PDA

View Full Version : Study Finds Abstinence-Only Programs Ineffective


rugcat
11-07-2007, 11:46 PM
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/210340

In related stories, scientists find sky is blue and most people like chocolate.

ColoradoGuy
11-07-2007, 11:57 PM
Where's the article? I couldn't find it on the link to the front page.

StoryG27
11-08-2007, 12:11 AM
I couldn't find the link either, but yeah, I'm really not surprised at the results of the study.

rugcat
11-08-2007, 12:15 AM
Sorry. I've changed the link in the original post to a different source.

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/210340

William Haskins
11-08-2007, 12:23 AM
the original link did, ironically, include a link to this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7054663,00.html

so, yeah... yay for unfettered promiscuity and the cultural fixation on youth sex.

dahmnait
11-08-2007, 12:29 AM
Does this mean, according to the abstinence only advocates, that I am inspiring my daughter to be sexually active when I explain sex (and the potential ramifications) to her?

I find the article interesting, but not suprising.

badducky
11-08-2007, 12:30 AM
World of Warcraft is a better preventative measure than abstinence education. If you really wanted to curb youth sexual activity, issue all students free subscriptions to their favorite MMORPG.

Also, a bag of cheetos. A very big bag of cheetos. The sodium exacerbates the acne, and the increased caloric intake decreases sex appeal in general and self-confidence across the board.

Which would lead to a new problem. Orange mice.

William Haskins
11-08-2007, 12:33 AM
i would also hasten to point out that the thread title is somewhat misleading (not maliciously so, in my opinion, but nevertheless).

the article refers to "abstinence-only" programs and not necessarily programs where abstinence is encouraged in conjunction with other educational efforts.

there is a distinction, in my opinion.

ColoradoGuy
11-08-2007, 12:42 AM
the article refers to "abstinence-only" programs and not necessarily programs where abstinence is encouraged in conjunction with other educational efforts.

there is a distinction, in my opinion.
A huge, defining difference, I think.

rugcat
11-08-2007, 12:52 AM
i would also hasten to point out that the thread title is somewhat misleading (not maliciously so, in my opinion, but nevertheless).

the article refers to "abstinence-only" programs and not necessarily programs where abstinence is encouraged in conjunction with other educational efforts.

there is a distinction, in my opinion.That's fair.

However, that was the exact wording of the newspaper headline for the AP article which led me to search for a link. Blame the headline writer.

William Haskins
11-08-2007, 12:59 AM
i stated clearly, sir, that i did not think you were imposing your viewpoint in any malicious way with your wording.

i never saw the original headline, but i do know the one in the link now posted does, in fact, make that distinction.

the mods could change the thread title, i'm sure, or you can leave it as is. i just felt that clarifying the distinction would serve the discussion better.

Joe270
11-08-2007, 07:31 AM
We had a whole thread on the school giving birth control pills because giving out condoms for free didn't work.

So the sex-ed give out condoms and screw like rabbits curriculum doesn't work very well, either.

Abstinence is, point of fact, the only method which absolutely prevents pregnancy and prevents the spread of STDs.

Lots of liberals love to mock the curriculum, but the fact is that abstinence is the only guaranteed way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. Duh.

Practically speaking, a mixture of the two is probably the best method.

clintl
11-08-2007, 08:44 AM
Practically speaking, a mixture of the two is probably the best method.

That is pretty much what is taught in a non-abstinence-only sex-ed program.

Joe270
11-08-2007, 10:09 AM
That is pretty much what is taught in a non-abstinence-only sex-ed program.

Not from what I've seen. 'Non-abstinence-only sex-ed'? I have never heard this term before.

Obviously, two sides took up arms and forced in their favored views, one: promote sexual activity, the other: no sex, period.

The middle ground, if a curriculum is developed by some folks who give a crap about the teens instead of promoting their own political views, would be best for our children.

Bravo
11-08-2007, 10:35 AM
bviously, two sides took up arms and forced in their favored views, one:o promote sexual activity, the other: no sex, period.

uh...no.

who has been "promoting sex"?

how have they been doing that?



