Stunning: Abstinence programs don't work

[jAZ]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_re_us/teen_sex

Report: Abstinence programs don't work By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
Wed Nov 7, 10:50 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Programs that focus exclusively on abstinence have not been shown to affect teenager sexual behavior, although they are eligible for tens of mil lions of dollars in federal grants, according to a study released by a nonpartisan group that seeks to reduce teen pregnancies.

"At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners" among teenagers, the study concluded.

The report, which was based on a review of research into teenager sexual behavior, was being released Wednesday by the nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having "positive outcomes" including teenagers "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use."

"Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive programs that supported both abstinence and the use of condoms and contraceptives for sexually active teens had positive behavior effect," said the report.

A spending bill before Congress for the Department of Health and Human Services would provide $141 million in assistance for community-based, abstinence-only sex education programs, $4 million more than what President Bush had requested.

The study, conducted by Douglas Kirby, a senior research scientist at ETR Associates, also sought to debunk what the report called "myths propagated by abstinence-only advocates" including: that comprehensive sex education promotes promiscuity, hastens the initiative of sex or increases its frequency, and sends a confusing message to adolescents.

None of these was found to be accurate, Kirby wrote.

Instead, he wrote, such programs improved teens' knowledge about the risks and consequences of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and gave them greater "confidence in their ability to say 'no' to unwanted sex."

The sponsors of the study praised Kirby for his "thorough research" and for being "fair and evenhanded," but they also acknowledged that ETR Associates developed and markets several of the sex education curricula reviewed in the report. Several of the previous studies that were reviewed also were written by Kirby.

The report noted that there continues to be "too high levels of sexual risk-taking among teens" with 47 percent of all high schools students reporting having sex at least once and 63 percent saying they have engaged in sex by the spring semester of their senior year.

"Many teenagers do not use contraceptives carefully and consistently," said the report. About 40 of every 1,000 girls age 15 to 19 gave birth in 2005, the last year for which data was available, the report said.

[go bowe]

stunning?


surprising?

oh, i get it now, you're being sarcastic..

good show...

i award you ten pennies...

[Laz]

abstinence program ..... check
nation building ...... check
Trickle Down ........ check

[jAZ]

Trickle Down ........ check
Would that be an outcome of the "pull out" method?


(and no "cut and run" jokes, please!)

[Baby Lee]

The sponsors of the study praised Kirby for his "thorough research" and for being "fair and evenhanded," but they also acknowledged that ETR Associates developed and markets several of the sex education curricula reviewed in the report. Several of the previous studies that were reviewed also were written by Kirby.
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the kind of detail you'd be hammering day and night if the conclusion of this article didn't fit your interests?

I mean, it seems you shoot down every contrarian or sceptical article on global warming on the premise that someone connected to the article got a free tank of gas somewhere.

[stevieray]

abstinence program ..... check
nation building ...... check
Trickle Down ........ check

high divorce rate..check
fatherelsss children...check
condoms for 12 yrolds...check.

[Mr. Kotter]

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the kind of detail you'd be hammering day and night if the conclusion of this article didn't fit your interests?

I mean, it seems you shoot down every contrarian or sceptical article on global warming on the premise that someone connected to the article got a free tank of gas somewhere.

For self-serving asswipe lunatic-moonbats like jAZ it's ALL about ideology, baby. Nothing else matters.

[BucEyedPea]

Would that be an outcome of the "pull out" method?
Oh well! My daughter is one outcome of this method. :)

[oldandslow]

I don't know if abstinence programs work or not.

But I do know that family dynamics and effective parenting will always be much more effective than some government sponsored societal engineering program.

Damn I am sounding more like Patteeu, Kotter, and Baby Lee every day. Or maybe not if they figure spending millions and billions in government sponsored societal engineering programs is a good thing.

[BucEyedPea]

So far, my new abstinence program is 100% effective !!!
And I did it all without the govt.

[Mr. Kotter]

...Damn I am sounding more like Patteeu, Kotter, and Baby Lee every day. Or maybe not if they figure spending millions and billions in government sponsored societal engineering programs is a good thing.

Welcome aboard the good ship, Sanity. ;)

[jAZ]

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the kind of detail you'd be hammering day and night if the conclusion of this article didn't fit your interests?

I mean, it seems you shoot down every contrarian or sceptical article on global warming on the premise that someone connected to the article got a free tank of gas somewhere.
You are 100% right.

I only scanned the last part of the article.

I'd not have posted it had I read that part.

It pretty well destroys the credibility of the study absent any study details to support the supposed "fair and evenhanded"-ness of it.

My bad.

[Adept Havelock]

You mean the collective sex drive of the teenagers of this country is stronger than the governments brilliantly innovative "Just Say No" message?

Huh. Never would have seen that coming.

[jAZ]

You mean the collective sex drive of the teenagers of this country is stronger than the governments brilliantly innovative "Just Say No" message?

Huh. Never would have seen that coming.
ROFL

When you put it that way, quibbling over research agendas seems somewhat pointless.

[StcChief]

You mean the collective sex drive of the teenagers of this country is stronger than the governments brilliantly innovative "Just Say No" message?

Huh. Never would have seen that coming. and the messages sent by MTV crowd, media, music, etc.... been that way for how long?

since the beginning of Rock 'n Roll or Blues to quote Grandpa.

[Adept Havelock]

and the messages sent by MTV crowd, media, music, etc.... been that way for how long?

since the beginning of Rock 'n Roll or Blues to quote Grandpa.

:hmmm:

What's that have to do with the incredible naiveite of the Government "Just say No" program?

It's as effective now as when Nancy said the same thing. In other words, "what a waste of taxpayer dollars."

[Hoover]

They don't work because every guy wants to get some ass, and are even willing to lower their standards with any encouragement. Girls just want to be loved

[Pitt Gorilla]

They don't work because every guy wants to get some ass, and are even willing to lower their standards with any encouragement. Girls just want to be lovedExactly. Human nature hasn't changed, even if we've suppressed it a bit.

[HolmeZz]

They don't work because every guy wants to get some ass, and are even willing to lower their standards with any encouragement. Girls just want to be loved

We have a winner.

