Yet more proof that abstince only sex education is a complete failure.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

Wrong the point of nonabstinence programs is to promote safe sex. The article mentions nothing about use of protection amongst abstinence-taught students and regular-taught students but I would say that anecdotally students in regular programs have a higher use of protection.


I would hope that 53 year olds are not virgins, but remember, betor's Internet identity "goes to a private school". 14 years 9 months seems pretty young, but I would buy 15 or 16 as an acceptable average.

I think the average where I was was closer to say 17.
Don't forget if 30-40% of kids are not virgins by 15-16 that's probably not the average.
In fact, it's easier for somebody to stay a virgin for much longer than it is for someone to stop being one very early, so the median is probably lower than the average, and I doubt the median is 15 (meaning I don't think 50% of kids 15 are not virgins.)

[Dinner]

I'd say a few young people are lying on the survey about having sex or when they first had sex. I believe 16-17 is the truthful answer and a lot of people are falsely claiming they're sexually active at 14.

[mrmitchell]

Well, I don't know the methodology for the results. But amongst my circle of friends 15 is the average age (and I could personally verify most of it).

[Jon Miller]

Most my freinds (from college and later) lost their virginity much later.

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

Wrong the point of nonabstinence programs is to promote safe sex. The article mentions nothing about use of protection amongst abstinence-taught students and regular-taught students but I would say that anecdotally students in regular programs have a higher use of protection.

The article says nothing of the sort. It doesn't even reference the actual study done. All it claims is that kids with abstinence education started having sex at 14.

First of all, the average age of initiation into sex isn't 14, and not all the kids will be having sex then. Do they mean a specific proportion or what? The article says nothing about the program.

The article does claim that sexual abstinence programs produced no change in adolescent behaviour. If that were true, then they are just as successful as other programs which report the same results.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's where you are wrong. Real sex education, the type which teaches about contraception and STDs along with how to prevent them, has been proven to modify young people's behavior. They still have sex but they're at least having safe sex.

I had the so-called 'sex education'. No one ever told me about HPV and the endemic rates of transmission.

The best part of the whole lesson was when they had folks sharing glasses. Some of them had a basic substance in them, others did not. I presume they infected one in 10 of the glasses at the start.

What was interesting is what happened when one of the colours first turned red. Everyone who shared a glass turned the same colour.

Maybe to you that's abstinence education, but it hammers home that no one is invincible.

There really is no 'safe' sex. Whenever you choose to have sex with someone you are putting your life in that person's hand in trusting them not to have an std or hoping that the little slip of rubber holds.

That's a massive step in the right direction which does everyone good while the head in the sand approach, advocated by the religious lunatic fringe, accomplishes nothing. Young people still have sex but they remain entirely ignorant of birth control and how to stop STDs.

Well glad to see you have respect for people to whom you disagree. The sex education you advocate is more about putting bananas on condoms and giving out flavoured ones then it is about the cold hard facts about disease incidence.

[Ben Kenobi]

abstinence only programs seek to reduce harm from sexual behavior by telling people to just not do it. people do just do it. without any other knowledge on how to reduce harm.

First off, abstinence education isn't about 'harm reduction', but about risk avoidance. It's like all the other uncool things that make a big difference.

If you don't want to take the risk of getting an std, and all the other troubles associated with sex, just wait until you get married and share that gift with just one partner.

There are many other things that we can avoid by simply changing our behaviour but it's easier to condemn that simple logic then it is to accept that they might have a point. If I don't want to hurt myself bungee jumping, then the best answer is not to make sure that I have a thicker rope, but to not bungee jump at all.

The question I have for all of you here is it really true that teenagers are just going to have sex? I haven't and judging by the earlier survey I'm not the only one who has waited.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The article says nothing of the sort. It doesn't even reference the actual study done. All it claims is that kids with abstinence education started having sex at 14.

Look at the link in post 17 and you will find everything he has said is true.

As for Abstinence Only being as good as Comprehensive Sex Ed... You're just refusing to acknowledge the truth. As cited in the link in post 17 virtually all studies show that with real sex ed the use of protection among sexually active young people increases dramatically. The difference is the goal of abstinence programs is to scare people into not having sex and in this they are a dismal failure. The goal of real sex ed is to educate people about human sexuality, the various diseases out there, and how to avoid those diseases if they decide to have sex. Real sex ed works and abstinence only doesn't.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


First off, abstinence education isn't about 'harm reduction', but about risk avoidance. It's like all the other uncool things that make a big difference.

If you don't want to take the risk of getting an std, and all the other troubles associated with sex, just wait until you get married and share that gift with just one partner.

There are many other things that we can avoid by simply changing our behaviour but it's easier to condemn that simple logic then it is to accept that they might have a point. If I don't want to hurt myself bungee jumping, then the best answer is not to make sure that I have a thicker rope, but to not bungee jump at all.

The question I have for all of you here is it really true that teenagers are just going to have sex? I haven't and judging by the earlier survey I'm not the only one who has waited.

if it's about risk avoidance then it's clearly failed.

I think teenagers are going to have sex based on parenting or lack thereof, and that the better informed teenagers are about ways to reduce harm and the possible problems, from sex, then the better they are to make good decisions.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by LordShiva
WTF is abstince?

Like absinthe, but instead makes your penis drop off.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There are many other things that we can avoid by simply changing our behaviour

And one of them isn't the sexual habits of teenagers.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think teenagers are going to have sex based on parenting or lack thereof, and that the better informed teenagers are about ways to reduce harm and the possible problems, from sex, then the better they are to make good decisions.

Then why is one of the decisions be that they must have sex? Surely if they are old enough to decide that they can have sex, they are also old enough to choose to wait.

I don't see the rationale of saying that all teenagers will have sex no matter what we do when many choose to wait.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't see the rationale of saying that all teenagers will have sex no matter what we do when many choose to wait.

Because a lot of them are going to anyway.

[Drake Tungsten]

We need less sex education and more shame...

[Kuciwalker]

Says Kirk?

I agree those who get STD's should be shamed, though