The middle ground, if a curriculum is developed by some folks who give a crap about the teens instead of promoting their own political views, would be best for our children.

i know things have changed since i've been in middle and high school, but from what i remember, the sex talk tried very hard to be middle of the road. and that meant telling kids such gems like:

condoms fail 9 out of 10 times. would you use a parachute that failed that often?

:rolleyes:

great work sex ed.

you are solely responsible for the spawn that we now call "thrilly".

sanssouci
11-08-2007, 10:58 AM
I know that here in Sweden we have an extremely low rate of births among teens, and an average abortion rate. Here sex education is taught quite young with medical facts and certainly no abstinance-only programs, at least not in any public schools (and there are very few private).

The Netherlands seems to be on top though. They have an even lower birth rate among teens as well as an unusually low abortion rate. They teach the "double dutch" method of contracption (condom+the pill).

Joe270
11-08-2007, 01:16 PM
who has been "promoting sex"?

how have they been doing that?

Handing out condoms and saying, in effect, have all the sex you like. At least the abstinence programs teach some responsibility for your actions.

This is a divided subject, but I'm one who feels that just handing out condoms and giving birth control pills to middle school children is wrong. It puts peer pressure on these teens, and often pre-teens to have sex. "Well, they're giving us these condoms, so I guess they expect us to use them" is the mentality.

condoms fail 9 out of 10 times. would you use a parachute that failed that often?

Okay, so they fail one in ten times, fine. Would you play Russian roulette with a ten round cylinder with one bullet in it? Once, twice, ten times?

Would you like your children to play that game of Russian roulette? I'll pass, thank you.

Broche
11-08-2007, 01:56 PM
Okay, so they fail one in ten times, fine. Would you play Russian roulette with a ten round cylinder with one bullet in it? Once, twice, ten times?

Would you like your children to play that game of Russian roulette? I'll pass, thank you.


Silly analogy, russian roulette will kill you after a while, sex, not so much.

InfinityGoddess
11-08-2007, 09:20 PM
At least the abstinence programs teach some responsibility for your actions.

Hardly. In fact, did you know that states like Texas has the highest teen birth and STD rates? These are states that promote abstinence-only education, btw. So no, they don't teach "responsibility".

Furthermore, if they're not doing vaginal intercourse, they're doing oral or anal, both of which are also good ways to catch STDs without protection.

This is a divided subject, but I'm one who feels that just handing out condoms and giving birth control pills to middle school children is wrong. It puts peer pressure on these teens, and often pre-teens to have sex. "Well, they're giving us these condoms, so I guess they expect us to use them" is the mentality.



The condoms and the pills were only for those students who were already having sex. They were not for those kids who are still virgins, unless the girl has female issues such as polycystic ovaries and severe menstrual symptoms (the BC pill isn't just for birth control, you know).

Furthermore, comprehensive sex ed teaches abstinence alongside contraception and abortion. Most parents want their kids to be fully educated about sex and all of the ways to prevent STDs and pregnancy should they choose to become active or not.

Celia Cyanide
11-08-2007, 11:27 PM
Not from what I've seen. 'Non-abstinence-only sex-ed'? I have never heard this term before.

Really? I've never heard of this:

screw like rabbits curriculum

Comprehensive sexuality education emphasizes abstinence but teaches about STD and pregnancy prevention, while abstince-only will not give students any information about, say, condoms and their effectiveness, even if the students ask.

robeiae
11-08-2007, 11:34 PM
Hardly. In fact, did you know that states like Texas has the highest teen birth and STD rates? These are states that promote abstinence-only education, btw. So no, they don't teach "responsibility".
You've assumed a casual connection that may not exist. Does Texas have higher rates because of this approach, or is the approach a consequence of these higher rates? Or maybe, the higher rates have to do with something else, entirely.

clockwork
11-08-2007, 11:37 PM
As part of my youth work, I help run what's called a C-Card programme for young people. This has nothing to do with schools, understand, it's a voluntary organisation which offers contraceptives and advice for young people who are planning to have sex. But we don't just hand them out like bird seed. The young people have to fill out their C-Card with a bit of personal information and speak to one of us for an informal chat before they get what they want. We don't turn anyone away because as far as we're concerned, these are kids who are going to have sex anyway. It's providing the conctraceptives but providing the information as well.