Abstinence is not human nature. It's what you're reduced to when you're as unappealing as GoChiefs.

[kaplin42]

I have read that Abstinance programs do work, sort of.

Instead of having vaginal sex. Teen girls are more likely engage in oral, and anal sex. This way they can still say they are "Virgins", and yet still have a good time.

[Mr. Kotter]

I understand and agree, "it's human nature."

However, is there really anyting wrong with telling kids that....there are some significant benefits to exercising a bit of self-discipline and self-control?

Or should we just accept that animal instincts, promoscuity, and STDs....are, well, some sort of a right of passage? :shrug:

Seriously. I'm not attempting to invoke a holier-than-thou perspective, I'm merely asking....isn't that a reasonable approach of responsible parenting....as long as it's not an exclusively abstinence-only approach and conversation???

:hmmm:

[HolmeZz]

I have read that Abstinance programs do work, sort of.

Instead of having vaginal sex. Teen girls are more likely engage in oral, and anal sex. This way they can still say they are "Virgins", and yet still have a good time.

That's like the Family Guy episode where the Abstinence program leads to kids engaging in 'ear sex'. If only I could find a clip.

[kaplin42]

I understand and agree, "it's human nature."

However, is there really anyting wrong with telling kids that....there are some significant benefits to exercising a bit of self-discipline and self-control?

Or should we just accept that animal instincts, promoscuity, and STDs....are, well, some sort of a right of passage? :shrug:

Seriously. I'm not attempting to invoke a holier-than-thou perspective, I'm merely asking....isn't that a reasonable approach of responsible parenting....as long as it's not an exclusively abstinence-only approach and conversation???

:hmmm:


Seriously, the best way to handle the situation starts at home. If parents talk to their kids, and not pretend that sex is the devil, and evil, but more explain the positives and negatives of the act, and even the benefits of abstaining or at the very least, being careful and using birth control and condems, then we might start to see a trend that everyone could be happy with.

You will never get teens to completely abandon sex, but maybe if they were educated more than "the bible says...." you might find some kids making a few more responisble decisions.

[HolmeZz]

However, is there really anyting wrong with telling kids that....there are some significant benefits to exercising a bit of self-discipline and self-control?

They should definitely be told the consequences that can go along with intercourse. But I don't think Abstinence programs are interested in giving a choice.

I'm not sure what other significant benefits come with not having sex. You'd have to expand on that. :p

Or should we just accept that animal instincts, promoscuity, and STDs....are, well, some sort of a right of passage? :shrug:

I think if we wanted that we wouldn't be teaching our kids anything.

Seriously. I'm not attempting to invoke a holier-than-thou perspective, I'm merely asking....isn't that a reasonable approach of responsible parenting....as long as it's not an exclusively abstinence-only approach and conversation???

Sure. I think you owe it to your kids to inform them honestly and truthfully. "Don't have sex" isn't fair to them and it's certainly not going to be effective.

[Mr. Kotter]

...Sure. I think you owe it to your kids to inform them honestly and truthfully. "Don't have sex" isn't fair to them and it's certainly not going to be effective.

Define "kids".....are we talking 12 yr olds, 15 yr olds....or 18 yr olds. I think it's important to differentiate. :hmmm:

[irishjayhawk]

Define "kids".....are we talking 12 yr olds, 15 yr olds....or 18 yr olds. I think it's important to differentiate. :hmmm:

I don't understand the point of defining an age to inform kids on something that is natural.

But if we are going to, I would think 12 is the right age due to that being the average start of puberty.

[patteeu]

Seriously, the best way to handle the situation starts at home. If parents talk to their kids, and not pretend that sex is the devil, and evil, but more explain the positives and negatives of the act, and even the benefits of abstaining or at the very least, being careful and using birth control and condems, then we might start to see a trend that everyone could be happy with.

You will never get teens to completely abandon sex, but maybe if they were educated more than "the bible says...." you might find some kids making a few more responisble decisions.

Something tells me that it's not the kids from families with strong religious traditions that are the biggest part of the problem here.

[patteeu]

I don't understand the point of defining an age to inform kids on something that is natural.

But if we are going to, I would think 12 is the right age due to that being the average start of puberty.

I think he's saying that what you say to your kid ought to be tailored to their intellectual maturity level.

[Pitt Gorilla]

I understand and agree, "it's human nature."

However, is there really anyting wrong with telling kids that....there are some significant benefits to exercising a bit of self-discipline and self-control?

Or should we just accept that animal instincts, promoscuity, and STDs....are, well, some sort of a right of passage? :shrug:

Seriously. I'm not attempting to invoke a holier-than-thou perspective, I'm merely asking....isn't that a reasonable approach of responsible parenting....as long as it's not an exclusively abstinence-only approach and conversation???

:hmmm:
I think that is reasonable. It's the abstinence-only approach that is problematic.

[Mr. Kotter]

I don't understand the point of defining an age to inform kids on something that is natural.

But if we are going to, I would think 12 is the right age due to that being the average start of puberty.

Education, about biology and anatomy, is one thing; which, btw I agree with you.

However, what about the social and moral propriety of sex by children/kids/adults.....and where boundaries should be drawn? At what age is that appropriate? :hmmm:

I think he's saying that what you say to your kid ought to be tailored to their intellectual maturity level.

Exactly what I'm getting at.

[HolmeZz]

Define "kids".....are we talking 12 yr olds, 15 yr olds....or 18 yr olds. I think it's important to differentiate. :hmmm:

It's obviously going to differ from kid to kid, but I'd think the parent would have an idea when they were ready.

I'd say 18's too old and a 15 year old probably already has their mind made up.

[Mr. Kotter]

It's obviously going to differ from kid to kid, but I'd think the parent would have an idea when they were ready.

I'd say 18's too old and a 15 year old probably already has their mind made up.

I agree 18 is too late.....but what's the rush we see in some places to "educate" kids, not simply about the biology of it....but of the social "norms" or moral values involved, in such a big decision...are such conversations and education appropriate in 3rd or 4th grade? Or should it be 8th grade? :shrug:

Just curious as to your thoughts.... :hmmm:

[HolmeZz]

Something tells me that it's not the kids from families with strong religious traditions that are the biggest part of the problem here.

