmmm, where did I blame churches for societal problems? Oh yeah, I didn't. Doesn't matter since you were pwned (see above)

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I would be hesitant to apply any particular interpretation to these statistics beyond the author's conclusions b/c only the authors know what they did and the validity (internal and external) of their results. But abstinence as defined as "no sexual intercourse" will NOT reduce STD rates. If you can do everything else . . . it's reasonable to expect STD rates to remain high even amongst those that pledge.

Someone mentioned socioeconomic backgrounds (often code for race or ethnicity as well). The original article provided some data broken down by race/ethnicity which implied (according to the author) no statistical difference WITHIN groups.

Personally, I'm fully in favor of abstinence as a primary factor in sex ed. But it's incredibly foolhardy to support abstinence only education. This article addresses the health component while IMHO dry humping, heavy petting, and certainly oral sex are moral equivalents to sex anyway. I think the zealots for abstinence only programs are big losers on all accounts.