I can't claim that all school programmes are run this way but the schools in our local area do. There seems to be an impression of schools pouring condoms into mint dishes and leaving them outside the faculty office. With us, that just isn't the case.

III
11-08-2007, 11:41 PM
Hardly. In fact, did you know that states like Texas has the highest teen birth and STD rates? These are states that promote abstinence-only education, btw. So no, they don't teach "responsibility".


What kind of a sweeping, unsubstantiated generalization is that? I live in Texas and I've never heard of a school promoting abstinence-only education, much less an official state-based platform.

rugcat
11-08-2007, 11:46 PM
Okay, so they fail one in ten times, fine. Would you play Russian roulette with a ten round cylinder with one bullet in it? Once, twice, ten times?I've seen this quoted before. Maybe it means one out of ten people are too uninformed to use them properly.

If you think about it, this supposed statistic is absurd. If true, assuming a relatively active sex life, say, three times a week, it would mean that over the course of a year you could expect 15 instances of failure. Which would mean that everyone using condoms would end up with an unwanted pregnancy in fairly short order. And that is simply not true.

Sure, they can fail. Nothing is perfect. But pretending condoms are basically useless in order to discourage sexual activity seems foolish and counterproductive.

Sheryl Nantus
11-08-2007, 11:59 PM
considering society sees you as a freak if you're still a virgin by 20, it's not surprising that programs to the contrary fail.

you have to start with Hollywood and the sexualization of tweens and under to even begin to fix the problem... not put it on the school and parents, who are trying to fight the tide.

Broche
11-09-2007, 01:02 AM
begin to fix the problem


What problem?

Why shouldn't two (or more) consenting people have as much sex as they want?

InfinityGoddess
11-09-2007, 02:10 AM
What kind of a sweeping, unsubstantiated generalization is that? I live in Texas and I've never heard of a school promoting abstinence-only education, much less an official state-based platform.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-teenbirths_05tex.ART.State.Edition2.4238fb3.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1109/p12s01-legn.html

http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2007/11/06/abstinence-only-not-working-in-texas/

You probably need to be watching what your state-level politicians are doing then. They've had the abstinence-only platform for some time now.

You've assumed a casual connection that may not exist. Does Texas have higher rates because of this approach, or is the approach a consequence of these higher rates? Or maybe, the higher rates have to do with something else, entirely.

And yes, those links are for you, too.

III
11-09-2007, 02:30 AM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-teenbirths_05tex.ART.State.Edition2.4238fb3.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1109/p12s01-legn.html

http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2007/11/06/abstinence-only-not-working-in-texas/

You probably need to be watching what your state-level politicians are doing then. They've had the abstinence-only platform for some time now.


Texas' policy is to deny contraceptives without parental consent wherever possible and to push an abstinence-only sex education program in public schools

Thanks for the links - they did help to clarify somewhat. According to the articles, Texas is "pushing an abstinence-only program". I'm still not clear what that means, if it's just some of the politicians or the school board. I've got 4 kids in 2 schools and all of them teach sexual education and contraception. So stating that Texas has an abstinence-only platform, while true of some leaders, is not indicative of the actual practices of the state.

Personally, I think abstinence-only education is a terrible idea and a great social disservice, so I'm not arguing that point at all.

robeiae
11-09-2007, 02:39 AM
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-teenbirths_05tex.ART.State.Edition2.4238fb3.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1109/p12s01-legn.html

http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2007/11/06/abstinence-only-not-working-in-texas/

You probably need to be watching what your state-level politicians are doing then. They've had the abstinence-only platform for some time now.



And yes, those links are for you, too.
First, the second and third links are the same thing. Second, I don't think you understand what I am saying, here. Nothing in those links demonstrate the relationship you are claiming between sex-ed/abstinence programs and teen pregnancy rates. I know you want to believe this link exists in a real and measurable sense, but there is only some correlation on display, no actual evidence of such a link. It's tough to get a handle on this, I know.

Celia Cyanide
11-09-2007, 03:44 AM
Okay, so they fail one in ten times, fine. Would you play Russian roulette with a ten round cylinder with one bullet in it? Once, twice, ten times?

One out of ten times? I don't believe that is correct.

ColoradoGuy
11-09-2007, 03:46 AM
One out of ten times? I don't believe that is correct.
Joe has a ten-shooter.