I can only speak from my own experiences, but the suppressed girls from strict homes were usually the craziest and sluttiest.

I don't think it has anything to do with message. I think it has everything to do with wanting to rebel from their parents, which is what every teenager goes through.

[kaplin42]

Something tells me that it's not the kids from families with strong religious traditions that are the biggest part of the problem here.

I don't know, ever heard of the Preacher's Daughter?

In any case, it would be hard to argue that the abistanence only doesn't come has strong religious roots. If one was to offer their kids more than the standard "It's a sin" crap, then one might see some better results.

You will always have kids that will not do anything they are not supposed to do, and you will always have kids that are going to do it no matter what. But maybe if you give a little more knowledge to the general population, then perhaps you could end up with some better decisions being made.

[jAZ]

I understand and agree, "it's human nature."

However, is there really anyting wrong with telling kids that....there are some significant benefits to exercising a bit of self-discipline and self-control?

Or should we just accept that animal instincts, promoscuity, and STDs....are, well, some sort of a right of passage? :shrug:

Seriously. I'm not attempting to invoke a holier-than-thou perspective, I'm merely asking....isn't that a reasonable approach of responsible parenting....as long as it's not an exclusively abstinence-only approach and conversation???

:hmmm:
That's not abstinence only education.

[HolmeZz]

I agree 18 is too late.....but what's the rush we see in some places to "educate" kids, not simply about the biology of it....but of the social "norms" or moral values involved, in such a big decision...are such conversations and education appropriate in 3rd or 4th grade? Or should it be 8th grade? :shrug:

Just curious as to your thoughts.... :hmmm:

Definitely not as early as 3rd or 4th grade. 8th grade is more like it.

You'd have to expand on the idea of social norms being taught cause I don't follow you there.

Morally the idea of love has to be tied into the discussion of sex, if that's what you mean. It can't just be all about the act itself.

[irishjayhawk]

I can only speak from my own experiences, but the suppressed girls from strict homes were usually the craziest and sluttiest.

I don't think it has anything to do with message. I think it has everything to do with wanting to rebel from their parents, which is what every teenager goes through.

Hmmm, I wonder if a message of "go have as much sex as possible" would still make them rebel and NOT have sex. :hmmm:

[Mr. Kotter]

That's not abstinence only education.

In most places I've ever heard of.....most are not "abstinence only" education. Abstinence is but one part of most curriculum, and education responsible parents offer to their children.

However, there are quite a few programs which I'm aware of that either don't mention abstinence at all.....or marginalize and completely neglect that course of discussion....because folks in power consider it "unrealistic."

Shouldn't both sides, all perspectives.....be taught??? :shrug:

[jAZ]

I think that is reasonable. It's the abstinence-only approach that is problematic.
I misread the last part of Kotter's post.

But Kotter made his post as if people are arguing to elimnate discussion of abstenance. It's the opposite. His commentary needs to be directed to those holier-than-thou abstenance-only zealots who are hurting our children by hiding facts from them in the name of Christian purity.

[jAZ]

In most places I've ever heard of.....most are not "abstinence only" education. Abstinence is but one part of most curriculum, and education responsible parents offer to their children.

However, there are quite a few programs which I'm aware of that either don't mention abstinence at all.....or marginalize and completely neglect that course of discussion....because folks in power consider it "unrealistic."

Shouldn't both sides, all perspectives.....be taught??? :shrug:
No one is trying to stop discussion of abstenance. They are trying to stop the nonsense of abstinence only education.

You are calling out the wrong crowd here.

[jAZ]

Kotter, you are building a strawman.

[HolmeZz]

Hmmm, I wonder if a message of "go have as much sex as possible" would still make them rebel and NOT have sex. :hmmm:

Yup, just to spite ya.

[irishjayhawk]

In most places I've ever heard of.....most are not "abstinence only" education. Abstinence is but one part of most curriculum, and education responsible parents offer to their children.

However, there are quite a few programs which I'm aware of that either don't mention abstinence at all.....or marginalize and completely neglect that course of discussion....because folks in power consider it "unrealistic."

Shouldn't both sides, all perspectives.....be taught??? :shrug:

Well, I don't think abstinence should be taught at all. Reason being: abstinence is taught in other areas (alcohol, drugs) and it has no effect. Why think it should have an effect here?

As to what should be taught? An education into STDs, protection against, an education of pregnancy (already taught), and protection against.

I would argue that telling girls about a pill is not necessarily a good deterrent, if that's the goal, but it would help cut down on the number of accidental pregnancies due to not knowing about such pills.

[jAZ]

I'm sure Kotter as a parent and teacher would agree with this.

As a general rule, when it comes to getting kids to engage actively engage in "STEM" (science, technology, engineering & math)... that student needs to have their imagination triggered by age 13. After that, it's almost too late. They are lost to the billion other distrations that exist out there.

I think the same rule of thumb makes sense here.

You need to get the rules of sex education engrained in the child before 13. Which means you need to start earlier than that to have an impact.

Those rules could be abstinence only, or abstinence + safe sex. But it has to start before 13.

[HolmeZz]

What exactly can be taught about abstinence?

You're effectively doing the job of 'abstinence education' when you're informing them about the risks that go along with sex. It's just up to them to make a decision.

[stevieray]

I find it humorous to think that abstaining from sex is somehow wrong or implausible, while abstaining from drinking is applauded.

Alos interesting how it's a woman's choice when it becomes about the consequence, but then convienantly disappears for the action...

[patteeu]

I don't know, ever heard of the Preacher's Daughter?

I can only speak from my own experiences, but the suppressed girls from strict homes were usually the craziest and sluttiest.

Your personal experiences notwithstanding, I doubt that a real study of the issue would bear that out.

In any case, it would be hard to argue that the abistanence only doesn't come has strong religious roots. If one was to offer their kids more than the standard "It's a sin" crap, then one might see some better results.

