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

[David Floyd]

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.

Fair enough, but every study and statistic I have ever seen shows that abstinence only education not only fails to reduce teenage sex, pregnancy, and STD rates, but in many cases, increases it. As far as I'm aware, the only people who dispute this are those with an axe to grind - ie, churches and Christian fundamentalists.

It's one thing to require vaccinations for communicable diseases; thats a public health issue.

So are STDs. So is teen pregnancy.

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.

I didn't mean to imply I wanted to debate the HPV vaccine issue - I can understand both POVs, but ultimately, there is little risk and lots to gain by requiring it. I don't see how requiring a HPV vaccination involves any more government intrusion than requiring a smallpox vaccination - in other words, if you support the one, it's not much of a leap to support the other.

Its not as simple as that. From my experience as a father of two teenage daughters, schools teach all kinds of blatant rubbish.

Yes, but so do parents who home school their kids. When you look at it, most home schoolers are parents who oppose the teaching of evolution and/or sex education in school, and would rather teach the failed doctrine of abstinence only and the scientifically silly doctrine of intelligent design. This also ignores the social aspects, as homeschooled children are very often very socially maladjusted.

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?

What "small issues" are you talking about, and when did I imply that schools should be involved with "small issues"? Schools should simply educate children, from a curriculum standpoint. Moral and religious issues should best be left at home. Now, sex education seems to fall in both areas for many people, so my suggestion is to simply teach children the facts that are based on science and scientific studies. How can anyone argue with that?

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Then why the beef with abstinence education. The stats show that it's at least as effective if not more so.

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.

Close to 50 percent split either way. Hardly a 'very few percent'.

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.

There are many things that teenagers want to do that they should wait. You don't give them a crack pipe and tell them that it's ok for them to smoke because they are going to do so anyways. Why would you do the same with a condom?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Cause condoms make sex far safer?!

[David Floyd]

Then why the beef with abstinence education. The stats show that it's at least as effective if not more so.

I have absolutely no beef with teaching children that abstinence is the only 100% effective method of preventing STDs and pregnancy, as long as you ALSO teach methods that have a much higher likelihood of being adopted by the majority of teenagers - you know, things like condoms.

Close to 50 percent split either way. Hardly a 'very few percent'.

You're right, I exaggerated. The point, though, is that 50% represents millions of high school age kids, and I think that it's vital that we get them ALL the information that can literally save their lives in both a literal and figurative sense.

There are many things that teenagers want to do that they should wait. You don't give them a crack pipe and tell them that it's ok for them to smoke because they are going to do so anyways. Why would you do the same with a condom?

Wait, your point is that it's OK to smoke crack once you're not a teenager? Really?

Because, that's the only way your argument makes sense.

For that matter, giving a 17 year old a car is quite literally far more detrimental to his or her health than giving him a box of condoms. The odds of becoming pregnant or getting an STD due to a condom failure are not nearly as high as the odds of a 17 year old being involved in a car accident. Yet, the Christian right doesn't castigate society for promoting teen driving. It makes me wonder, is this really about safety at all?

[Zevico]

Every sperm is sacred, Imran. Do try to keep up with Catholciism's latest trends.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wait, your point is that it's OK to smoke crack once you're not a teenager? Really?

Because, that's the only way your argument makes sense.

Are you saying it's ok to sleep around when you are an adult?

For that matter, giving a 17 year old a car is quite literally far more detrimental to his or her health than giving him a box of condoms.

How so? I don't see 25 percent of those who are vehicularly active teenagers as suffering from injuries or death, but I see 25 percent of sexually active teenagers with a std which they will carry for the rest of their lives.

[David Floyd]

Are you saying it's ok to sleep around when you are an adult?

Yep, as long as you are responsible. For that matter, I think sleeping around as a teenager is fine, too, as long as you're responsible.

And don't change the subject. You just likened teen sex to smoking crack. Defend that, please.

How so? I don't see 25 percent of those who are vehicularly active teenagers as suffering from injuries or death, but I see 25 percent of sexually active teenagers with a std which they will carry for the rest of their lives.

Most of those 25% of sexually active teenagers didn't use a condom, either. Jesus Christ, how do you think STDs spread? Magic? My point was that responsible sex involving a condom is less likely to cause a problem than teens driving cars. My point was not that unprotected sex was less likely to cause a problem than teens driving cars.

BK, stop addressing strawmen and address the point at hand.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and you also failed to address this point:

You're right, I exaggerated. The point, though, is that 50% represents millions of high school age kids, and I think that it's vital that we get them ALL the information that can literally save their lives in both a literal and figurative sense.

Can I go ahead and assume you agree with me on this one?

[Ben Kenobi]

Most of those 25% of sexually active teenagers didn't use a condom, either.

Condoms are more like airbags. They are there, but I don't know anybody who deliberately crashes because they know they have airbags.

Jesus Christ, how do you think STDs spread? Magic?

I think they have something to do with sex. No sex, no STDs. What's so hard to figure about that?

My point was that responsible sex involving a condom is less likely to cause a problem than teens driving cars.