InfinityGoddess
11-09-2007, 03:47 AM
Thanks for the links - they did help to clarify somewhat. According to the articles, Texas is "pushing an abstinence-only program". I'm still not clear what that means, if it's just some of the politicians or the school board. I've got 4 kids in 2 schools and all of them teach sexual education and contraception. So stating that Texas has an abstinence-only platform, while true of some leaders, is not indicative of the actual practices of the state.

It depends on where you live, too. The more "liberal" a city or a town is, the less likely they'll have the abstinence-only thing in the schools.

That's not to say that you don't have your state politicians trying to push for the abstinence-only funding, since you do have Rick Perry, and I know he's pretty right-leaning when it comes to this kind of thing (although I know he tried doing the right thing with the HPV vaccine, even if only because Merck was buying him off to get it through).

Personally, I think abstinence-only education is a terrible idea and a great social disservice, so I'm not arguing that point at all.

:) And here is where we agree. It really is a disservice to suppress important info of all kinds, imo.

InfinityGoddess
11-09-2007, 03:54 AM
First, the second and third links are the same thing. Second, I don't think you understand what I am saying, here. Nothing in those links demonstrate the relationship you are claiming between sex-ed/abstinence programs and teen pregnancy rates. I know you want to believe this link exists in a real and measurable sense, but there is only some correlation on display, no actual evidence of such a link. It's tough to get a handle on this, I know.

I have a pile of journal articles on this very subject (for a research paper I'm doing). They all say the same thing and that is that abstinence-only does not lower the rate in teen pregnancies, and those schools that teach it are more likely to have pregnant girls in their classrooms because kids don't learn to protect themselves.

Now, this doesn't mean that these programs don't put some dent into the rates, but it's really very slight at best.

robeiae
11-09-2007, 04:53 AM
I have a pile of journal articles on this very subject (for a research paper I'm doing). They all say the same thing and that is (1)that abstinence-only does not lower the rate in teen pregnancies, and (2)those schools that teach it are more likely to have pregnant girls in their classrooms because kids don't learn to protect themselves.
I agree with (1), but not with (2). No evidence of a causal link exists to prove (2). In fact, no evidence exists to demonstrate a causal link between teen pregnancy/std infection rates and school programs designed to lower these rates.

And as I noted the last time this discussion was had: in general, most agree that public schools are doing a poor job in educating students on the basics; why are these kinds of programs assumed to be effective, at all?

Don't teach abstinence, don't teach "safe sex." Teach human biology. Teach the consequences of intercourse. Teach what birth control is and how it works. Do it all effectively and the rest will follow.

rugcat
11-09-2007, 04:53 AM
First, the second and third links are the same thing. Second, I don't think you understand what I am saying, here. Nothing in those links demonstrate the relationship you are claiming between sex-ed/abstinence programs and teen pregnancy rates. I know you want to believe this link exists in a real and measurable sense, but there is only some correlation on display, no actual evidence of such a link. It's tough to get a handle on this, I know.As you well know, Rob, causality is something almost impossible to prove. You're right; if one state has abstinence only programs and the adjacent state teaches comprehensive sexual education, and one of those states has three times the teen pregnancy as the other, it doesn't "prove" one program is better than the other.

But this kind of sophistic argument results in what we have today -- ideologically driven programs and laws with no attention paid to the actual consequences of those programs.

A slightly different kind of spin has been used for years on things like the "war on drugs." If harsh laws are passed, yet the use of drugs increases, the explanation is to say it would have been even worse if we hadn't passed these laws. Since causality is so hard to prove, there's really no way to dispute this.

However, if drug use diminishes, the standard for assigning causality changes dramatically.

robeiae
11-09-2007, 05:00 AM
As you well know, Rob, causality is something almost impossible to prove. You're right; if one state has abstinence only programs and the adjacent state teaches comprehensive sexual education, and one of those states has three times the teen pregnancy as the other, it doesn't "prove" one program is better than the other.

But this kind of sophistic argument results in what we have today -- ideologically driven programs and laws with no attention paid to the actual consequences of those programs.No, exactly the opposite. Failure to recognize the reality of the argument I have given is why we continue to have agenda-driven programs of every ideological stripe.