You will always have kids that will not do anything they are not supposed to do, and you will always have kids that are going to do it no matter what. But maybe if you give a little more knowledge to the general population, then perhaps you could end up with some better decisions being made.

"Abstinence only" education may well be motivated by religious views in many cases, but your post suggests that you think it consists only (or at least primarily) of religious messages, which isn't even close to the truth. There are plenty of secular reasons for remaining abstinent and there's plenty of scientific and health-related information that would be relevant in an abstinence only program.

What's left out of "abstinence only" is coverage of methods for reducing the likelihood of negative outcomes if abstinence is not followed.

To the extent that education about drugs takes place in our schools today (e.g. D.A.R.E.), we teach abstinence only. Admittedly, it hasn't eliminated our drug abuse problems among young people, but is anyone advocating that we teach them how to find untainted lsd, what kinds of pills don't go well together, and where to procure clean needles just in case the abstinence message doesn't take?

[jAZ]

Well, I don't think abstinence should be taught at all. Reason being: abstinence is taught in other areas (alcohol, drugs) and it has no effect. Why think it should have an effect here?

As to what should be taught? An education into STDs, protection against, an education of pregnancy (already taught), and protection against.

I would argue that telling girls about a pill is not necessarily a good deterrent, if that's the goal, but it would help cut down on the number of accidental pregnancies due to not knowing about such pills.
I think you are confusing teaching the facts of abstinence vs. instructing a child to remain abstiant.

IMO, It's a crime (not literally) not to fail to teach a child what abstience means and how it relates to other sexual practices.

It has benefits.

And as far as the education process goes, its a fact along with the facts of safe sex. It takes hardly any effort to teach it, and it fundamentally it just as important a bit of knowledge as what a condom is and what it's benefits are.

[jAZ]

What exactly can be taught about abstinence?

You're effectively doing the job of 'abstinence education' when you're informing them about the risks that go along with sex. It's just up to them to make a decision.
You could expect a child to make the same logical induction about addition and subtraction, but we teach the concepts explicitly to add context and clarity.

I guess I stand corrected Kotter.

My apologies.

[patteeu]

They don't work because every guy wants to get some ass, and are even willing to lower their standards with any encouragement. Girls just want to be loved

I think that if we're going to teach about sex in schools (or anywhere else), this is a point that ought to be drilled into the heads of young girls. Giving it up during your teenage years will not bring you love.

[HolmeZz]

I find it humorous to think that abstaining from sex is somehow wrong or implausible, while abstaining from drinking is applauded.

Did somebody say that? I missed it.

Alos interesting how it's a woman's choice when it becomes about the consequence, but then convienantly disappears for the action...

The woman wasn't making a choice to get pregnant if she took every precaution to make sure she wouldn't. Your point applies to those who are reckless about it.

[jAZ]

Your personal experiences notwithstanding, I doubt that a real study of the issue would bear that out.
Something a little more concrete than personal experience.

http://www.itaffectsyou.org/blog/images/teenpreg.png

Data from:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_10.pdf
http://www.itaffectsyou.org/blog/?p=146

[Pitt Gorilla]

I find it humorous to think that abstaining from sex is somehow wrong or implausible, while abstaining from drinking is applauded.I find your inability to understand what you read humorous.

[HolmeZz]

Your personal experiences notwithstanding, I doubt that a real study of the issue would bear that out.

I'm not saying an overwhelming majority of girls would come from that background but it's definitely a lot more prevalent than you'd believe.

[Dave Lane]

and the messages sent by MTV crowd, media, music, etc.... been that way for how long?

since the beginning of Rock 'n Roll or Blues to quote Grandpa.


Ummm hate break this to you but its been this way since the middle ages and even earlier. And bit far back for MTV.

Dave

[Pitt Gorilla]

In most places I've ever heard of.....most are not "abstinence only" education. Abstinence is but one part of most curriculum, and education responsible parents offer to their children.

However, there are quite a few programs which I'm aware of that either don't mention abstinence at all.....or marginalize and completely neglect that course of discussion....because folks in power consider it "unrealistic." I seriously doubt that is true. Can you provide any citation at all for that?

[patteeu]

Something a little more concrete than personal experience.

Yes, it is more concrete. But a random study unrelated to the topic we were discussing doesn't really contribute much. Thanks for the effort though.

[Dave Lane]

1750-The custom of bundling became the rage in America. Courting couples would lie in the same bed partly or fully clothed, sometimes with a special bundling board between them. Often the bundling board was breached or hurdled and the couples groped in the dark for additional ways to keep warm, and that is where the controversy came in.


In his Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, Grose defined bundling as "A man and woman lying on the same bed with their clothes on; an expedient practiced in America on a scarcity of beds, where, on such occasions, husbands and parents frequently permitted travelers to 'bundle' with their wives and daughters." But there was more to the practice than the scarcity of beds or the lack of heat, as Washington Irving noted in History of New York. Irving cited those "cunning and ingenious" Yankees who permitted young couples to bundle due to their "strict adherence to the good old pithy maxim about 'buying a pig in a poke.'" He further noted "that wherever the practice of bundling prevailed, there was an amazing number of sturdy brats born . . . without the license of the law, or the benefit of clergy . . . a long-sided, raw-boned, hardy race of whoreson whalers, woodcutters, fishermen, and peddlers; and strapping corn-fed wenches, who by their united efforts tended marvellously toward populating those notable tracts of country . . . ." On the other hand, one old gentleman, explaining the custom to his grandson late in the last century, emphasized the practicality of bundling and denied any wrongdoing on the part of the participants. "What is the use of sitting up all night and burning out fire and lights, when you could just as well get under kiver and keep warm," he said. "Why damn it, there wasn't half as many bastards then as there are now!"


In any event, bundling was with us from the beginning in America and came close to being a universal custom from 1750 to 1780, at least among "the humbler classes," those who had to economize in their use of firewood and candles. While it's true that "innocent and generous hospitality" prompted many to share their wives or daughters and never turn a cold and weary stranger away while "they could offer him even half of a bed," bundling was for the greater part confined to courting couples. No doubt its end was primarily brought about by the improved lot of the people after the Revolution, when many were able to live in larger and better heated houses. But the voices of prudes and preachers--Jonathan Edwards prominent among the latter--whispering and thundering against the custom also contributed to its downfall.