I don't consider someone who crashes their car expecting an airbag to save them as responsible. Same with sleeping around. You are taking a massive chance with your own health and relying on a quarter inch of latex to shield you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can I go ahead and assume you agree with me on this one?

If the primary goal is safety? No, I don't agree with that at all.

My mom who is a nurse took it on herself to teach me. The way 'sex ed' is done in classrooms is very unhelpful.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Condoms are more like airbags. They are there, but I don't know anybody who deliberately crashes because they know they have airbags.

[David Floyd]

Condoms are more like airbags. They are there, but I don't know anybody who deliberately crashes because they know they have airbags.

So, the corollary to your point is that the correct way to improve road safety is to stay off the road, rather than install airbags?

Certainly, you have a point, but only in a purely theoretical sense. Fear of a car accident isn't going to stop people from driving, but if people are educated as to the benefits of airbags, they are more likely to accept them as necessary. I'll let you finish the analogy. It isn't difficult.

Also, surely you aren't saying that if every one of the 25% of high school kids who contract STDs had used a condom, they would still have an STD, are you?

I think they have something to do with sex. No sex, no STDs. What's so hard to figure about that?

OK, let me recap:
1)We'll stipulate your numbers and say that about half of high school students will remain abstinent while in high school. This number, by the way, doesn't address abstinent until marriage - that number would go way down, limited the validity of your earlier point.
2)We can't stop people from having sex.
3)The means exists and is readily available to drastically reduce STDs and teen pregnancy, even if teens are having sex.
4)Therefore, we should teach that abstinence is 100% effective, but that condoms are also mostly effective, if we have an interest in reducing the spread of STDs and reducing teen pregnancy.

Can you really argue with any of that? Really?

I don't consider someone who crashes their car expecting an airbag to save them as responsible. Same with sleeping around. You are taking a massive chance with your own health and relying on a quarter inch of latex to shield you.

Ming, I'm going to pre-emptively warn myself here. BK, ARE YOU BEING DELIBERATELY OBTUSE OR ARE YOU JUST A MORON???

The fact is that condoms WORK.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fscondom.htm#references

This is well-documented. It isn't new. Your analogy that having sex with someone while using a condom is similar to reckless driving is asinine. Reckless driving is proven to be extremely unsafe. Crashing into a wall is extremely unsafe. Using a condom is extremely safe. The statistics back that up.

Also, the phraseology you are using is extremely pejorative. "You are taking a massive chance with your own health and relying on a quarter inch of latex to shield you" is extremely disingenuous and misleading, and is phrased in a way that is designed to make people think condoms don't work. Condoms DO work. No one is claiming they are 100% effective, just as no one is claiming that abstinence is NOT 100% effective. What we ARE claiming is that condom use WILL drastically reduce the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Simple fact, and you know it.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm making a very simple point.

Condoms are not a panacea to make up for irresponsible behaviour. Condoms are only useful if they are used properly, but they are not a substitute for abstinence.

Also, surely you aren't saying that if every one of the 25% of high school kids who contract STDs had used a condom, they would still have an STD, are you?

Are you saying that none of the 25 percent who contract STDs used a condom? All of these kids have received education on condom use, and yet that failed to prevent them catching an STD. Obviously condoms aren't the answer.

OK, let me recap:
1)We'll stipulate your numbers and say that about half of high school students will remain abstinent while in high school. This number, by the way, doesn't address abstinent until marriage - that number would go way down, limited the validity of your earlier point.

What's the percentage of STD transmission as a teen among those 50 percent of students who remain abstinent throughout high school?

2)We can't stop people from having sex.

So people have no control over their desires? Bull****.

3)The means exists and is readily available to drastically reduce STDs and teen pregnancy, even if teens are having sex.

The means are there already. Drilling condom use isn't going to change anything from the status quo, but it will increase risky behaviours which will negate any safety gains, which is precisely what's happened.

Question for you DF, has teen pregnancy gone up or down since condoms have been offered to high schools?

4)Therefore, we should teach that abstinence is 100% effective, but that condoms are also mostly effective, if we have an interest in reducing the spread of STDs and reducing teen pregnancy.

Why would telling lies be considered 'sex education?'

Can you really argue with any of that? Really?

Why don't we spell it out. If you are relying on condom use to protect you, you will get an STD. If you are going to bring condoms out, then you must be very clear that some STDs aren't hindered at all by the use of a condom.

This is well-documented. It isn't new. Your analogy that having sex with someone while using a condom is similar to reckless driving is asinine. Reckless driving is proven to be extremely unsafe. Crashing into a wall is extremely unsafe. Using a condom is extremely safe. The statistics back that up.

Ok, lets go back again.

Of those students who have engaged in sex and used a condom at any previous point, what percentage of these folks make up the 25 percent with an STD? 80, 90 percent?

Then look at the 50 percent who decline to have sex altogether.

I don't consider a 1/4 infection rate to be safe. What is being done is obviously not working.