A slightly different kind of spin has been used for years on things like the "war on drugs." If harsh laws are passed, yet the use of drugs increases, the explanation is to say it would have been even worse if we hadn't passed these laws. Since causality is so hard to prove, there's really no way to dispute this.

However, if drug use diminishes, the standard for assigning causality changes dramatically.That explanation is EXACTLY the type of thing I am criticizing. You're spinning the wrong way.

You don't pass laws to curb/change behavior. You pass laws based on fundamental principles. Another example: the idea that capital punishment will discourage murder. Absolutely bogus.

Mr. Fix
11-09-2007, 05:06 AM
Anyone look at WHO is actually running the NCTPUP program? They certainly fit the model of the moderate Republican or Liberal political movers in this country (USA). I wouldn't trust their finding as a conservative voter.

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/about/staff/default.asp

:Soapbox:

Sheryl Nantus
11-09-2007, 05:14 AM
Don't teach abstinence, don't teach "safe sex." Teach human biology. Teach the consequences of intercourse. Teach what birth control is and how it works. Do it all effectively and the rest will follow.

I remember in fourth grade having a presentation on smoking. They brought in a black horrible looking thing that was an actual human lung, from a smoker who died of lung cancer. They also had a list of all the drugs that you inhaled into your body with each pull on a cigarette.

Put me off smoking. For ever.

:)

rugcat
11-09-2007, 05:21 AM
You don't pass laws to curb/change behavior. You pass laws based on fundamental principles.But it seems to me you're saying programs should be based on ideological beliefs, with no concern whatever as to the results. (Since you can't prove a causal connection between the program and the results, whatever they are.)

This releases the program designers from any obligation to demonstrate its effectiveness. I can't see how that's a good thing.

robeiae
11-09-2007, 05:58 AM
But it seems to me you're saying programs should be based on ideological beliefs, with no concern whatever as to the results. (Since you can't prove a causal connection between the program and the results, whatever they are.)Absolutely not. I have no idea where you are getting that from. How is my decrying capital punishment as a deterrent reflective of this?

This releases the program designers from any obligation to demonstrate its effectiveness. I can't see how that's a good thing.Something is not right, here.

I'm saying that instituting programs in schools designed to eliminate/minimize things like "teen pregnancies" are a waste of resources. I don't care what the ideological basis of the programs are--liberal, conservative, whatever. Neither "abstinence only" nor "safe sex" programs are a good idea. Schools should concentrate on core education, not social problems. And the fact of the matter is that better educated children are more likely to avoid these social problems, statistically speaking

rugcat
11-09-2007, 06:19 AM
Absolutely not. I have no idea where you are getting that from.Perhaps I misunderstood you. I'm not referring to any particular program or ideology.

What I understood you to be saying is that one cannot prove a causal link between any particular program and its perceived results. As in, if you mandate anger management programs for domestic abusers and the incidence of domestic abuse dramatically drops, you can't necessarily say that those programs were the cause of that drop.

The implication seemed to be that therefore, all programs designed to change behavior are a waste of time, from whatever ideological slant.

Have I misstated your position?

InfinityGoddess
11-09-2007, 06:45 AM
Anyone look at WHO is actually running the NCTPUP program? They certainly fit the model of the moderate Republican or Liberal political movers in this country (USA). I wouldn't trust their finding as a conservative voter.

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/about/staff/default.asp

:Soapbox:

The WHO is actually non-partisan, non-biased. They consist of doctors from around the world who I would think know better about human health than your average politician.

robeiae
11-09-2007, 06:53 AM
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I'm not referring to any particular program or ideology.

What I understood you to be saying is that one cannot prove a causal link between any particular program and its perceived results. As in, if you mandate anger management programs for domestic abusers and the incidence of domestic abuse dramatically drops, you can't necessarily say that those programs were the cause of that drop.

The implication seemed to be that therefore, all programs designed to change behavior are a waste of time, from whatever ideological slant.