[jAZ]

I find it humorous to think that abstaining from sex is somehow wrong or implausible, while abstaining from drinking is applauded.

Alos interesting how it's a woman's choice when it becomes about the consequence, but then convienantly disappears for the action...
I'm suprised you don't understand the deeply ingrained nature of intercourse in human nature.

Comparing it to drinking a laughable.

Our bodies turn on their reporduction mechanisms at 13. Our culture asks that we ignore human nature for about 5-10 years.

Nothing objectively wrong with that, but to ignore the incongruity of that task as something akin to avoiding alcohol is weird.

[irishjayhawk]

What exactly can be taught about abstinence?

You're effectively doing the job of 'abstinence education' when you're informing them about the risks that go along with sex. It's just up to them to make a decision.


Fair point. And one I didn't consider.

[stevieray]

I find your inability to understand what you read humorous.

I find your continued inabilty to rise above disheartening. I didn't imply anyone, I think your guilty conscious can't keep it's big mouth shut..

[irishjayhawk]

I'm suprised you don't understand the deeply ingrained nature of intercourse in human nature.

Comparing it to drinking a laughable.

Our bodies turn on their reporduction mechanisms at 13. Our culture asks that we ignore human nature for about 5-10 years.

Nothing objectively wrong with that, but to ignore the incongruity of that task as something akin to avoiding alcohol is weird.

Maybe he's talking about my post.

I have to agree with you and my post was actually referring to the abstinence policy not working on either of them.

[jAZ]

Yes, it is more concrete. But a random study unrelated to the topic we were discussing doesn't really contribute much. Thanks for the effort though.
I thought we were talking about teen sex and the effectiveness of abstinence education in avoiding teen pregnancy (and the like).

Maybe I miss read the thread title I created.

[patteeu]

I'm not saying an overwhelming majority of girls would come from that background but it's definitely a lot more prevalent than you'd believe.

The issue is whether households with a strong religious tradition are the "biggest part" of the problem here. Not only do I agree that it isn't an overwhelming majority, I'd go on to say it's not close to a majority. That's my opinion, you're welcome to disagree. I doubt that there's any handy way to resolve the matter once and for all.

[HolmeZz]

Yes, it is more concrete. But a random study unrelated to the topic we were discussing doesn't really contribute much. Thanks for the effort though.

That study definitely isn't the end-all be-all, but it's certainly not unrelated.

[irishjayhawk]

The issue is whether households with a strong religious tradition are the "biggest part" of the problem here. Not only do I agree that it isn't an overwhelming majority, I'd go on to say it's not close to a majority. That's my opinion, you're welcome to disagree. I doubt that there's any handy way to resolve the matter once and for all.

I actually have found the same thing as HolmeZz. I don't know why, though. Religion could have a part of it, regular teenage rebellion could, so many factors could.

I do think it's closer to a majority than one might think.

[BucEyedPea]

I think that if we're going to teach about sex in schools (or anywhere else), this is a point that ought to be drilled into the heads of young girls. Giving it up during your teenage years will not bring you love.
Pretty much what my Mom taught me.

[irishjayhawk]

Pretty much what my Mom taught me.

Course, I think in teenage years they aren't in search of "love" just the illusion of "love". Or that's what they get anyway.

[HolmeZz]

The issue is whether households with a strong religious tradition are the "biggest part" of the problem here. Not only do I agree that it isn't an overwhelming majority, I'd go on to say it's not close to a majority. That's my opinion, you're welcome to disagree. I doubt that there's any handy way to resolve the matter once and for all.

I don't think they're the biggest problem. I just don't they're any more effective at achieving abstinence, which was the impression I got from your original post. Kids are going to be kids. You can only prepare them for the world, you can't make their decisions for them.

[patteeu]

I thought we were talking about teen sex and the effectiveness of abstinence education in avoiding teen pregnancy (and the like).

Maybe I miss read the thread title I created.

That is indeed what the thread is about, but the side issue being discussed by HolmZz, kaplin42, and myself was related to the impact of a religious upbringing on the problem of teenage promiscuity as can be seen in posts #33 and #34.

Your study has no bearing on that topic.

[BucEyedPea]

Course, I think in teenage years they aren't in search of "love" just the illusion of "love". Or that's what they get anyway.
Infatuation is often more like it. Lasts about 7 months,at all ages, then reality sets in. :grr:

[HolmeZz]

That is indeed what the thread is about, but the side issue being discussed by HolmZz, kaplin42, and myself was related to the impact of a religious upbringing on the problem of teenage promiscuity as can be seen in posts #33 and #34.

Your study has no bearing on that topic.

I was arguing that religious upbringing doesn't make you any more likely to be abstinent. jAZ's graph definitely reflects that point somewhat(though, as I said before, not scientifically).

[patteeu]

That study definitely isn't the end-all be-all, but it's certainly not unrelated.

There is no identifiable relationship between religious upbringing and the results shown in that table so for all practical purposes it's completely unhelpful.

[patteeu]

I actually have found the same thing as HolmeZz. I don't know why, though. Religion could have a part of it, regular teenage rebellion could, so many factors could.

I do think it's closer to a majority than one might think.

Have you ever considered the possibility that any preacher's daughter who associates with the likes of you and HolmeZz is bound to be somewhat freakish and perhaps not a good representative of the class as a whole? :p

[StcChief]

Ummm hate break this to you but its been this way since the middle ages and even earlier. And bit far back for MTV.

DaveI speaking of volumes of data which really began
from 50s....

sure alot of teen preg occured before, because need for children as part of work force on Ag based economy was desired. Mortality rates also were a factor.

nothing new just we should be smarter now somehow we are not.

[patteeu]

I don't think they're the biggest problem. I just don't they're any more effective at achieving abstinence, which was the impression I got from your original post. Kids are going to be kids. You can only prepare them for the world, you can't make their decisions for them.

