science says: abstinence is not an option, teen sex inevitable

[David Floyd]

If they were matched according to similar attitudes toward sex and religion then it's probably reasonable that the pledge didn't really make a difference. Presumably the ones who took the pledge were rather conservative regarding sex and religion. If the non-pledge taking control group had similar beliefs and attitudes then likely they were favorable to abstinence also.

From what I've seen, it is often those who lecture the most and adopt holier-than-thou attitudes regarding sex who are the ones doing a good chunk of it.

And BK, you can't argue with the data. BY AND LARGE, abstinence only education neither leads to less sex, nor does it lead to less STDs. Clearly, actual abstinence would accomplish both goals, but the trick is getting there, and federally-mandated abstinence based education is not doing it.

I don't care what kind of literary jiujitsu you apply to the studies, or what your PERSONAL experience is, the facts are the facts.

[Alinestra Covelia]

There's a good New Yorker article from a month ago that looks at trends for abstinence.

Apparently they found the highest success rates in communities where the abstainers were a significant minority. That way, their abstinence became a strengthening factor in their minority's identity. In communities where the abstainers were a majority, the abstinence was not nearly so effective.

Also, the New Yorker cited findings that conservative communities tended to view sex before marriage as socially shameful, but pregnancy before marriage as a fact of life. In liberal communities, it's the other way round - sex is okay, but pregnancy is a sign of carelessness, inability to control your life, what-have-you.

[Patroklos]

There you go. Keep the *****es bare foot and pregnant and while you're at it let's stop them from learning to read plus marry off 12 year olds to 40 year old guys. What? You say they already do that in the Arab world and it hasn't worked?

You understand that comment included the guys too, right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's Oerdin... what do you think?

[Theben]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Lemmings? Jump off a cliff into the sea. It's inevitable.

That's actually a myth. So it's not inevitable either.

You have nothing to say. You have enough problems of your own. Chiefly, this hero-worship of a primate.

Jesus?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Based upon my own observations, I can safely say that having a sex-life - premarital or otherwise - makes for a happier Asmodean than not having one

Asmodean

I have observed the same thing (for MarkG)! we might be on to something here

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Patroklos

the point is that making an oath doesnt change your chances of acting according to what's natural for your age and body

The vast majority of us seem to avoid bashing our neighbors to death with a rock to get their shiny objects just fine.

so murder and stealing is a natural tendency for man?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by MarkG
so murder and stealing is a natural tendency for man?

I think they are. Don't forget to add war and rape.

[Ben Kenobi]

i really dont see your point. "reinforcement and encouragement" basically refers to more brainwashing rather than information, safe sex education, etc....

On what planet are such things brainwashing? I thought maturity was all about self-denial.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why are you automatically and presumptively correlating unhappiness with teen pre-marital sex?

That's because it's what my friends have observed and confessed to me themselves that it wasn't all that satisfying and they would rather have waited.

I don't see what your issue is with personal observations.

[Ben Kenobi]

From what I've seen, it is often those who lecture the most and adopt holier-than-thou attitudes regarding sex who are the ones doing a good chunk of it.

Damn I must have an awesome sex life. Thanks Floyd!

And BK, you can't argue with the data. BY AND LARGE, abstinence only education neither leads to less sex, nor does it lead to less STDs.

Where did I argue this was so? I simply argued that teenagers are better off to wait until they are older to have sex. Do you really want me to cite the stats that show educational attainment is negatively correlated with teen pregnancy?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


You have nothing to say. You have enough problems of your own. Chiefly, this hero-worship of a primate.

Since all Homo Sapiens Sapiens are primates, you are going to have to narrow this reference down, Slowwy.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by David Floyd

I don't care what kind of literary jiujitsu you apply to the studies, or what your PERSONAL experience is, the facts are the facts.

The data is based upon a small study population. While I havent read the original article, I doubt that the authors are making the claims that the author of the news article is doing. AC brought up a very good point earlier about the differences of effectiveness of abstinence in some populations.

There is no reason why abstinence should not be taught along with other methods of preventing pregnancy and STI. It seems to me that the attacks on abstinence programs by the secular left are as narrow minded and destructive as the anti sex-education efforts of the religious right.