Have I misstated your position?Yes. In the case of sex-ed, the causal connection is generalized to the population at large: "teenage pregnancy is a problem and this program will reduce it." Such a claim is undemonstrable. It matters not what the specifics are. The behavior cannot be "changed" since it has not occurred. In contrast, a program like anger management is targeted at individuals for actual behavior. Success can be measured: "Bob got into two or three fights every week before this anger-management program; since he went through it three months ago, he hasn't been in a single fight." See? The teens that caused the "problem" (by getting pregnant) are long gone. Their behavior is done. There's no behavior to change, only a problem to prevent. And across time, there continue to be teen pregnancies. I think there always will be. Who is to say how many there "should be"?

Bravo
11-09-2007, 07:03 AM
you have to start with Hollywood and the sexualization of tweens and under to even begin to fix the problem... not put it on the school and parents, who are trying to fight the tide.


no you really dont.

you need to start with parents.

nothing else matters if parents dont do their jobs.

Christine N.
11-09-2007, 07:20 AM
Ther term you're looking for is "comprehensive" sex-ed.

That's where all the science of sex is presented, birth control methods (including abstinence - I remember that very clearly, as was the 'only 100% effective thing) are discussed, STD's and prevention. Hence the term 'comprehensive'.

The problem with abstinence only programs is they don't prepare youth to deal with the fallout IF they DO have sex. Then they come up all surprised when they get pregnant or a disease.

Of COURSE we'd prefer teens to be abstinent; but at least with a comprehensive program they've been warned.

The problem with putting it on the parents is there are some who don't want their kids to know about sex AT ALL, so then the kids are learning about it 'on the street', and that's where trouble arsises. You can't force parents to teach their kids about sex. It'd be terrific if they did. It'd also be terrific if many of them gave a crap about what their kids are doing, but I've seen plenty who don't. Either that or they substitute love with presents. Throw money at 'em.


Actually I recently saw a group of 8th grade boys just after they'd seen "the miracle of life".

I don't those guys will have sex for a good long while. :)

Bravo
11-09-2007, 07:30 AM
i'm actually pretty conservative when it comes to sex, but i think the entire sex ed system has been in shambles for a long time. there is absolutely no reason whatsover for teachers to inject their bias into these discussions, just let the facts speak for themselves.

it's simply shocking that college age kids believe that the rhythm method is an effective means for birth control. or that "pulling out" is a good idea. it's ridiculous.

i think itd be a really good idea to simply break down sex the way teachers do in science classes. just be objective and informative.

show pictures of the genitals, show pictures of what happens with STDs, explain the female reproductive cycle, explain how erections and orgasms work (for both sexes), and show how to put on a condom.

take away the mystique and the curiosity and youll get a lot less mistakes.

and stop that inane program that forces two people to take care of a "baby" for a week or whatever the length is.

that's absolutely pointless and counterproductive.

blacbird
11-09-2007, 07:35 AM
You don't pass laws to curb/change behavior. You pass laws based on fundamental principles.

Ideologue nonsense. In the 1970s, the Federal Government essentially coerced all states to raise the legal drinking age to 21, based on the alarming incidence of drunken-driving fatalities among young people. Principle? Nope, just a shot at practicality, without any clear promise that it would work. But, thirty-odd years later, guess what? It seems to have worked. Overall traffic deaths related to drunken driving have declined significantly since then, and the incidence of 18-21 year-olds dying in alcohol-related accidents is down even more than in the overall population.

I don't find that this governmental decision has invaded sensible public privacy or freedom, and it works for me.

caw

blacbird
11-09-2007, 07:37 AM
First, the second and third links are the same thing. Second, I don't think you understand what I am saying, here. Nothing in those links demonstrate the relationship you are claiming between sex-ed/abstinence programs and teen pregnancy rates. I know you want to believe this link exists in a real and measurable sense, but there is only some correlation on display, no actual evidence of such a link. It's tough to get a handle on this, I know.

And smoking tobacco still can't be linked to lung cancer, either, right?

caw

rugcat
11-09-2007, 07:41 AM
Yes. In the case of sex-ed, the causal connection is generalized to the population at large: "teenage pregnancy is a problem and this program will reduce it." Such a claim is undemonstrable. It matters not what the specifics are. The behavior cannot be "changed" since it has not occurred.You seem to be saying that educating kids about how to prevent pregnancies and stds doesn't work, and even if there is a correlation between those programs and a reduction in teen pregnancies, one cannot take that as evidence the progams are effective.