You mean the post where I said this:

Something tells me that it's not the kids from families with strong religious traditions that are the biggest part of the problem here.

:shrug:

[HolmeZz]

There is no identifiable relationship between religious upbringing and the results shown in that table so for all practical purposes it's completely unhelpful.

We can't identify the individuals who are reflected in the table, but that doesn't make the whole poll dismissable. At the very least it's worth looking more into; the fact that Bible Belt states have the highest birth rates among teenage girls.

[patteeu]

I was arguing that religious upbringing doesn't make you any more likely to be abstinent. jAZ's graph definitely reflects that point somewhat(though, as I said before, not scientifically).

jAZ's table doesn't tell us anything about the religious upbringing of the girls who ended up becoming teen parents.

[patteeu]

We can't identify the individuals who are reflected in the table, but that doesn't make the whole poll dismissable. At the very least it's worth looking more into; the fact that Bible Belt states have the highest birth rates among teenage girls.

When someone looks more into it and figures out whether children who've had strong religious upbringings are the biggest part of the problem or not, we'll have the study we need.

[jAZ]

That is indeed what the thread is about, but the side issue being discussed by HolmZz, kaplin42, and myself was related to the impact of a religious upbringing on the problem of teenage promiscuity as can be seen in posts #33 and #34.

Your study has no bearing on that topic.
Your statement above assumes that there is definately zero correlation between red states and religous up bringing. Or that there is zero correlation between the problem of teenage promiscuity and the problem of teenage pregnancy.

You'd be hard pressed to defend either claim.

[HolmeZz]

You mean the post where I said this:

:shrug:

I didn't disagree with your statement. I can't personally identify the problem. My point was that I don't think it has anything to do with religious upbringing, whether it's one way or another.

And to expand on my original post, I wasn't even talking just girls from Christian backgrounds. The Jewish and Mormon girls I've known can be just as crazy. :p

[kaplin42]

"Abstinence only" education may well be motivated by religious views in many cases, but your post suggests that you think it consists only (or at least primarily) of religious messages, which isn't even close to the truth. There are plenty of secular reasons for remaining abstinent and there's plenty of scientific and health-related information that would be relevant in an abstinence only program.

While I am sure that there are some social and secular reasons that do support abstinence only, you primarly only see conservative religious groups supporting this. Most secular groups support alternate versions of Sex Ed. While I'm sure non, well at least non that have any merit, denounce abstinence, these groups would also want to provide information, condems, birth control. You know, think more of Planned Parenthood.

What's left out of "abstinence only" is coverage of methods for reducing the likelihood of negative outcomes if abstinence is not followed.

Actually, if the stuff left out was added, then it wouldn't be "Abstinence ONLY".

To the extent that education about drugs takes place in our schools today (e.g. D.A.R.E.), we teach abstinence only. Admittedly, it hasn't eliminated our drug abuse problems among young people, but is anyone advocating that we teach them how to find untainted lsd, what kinds of pills don't go well together, and where to procure clean needles just in case the abstinence message doesn't take?


No one is advocating it, but there are clean needle places, where you can drop off your old needles and get new ones. Clinics that help you get off drugs.

Inherently the two subjects are a bit differant. One is a choice made by the user, the other is a biologicaly driven urge that we are trying to control.

[Baby Lee]

I think that if we're going to teach about sex in schools (or anywhere else), this is a point that ought to be drilled into the heads of young girls. Giving it up during your teenage years will not bring you love.
ROFL - Teenage Cockblocker University!!

[HolmeZz]

When someone looks more into it and figures out whether children who've had strong religious upbringings are the biggest part of the problem or not, we'll have the study we need.

I agree with you in terms of finding a more definitive study.

I don't think you can deny that those southern states would probably be the highest concentration of strict religious households though and the disparity between those numbers and the 'blue states' is at the very least intriguing.

And again, my point wasn't that a religious background makes any of that more likely. Just that a religious background doesn't really do any more to prevent that type of behavior.

[Jenson71]

I wonder what an abstinence only program is like.

Here's a fact: if you don't want STDs or pregnancy, abstaining is 100% effective.

What more can you say? Pop a bag of popcorn for your girl! Better than popping a cherry!

As for bundling, which DaveCopyPaste brought up - studies of birth and marriage records from colonial New England indicate that more than just hugging was going on underneath those covers. Oh, those crazy Puritans.

I went to a Catholic school, as many of you are probably aware by now. We learned about everything a public school learns. One teacher (female) demonstrated to the class (5th graders) how to put on a condom. WHOA!

They laid it out for us. The dialogue was open and pretty liberal. But one thing was made sure to us, your life would be better if you abstained. Your marriage would be happier. Your life would be happier. Sex was a gift from God, that God gives to us to express our love to our spouse and give life to our children.

Around this time, there was a popular song that had the lyrics "You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel."

I remember in some retreat or talk the teacher saying that's absurd. We are not "just animals." We are humans. We are rational beings with intelligence and discipline and so much more. That must be respected.

[stevieray]

I'm suprised you don't understand the deeply ingrained nature of intercourse in human nature.

Comparing it to drinking a laughable.

Our bodies turn on their reporduction mechanisms at 13. Our culture asks that we ignore human nature for about 5-10 years.

Nothing objectively wrong with that, but to ignore the incongruity of that task as something akin to avoiding alcohol is weird.

Abstain; to refrain from deliberately and often with an effort of self denial from an action or practice as consumption of a food or a drug or indulgence in sexual intercourse.

[jAZ]

I agree with you in terms of finding a more definitive study.

I don't think you can deny that those southern states would probably be the highest concentration of strict religious households though and the disparity between those numbers and the 'blue states' is at the very least intriguing.

And again, my point wasn't that a religious background makes any of that more likely. Just that a religious background doesn't really do any more to prevent that type of behavior.
Patteeu is cool with looking at indicators as long as the indicators support his POV. If they conflict, then he will only consider absolute proof.

Here's (as you asked for) a more definitive study (though not exactly the study that patteeu seeks). It's an even more explicity indicator.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today. [...]