On another note, I'm personally conflicted between the public health benefits of the teaching of "sex-education" and the rights of parents to decide what there children are taught.

[David Floyd]

BK,

Where did I argue this was so? I simply argued that teenagers are better off to wait until they are older to have sex. Do you really want me to cite the stats that show educational attainment is negatively correlated with teen pregnancy?

No, you're absolutely right. Teen pregnancy is a big problem - that could be lessened not by increasing abstinence education, but by being realistic and teaching about how ELSE to avoid pregnancy, ie, birth control methods.

Again, it's great (I guess) that you and some very few others (as a percentage of the population) didn't have sex in high school. But setting aside whether that's the "right" thing to do or not, we need to be realistic and understand that no matter what we teach, we're not going to stop teens from having sex. Let's accept that, and move on.

Spencer,

There is no reason why abstinence should not be taught along with other methods of preventing pregnancy and STI. It seems to me that the attacks on abstinence programs by the secular left are as narrow minded and destructive as the anti sex-education efforts of the religious right.

I don't think you'll find anyone on the left who thinks that abstinence should never be taught, in the context of being a very viable and effective method of birth control and avoiding pregnancy. The problem is when people want to follow an abstinence only approach - which demonstrably doesn't work.

On another note, I'm personally conflicted between the public health benefits of the teaching of "sex-education" and the rights of parents to decide what there children are taught.

If kids are going to attend public schools and receive a free education, there are some things that their parents must "give up" - although most people wouldn't consider these things negative, at all. One major concession that parents have to make is to public health. That's why we require vaccinations (and, not surprisingly, many of the same parents who oppose sex education being anything other than abstinence only also oppose this - remember the brouhaha over HPV vaccinations?), and that's why we teach sexual education. The last thing that we need, as a society, is a bunch of kids running around spreading easily preventable diseases and, later on, having kids of their own.

If, as a parent, you don't want your kids to be taught about safe sex, then find a way to send them to religious school, or home school them, but either way - especially if you home school - you are doing your kids a major, major disservice that they will either regret and resent later in life, or worse, will never develop the social acumen to know that they should resent being home schooled.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Spencer,

I don't think you'll find anyone on the left who thinks that abstinence should never be taught, in the context of being a very viable and effective method of birth control and avoiding pregnancy. The problem is when people want to follow an abstinence only approach - which demonstrably doesn't work.

David, dont kid yourself, there are plenty of holier-than-thou (pun intended) secular-left types who enjoy pointing fingers and laughing at the "morons" of the abstinence crowd. I do research on STI diagnostics, all I care about is reducing the numbers of infected people. I dont care how it's done.

If kids are going to attend public schools and receive a free education, there are some things that their parents must "give up" - although most people wouldn't consider these things negative, at all. One major concession that parents have to make is to public health. That's why we require vaccinations (and, not surprisingly, many of the same parents who oppose sex education being anything other than abstinence only also oppose this - remember the brouhaha over HPV vaccinations?), and that's why we teach sexual education. The last thing that we need, as a society, is a bunch of kids running around spreading easily preventable diseases and, later on, having kids of their own.

It's one thing to require vaccinations for communicable diseases; thats a public health issue. It's quite another thing to require HPV vaccination in order to attend school. I'll fight that level of government interference to my dying breath (and I'll be talking to my eldest daughter shortly about my suggestion that she be vaccinated soon). If, however, you want to cross that line and allow the government to regulate that level of personal responsibility, then we're gonna have to deal with HIV as a public health issue as well.

If, as a parent, you don't want your kids to be taught about safe sex, then find a way to send them to religious school, or home school them, but either way - especially if you home school - you are doing your kids a major, major disservice that they will either regret and resent later in life, or worse, will never develop the social acumen to know that they should resent being home schooled.

Its not as simple as that. From my experience as a father of two teenage daughters, schools teach all kinds of blatant rubbish. For the most part we (parents) can deal with small issues at home (if we know about it). Larger issues of educational stupidity, though, have to be dealt with by confronting the school board. If we ignore the issues that some parents have with teaching sex-education then how can we oppose the teaching of "intelligent design"without being hypocrites?