Are you aware that programs in Africa urging condom use and providing condoms have significantly reduced the spread of hiv infection? Sorry, I mean that there is a statistical correlation between the two things.

Would you also then say that drug awareness programs in school designed to prevent kids from experimenting with drugs are also worthless, or at best, ineffective?

Joe270
11-09-2007, 08:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe270
Okay, so they fail one in ten times, fine. Would you play Russian roulette with a ten round cylinder with one bullet in it? Once, twice, ten times?

One out of ten times? I don't believe that is correct.

I've taken multiple hits for this one, so I'll respond publically.

I was responding to Bravo's post where he wrote nine out of ten times condoms fail.

Joe270
11-09-2007, 08:17 AM
Hardly. In fact, did you know that states like Texas has the highest teen birth and STD rates? These are states that promote abstinence-only education, btw.

'Promote' abstinence-only? Apparently you mean teach abstinence only, because you stated this affects the STD and birth rates.

This is untrue. None of the school districts in San Antonio or Austin teach abstinence only. I know of two in Houston which teach sex ed, but can't speak for all the districts.

I don't know where this paper got their facts, but this generalization is untrue for the entire state, actually for a majority of the population this rings untrue.

I know you love to slam Texas and all those who live there, but I don't appreciate it.

I am from Texas, so I take your comments personally. Watch the generalizations, please.

benbradley
11-09-2007, 08:29 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Nah, no one trusts THAT site.
http://www.stat.tamu.edu/stat30x/notes/node42.html
http://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk/no_good_reason/2007/10/all-together-no.html

rugcat
11-09-2007, 08:37 AM
I am from Texas, so I take your comments personally. Watch the generalizations, please.Texans tend to be like that, I hear.

Joe270
11-09-2007, 08:42 AM
Sheesh. I get no respect. None.

Everything's bigger in Texas, too.

robeiae
11-09-2007, 04:28 PM
You seem to be saying that educating kids about how to prevent pregnancies and stds doesn't work, and even if there is a correlation between those programs and a reduction in teen pregnancies, one cannot take that as evidence the progams are effective.No, I'm not. I'm saying it doesn't matter. The schools should be educating kids, not trying to solve this problem. Clearly, I'm not explaining this properly.

Again, the best "fix" is simple education--not about std's and birth control in particular, but just education in general--knowing how to read and write and think.


Are you aware that programs in Africa urging condom use and providing condoms have significantly reduced the spread of hiv infection? Sorry, I mean that there is a statistical correlation between the two things.
I'm also aware that programs in Africa providing free mosquito netting have failed miserably. Show me the stats and back it up.
Would you also then say that drug awareness programs in school designed to prevent kids from experimenting with drugs are also worthless, or at best, ineffective?Worthless.

robeiae
11-09-2007, 04:30 PM
And smoking tobacco still can't be linked to lung cancer, either, right?

cawObviously, you don't know anything about the numbers, here (on pregnancies and STD infection rates). Weak. Not good for a science-type person.

robeiae
11-09-2007, 04:33 PM
Ideologue nonsense. In the 1970s, the Federal Government essentially coerced all states to raise the legal drinking age to 21, based on the alarming incidence of drunken-driving fatalities among young people. Principle? Nope, just a shot at practicality, without any clear promise that it would work. But, thirty-odd years later, guess what? It seems to have worked. Overall traffic deaths related to drunken driving have declined significantly since then, and the incidence of 18-21 year-olds dying in alcohol-related accidents is down even more than in the overall population.

I don't find that this governmental decision has invaded sensible public privacy or freedom, and it works for me.

cawIf it works for you, it must be "right." Utilitarian nonsense. We should raise the drinking age to 86, no? And the driving age to 90. Then, we'd live in paradise.

kikazaru
11-09-2007, 06:19 PM
It's a puzzle to me why there are some people who wish to keep the facts of reproduction a secret. We all have bodies, we all have sex at some point in our lives, why on earth should kids who are trusted with the keys to the car, to be home by themselves, to work after school etc, have such crucial, life altering information withheld?

Reproduction is a fact of life, up until recent history, sex was no big secret at all. Give these kids the absolute facts. Morals and values are taught by parents. If kids grow up in families who guide them, they will more often than not make right choices, kids who are not so lucky will at least then be given information to protect their health and future.