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

[jAZ]

Abstain; to refrain from deliberately and often with an effort of self denial from an action or practice as consumption of a food or a drug or indulgence in sexual intercourse.
I'm suprised you don't understand the deeply ingrained nature of intercourse in human nature.

Comparing it to drinking a laughable.

Our bodies turn on their reporduction mechanisms at 13. Our culture asks that we ignore human nature for about 5-10 years.

Nothing objectively wrong with that, but to ignore the incongruity of that task as something akin to avoiding alcohol is weird.

[kaplin42]

I think that if we're going to teach about sex in schools (or anywhere else), this is a point that ought to be drilled into the heads of young girls. Giving it up during your teenage years will not bring you love.

I agree to a certain point, but this statement complete ignores the fact that girls are 50% of the equation. Hell I remember growing up and having lots of girl friends that were eagerly looking to get naked. Not really with a bunch of people, but with their boyfriends sure.

Girls want to do the deed just as bad as guys do.

[stevieray]

I'm suprised you don't understand the deeply ingrained nature of intercourse in human nature.

Comparing it to drinking a laughable.

Our bodies turn on their reporduction mechanisms at 13. Our culture asks that we ignore human nature for about 5-10 years.

Nothing objectively wrong with that, but to ignore the incongruity of that task as something akin to avoiding alcohol is weird.


and? are you saying that alcohol isn't a drug...?

[patteeu]

Your statement above assumes that there is definately zero correlation between red states and religous up bringing. Or that there is zero correlation between the problem of teenage promiscuity and the problem of teenage pregnancy.

You'd be hard pressed to defend either claim.

It doesn't assume that at all. What it assumes is that there is no way to get from your table to a conclusion that informs our discussion in any way.

[jAZ]

and? are you saying that alcohol isn't a drug...?
I'm saying that alcohol isn't a fundamental human instict.

[jAZ]

It doesn't assume that at all. What it assumes is that there is no way to get from your table to a conclusion that informs our discussion in any way.
You do so, buy assuming zero correlation.

[Adept Havelock]

I'm saying that alcohol isn't a fundamental human instict.

Alcohol itself, no. I would suggest intoxication might be, as practically every group ever known has had some form of getting fershnickered. :)

That said, I still don't think it quite qualifies as a primal drive like Sex.

[patteeu]

Patteeu is cool with looking at indicators as long as the indicators support his POV. If they conflict, then he will only consider absolute proof.

Here's (as you asked for) a more definitive study (though not exactly the study that patteeu seeks). It's an even more explicity indicator.

Not only is this study no more definitive than the last, it suffers from the same fatal flaw. There is nothing in that article that indicates any specific relationship between a family's strong religious tradition and teenage sexual promiscuity.

I'm not insisting on absolute proof, but I am holding out for a study that's actually on point.

[patteeu]

I agree to a certain point, but this statement complete ignores the fact that girls are 50% of the equation. Hell I remember growing up and having lots of girl friends that were eagerly looking to get naked. Not really with a bunch of people, but with their boyfriends sure.

Girls want to do the deed just as bad as guys do.

Again I'm going to resist extrapolating a general truth from your personal experience. Afterall, it may just be that you are irresistible.

But regardless of how horny some teenage girls may be, I'm going to stick with my belief that over the entire population, girls are more interested in love than boys and boys are disproportionately focused on the physical aspects of sex.

[patteeu]

You do so, buy assuming zero correlation.

Nope. The fact that any correlation that may be present is impossible for us to determine means that the table you offered has no bearing on our conversation, which is what I said.

[kaplin42]

Again I'm going to resist extrapolating a general truth from your personal experience. Afterall, it may just be that you are irresistible.

Meh, I wish. Well at least in High School, I was that classic 80's teen movie where I was the kid in love with his best friend, and she was in love with who ever happened to be captain of the football team.

But regardless of how horny some teenage girls may be, I'm going to stick with my belief that over the entire population, girls are more interested in love than boys and boys are disproportionately focused on the physical aspects of sex.

I see your point, and it is valid. My point is to deny that girls are looking for a little physical intimacy as well as boy is not fair. No matter what the reason behind looking for that intimacy is.

[jAZ]

Not only is this study no more definitive than the last, it suffers from the same fatal flaw. There is nothing in that article that indicates any specific relationship between a family's strong religious tradition and teenage sexual promiscuity.

I'm not insisting on absolute proof, but I am holding out for a study that's actually on point.
It speaks directly to a nation's religiosity and how that correlates to promiscuity factors. The leap between a study of families and a study of a nation of families is no great leap.

It's completely on point but admittedly limited to being an indicator, not proof.

Your complete rejection of both data sets in favor of a stat that we don't have is just a ploy to avoid discussing the unfavorable correlations between religious red states or religious nations and their extensive promiscuity indicators.

Both things I posted clearly support the argument that the greater the religiosity the greater the number of promiscuity consequences.

And if the best defense you have is that you aren't talking about that exact point, then you have no defense.

[patteeu]

It speaks directly to a nation's religiosity and how that correlates to promiscuity factors. The leap between a study of families and a study of a nation of families is no great leap.

It's completely on point but admittedly limited to being an indicator, not proof.

Your complete rejection of both data sets in favor of a stat that we don't have is just a ploy to avoid discussing the unfavorable correlations between religious red states or religious nations and their extensive promiscuity indicators.

Both things I posted clearly support the argument that the greater the religiosity the greater the number of promiscuity consequences.

And if the best defense you have is that you aren't talking about that exact point, then you have no defense.

If your argument is based on a red state vs. blue state comparison (i.e. a Republican supporting state vs democrat supporting state comparison), you have no argument. Your correlations are far to tenuous to tell us anything about the effect of families and their embrace or rejection of religious traditions.

[BucEyedPea]

As for bundling, which DaveCopyPaste brought up - studies of birth and marriage records from colonial New England indicate that more than just hugging was going on underneath those covers. Oh, those crazy Puritans.
Oh boy did they ever! Including incest and bestiality if you wanna just study the court records from the time. One 14 year boy was put to death for copulation with at least 6 different species....including a turkey.