III
11-09-2007, 07:26 PM
Sheesh. I get no respect. None.

Everything's bigger in Texas, too.

I've gotten bigger since I've been in Texas so I'd have to agree with this assertion.

Toothpaste
11-09-2007, 08:17 PM
I feel like the perfect example of how sex education works. My parents never kept it a mystery, but explained to me all about it so early on I honestly cannot remember a time I didn't know about it. I was confused when my friends spouted such untruths, and when my grade one teacher said she got pregnant because she ate too much chocolate, and I went home and told my parents there was another way to get pregnant, they went to speak with the teacher.

As such sex was never a mystery to me. I knew for forever that condoms weren't 100% effective, I knew about the diseases out there, and that the time to have sex wasn't "after you get married" but rather when you were comfortable and in love with someone. And I definitely was taught by my mother (who was a teacher at a pretty rough school and had to teach young pregnant teens all the time) that sleeping with someone to have them love you is just wrong wrong wrong, and won't work.

Making something taboo just doesn't work. Denying human desires doesn't work. Education, both sex and normal everyday subjects does.

Through education I developed into a confident woman able to have faith in herself and her choices. Through sex education, I was informed and learned that while sex was a natural wonderful thing, it also was very complicated.

I never felt pressure to have it, and didn't until university. Much later than the average.

rugcat
11-09-2007, 08:38 PM
No, I'm not. I'm saying it doesn't matter. The schools should be educating kids, not trying to solve this problem.It is education, which is exactly the job of schools. That's why they call it "sex education."
Would you also then say that drug awareness programs in school designed to prevent kids from experimenting with drugs are also worthless, or at best, ineffective?Worthless.Well, we agree on one thing.

InfinityGoddess
11-10-2007, 12:49 AM
I don't know where this paper got their facts, but this generalization is untrue for the entire state, actually for a majority of the population this rings untrue.

Uh, they actually did several studies and stats? Because that's how they usually get their information.

I know you love to slam Texas and all those who live there, but I don't appreciate it.

I'm not "slamming" anyone. I'm simply stating what is in the stats. Texas is a big state, after all.

And like I said, it's dependent upon where in Texas you live, too. Some places will see more issues than others.

WarrenP
11-10-2007, 02:28 AM
I've gotten bigger since I've been in Texas so I'd have to agree with this assertion.

I got bigger just driving through the state! Something to do with Barbie-Q or some sort of food-stuff. :)

scarletpeaches
11-10-2007, 02:29 AM
I've abstinated for a while now, and I've never been pregnant. :D

Joe270
11-10-2007, 07:00 AM
I got bigger just driving through the state! Something to do with Barbie-Q or some sort of food-stuff.

There's your answer, Barbie-Q. You were hanging out in the strip clubs.

Joe270
11-10-2007, 07:05 AM
I'm not "slamming" anyone. I'm simply stating what is in the stats. Texas is a big state, after all.

You have used Texas as a negative example in numerous threads, even stating you would never live in Texas. It is a huge state, and your generalities do not hold true.

It's rather akin to stating every woman in California has fake boobs and injects butt fat into their lips.

I'm not asking for an explaination, I'm asking, politely, that you curb your generalities about Texas.

InfinityGoddess
11-10-2007, 07:40 AM
You have used Texas as a negative example in numerous threads, even stating you would never live in Texas. It is a huge state, and your generalities do not hold true.


I would like to kindly ask you where I do this in "numerous threads", first of all.

Second of all, I've provided links and information that does say that Texas does have a high teen birth rate. That's not "knocking on Texas". That's the reality.

Joe270
11-10-2007, 08:10 AM
Look, I asked you politely to knock it off. I'm not pm'ing mods or filing complaints, I'm just asking, and that should be enough.

Go read through your own drivel and find out where you made ridiculous generalizations, I'm not wading through that cesspool of yours.

I'm pissed off now, so I'll take a break.

blacbird
11-10-2007, 11:26 AM
Sorry, Joe, it's a factual matter:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=37&cat=2

Among states, highest in the nation. Only exceeded in these states by the District of Columbia (not a state). Note the geographic distribution, brown states vs. tan states, vs. beige states.

This took about ten seconds to look up. Goooooogle is sometimes your friend.

caw