I read somewhere once, that you can tell how bad a people were by how many laws they had on the books. The Puritans must've broke records here as they had tons of laws.

Sex was a gift from God, that God gives to us to express our love to our spose and give life to our children.

My mom told me this as well.

[kaplin42]

I read somewhere once, that you can tell how bad a people were by how many laws they had on the books. The Puritans must've broke records here as they had tons of laws.

Weren't they the strictest of peeps too? Like the no dancing, no singing, unless in church, no having fun at all. This life is meant for servitude to the lord and that is it.

[BucEyedPea]

I think so. But enough of them sure had all kinds of taboo fun.

[stevieray]

I'm saying that alcohol isn't a fundamental human instict.

of course you are, because we were talking about the parallels of abstinence.

besides, functioning alcoholics? research that suggests that alcoholism is inherited?

you can argue with merriam websters medical dictionary.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

of course you are, because we were talking about the parallels of abstinence.

besides, functioning alcoholics? research that suggests that alcoholism is inherited?

you can argue with merriam websters medical dictionary.

Time and again, you explicate and misinterpret dictionary definitions. You don't seem to comprehend how language can actually be used.

You can "abstain" from alcohol. You can "abstain" from sex.

That does not mean that the cessation of either activity is equal or even in the same galaxy just because one particular signifier, in this case "abstain" can be used to describe both.

Sex is an evolutionary imperative. How many of us were born without sex occuring?

Where is alcohol consumption an evolutionary imperative?

There are these devices in the English language known as similes, I suggest you look into them, as they may be enlightening.


I can abstain from killing someone, pooping, sex, and alcohol. That does not mean that all such actions are equal and natural. Are you ESL?

[jAZ]

Your correlations are far to tenuous to tell us anything about the effect of families and their embrace or rejection of religious traditions.
Like I said before. If you agree with the POV, you'll accept even modest evidence as justification that your prefered conclusion is reasonable.

If you disagree with the POV, you'll reject any evidence short of either complete proof or some arbitrality narrowly defined (and as yet, *never once* provided to your standard) evidence.

It's your rhetorical game. It's what you trade intellectual honesty for in hopes of gaining BB points.

[patteeu]

Like I said before. If you agree with the POV, you'll accept even modest evidence as justification that your prefered conclusion is reasonable.

If you disagree with the POV, you'll reject any evidence short of either complete proof or some arbitrality narrowly defined (and as yet, *never once* provided to your standard) evidence.

It's your rhetorical game. It's what you trade intellectual honesty for in hopes of gaining BB points.

This evidence is too modest to be described as evidence. To suggest that the way a state votes in a Presidential election tells us something about how serious religiosity in a family impacts teen promiscuity is pretty ludicrous IMO. That you consider it even modest evidence is an indication of how invested in your political agenda you must be. In all intellectual honesty, I can't stoop that low.

And what are these BB points you speak of?

[stevieray]

Time and again, you explicate and misinterpret dictionary definitions. You don't seem to comprehend how language can actually be used.

You can "abstain" from alcohol. You can "abstain" from sex.

That does not mean that the cessation of either activity is equal or even in the same galaxy just because one particular signifier, in this case "abstain" can be used to describe both.

Sex is an evolutionary imperative. How many of us were born without sex occuring?

Where is alcohol consumption an evolutionary imperative?

There are these devices in the English language known as similes, I suggest you look into them, as they may be enlightening.


I can abstain from killing someone, pooping, sex, and alcohol. That does not mean that all such actions are equal and natural. Are you ESL?

abstaining is abstaining...the act of abstaining doesn't change, regardless of how many times you try to put up strawmen to feel superior.

I'm done responding to you John Matrix...and after what you've said about my family, by all means, bring your psuedo act to Arrowhead if you feel you've got something to say to me.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

abstaining is abstaining...the act of abstaining doesn't change, regardless of how many times you try to put up strawmen to feel superior.


You couldn't have articulated an inability to grasp my post any better. I suggest you read it again, and I also suggest you don't make any more thinly veiled threats to fight me.

[Jilly]

How can you seriously teach something that wasn't taught to you? Or talk about it, if it wasn't ever something you discussed at home? How many adults these days, do you believe really had their parents sit down and talk to them about sex? I'd venture to say not many.
Older Women were taught way early on that their virginity is a gift not to be given away and when they do, it's all over. They've given the best they can give. They're finished. And most of us have been taught that virginity is a state of body and not a state of mind. Teaching kids about sex means debunking some of these ideals that have been taught to previous generations so that sex is respected more and not portrayed as a hideous act that somehow becomes beautiful when people get married. Sex is natural and beautiful now, at whatever age and the more important thing for our kids to know is how HUGE a responsibility sex is. You put condoms, female and male, diaphragms, and all other forms of contraception on a table and tell kids these things are just a part of the responsibility and all of sudden they are realizing, wow...there's a lot that goes into this. Give them all the knowledge about sex we can and all of a sudden, kids see, there's a lot more to this than I thought. Give kids accurate information about their bodies and give them tools to make good decisions.
We wouldn't be so scared of teaching kids sex education, if we all knew how to actually talk about it responsibly, getting rid of some of our own false conceptions and that includes not dumbing it down.

[Sully]

This thread is a fire hazard, I'm afraid, after seeing all the straw men which have been built up.

[stevieray]

You couldn't have articulated an inability to grasp my post any better. I suggest you read it again, and I also suggest you don't make any more thinly veiled threats to fight me.

you can suggest all you want...who said anything about fighting you? since you seem to have such a problem with me, come air out your differences in person...after all, you get such a big kick out of me being presented as child molester..maybe you could stop by and share that with the crowd...my oldest will be there...maybe you can tell her how you consider her birth being a bane on society.

[irishjayhawk]

you can suggest all you want...who said anything about fighting you? since you seem to have such a problem with me, come air out your differences in person...after all, you get such a big kick out of me being presented as child molester..maybe you could stop by and share that with the crowd...my oldest will be there...maybe you can tell her how you consider her birth being a bane on society.

:spock:

Who said anything about your oldest or that sex doesn't bring new life into the world?