Also, the phraseology you are using is extremely pejorative. "You are taking a massive chance with your own health and relying on a quarter inch of latex to shield you" is extremely disingenuous and misleading,

Is it false?

and is phrased in a way that is designed to make people think condoms don't work. Condoms DO work. No one is claiming they are 100% effective, just as no one is claiming that abstinence is NOT 100% effective.

So if I have a 75 percent chance of not catching an STD if I use a condom, is that considered acceptable?

What we ARE claiming is that condom use WILL drastically reduce the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Simple fact, and you know it.

Not so. It's never happened here in Canada or in the US. As condoms have become ubiquitous, so have teenage pregnancies. The higher the condom use, the more likely you will get the result that is the opposite you have intended.

The problem is not solved by technology, but by behavioural. You are much more effective in reducing your risk by changing your behaviour rather then just grabbing a rubber and praying it works.

[David Floyd]

Condoms are not a panacea to make up for irresponsible behaviour. Condoms are only useful if they are used properly, but they are not a substitute for abstinence.

No one is arguing against that point. You make a very good, if very theoretical, argument. The facts are that abstinence-only education doesn't reduce STDs or teen pregnancy, because by your own admission, at least 50% of high school students are having sex, and many more are having sex between high school and marriage.

Are you saying that none of the 25 percent who contract STDs used a condom? All of these kids have received education on condom use, and yet that failed to prevent them catching an STD. Obviously condoms aren't the answer.

That isn't obvious at all. Condoms, used correctly and consistently, are highly effective. That is something that should be taught. I also agree that abstinence is highly effective, and that should be taught as well. Why can't you do both?

Also, I am saying that when the STD was contracted, a condom probably was not being used. If it had been, that particular sexual encounter likely would not have resulted in a STD.

What's the percentage of STD transmission as a teen among those 50 percent of students who remain abstinent throughout high school?

0%, due to lack of sexual activity. I've granted that since the beginning, so why do you keep going back to it? My question is, what are you going to do about the other 50%? Say that "Oh well, STDs are the consequences of sin"? Or are you going to try to give them the tools to avoid STDs, granting that they are going to be having sex either way?

So people have no control over their desires? Bull****.

Sure people have control over their desires, but I don't see your point. Condoms are a very effective method of both meeting our desires and staying safe. Put another way, I could be 100% safe and miss out on a large part of life, or I could be 99.9% safe and enjoy that part of life I would otherwise miss out on. Again, that argument could apply to driving, too. If we wanted to be 100% safe, we wouldn't worry about airbags, we would just stay off the road. If we wanted to be 100% safe, we would only eat steak cooked well done. If we wanted to be 100% safe, we would avoid any number of things that for most of us are part of our daily lives.

Well, guess what? For many millions of people, sex and/or the pursuit of such is a part of our daily lives, and I would rather sacrifice a minute amount of safety in order to enjoy my life. Most people would make the same decision, just as you likely do, too, regarding something other than sex.

The means are there already. Drilling condom use isn't going to change anything from the status quo, but it will increase risky behaviours which will negate any safety gains, which is precisely what's happened.

Well, first off, the means (condoms) are NOT there in many parts of the world, in large part because those means are prohibited by YOUR church. Secondly, you're right - drilling condom use probably won't cause sex to go down. In fact, the opposite is likely to happen. But so what? Condoms, if used correctly, are largely effective. Even if more people have sex, less people will contract STDs or pregnancies because condoms prevent both of those things.

Question for you DF, has teen pregnancy gone up or down since condoms have been offered to high schools?

You're adding something different into the equation, now. I'm not proposing handing out condoms in schools. I'm simply advocating teaching students ALL means of reducing/eliminating STDs and pregnancies. Remember, in an earlier post I said that schools should stay away from moral judgments and the like - that is, schools shouldn't tell students they shouldn't be having sex, they should just educate students about the potential consequences and the different avenues for mitigating those consequences.

Why would telling lies be considered 'sex education?'

Let's get this out in the open. Your response above was a response to the following:

"4)Therefore, we should teach that abstinence is 100% effective, but that condoms are also mostly effective, if we have an interest in reducing the spread of STDs and reducing teen pregnancy."

Since clearly you believe (correctly) that abstinence is 100% effective, just as clearly you also do not believe that condoms are effective at reducing STDs and pregnancy. True or false?

Why don't we spell it out. If you are relying on condom use to protect you, you will get an STD.

Not necessarily. You are far less likely to get an STD than you otherwise would be.

If you are going to bring condoms out, then you must be very clear that some STDs aren't hindered at all by the use of a condom.

*sigh*

I'm going to quote from some very relevant sources. Follow along, please:

From http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/condoms/HQ00463:

Do condoms reduce the risk of STDs?

Yes. By blocking the exchange of body fluids that might contain infectious agents, latex condoms provide the best protection available against STDs. Used consistently and correctly, condoms are highly effective at preventing the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that causes AIDS, and at reducing the risk of infection from other STDs, such as gonorrhea and chlamydia.

In fact, with the spread of AIDS and other STDs, latex condoms may have a greater role in disease prevention than in contraception. Condoms are almost synonymous with safe sex. In any nonexclusive sexual relationship — or in any relationship in which one partner's HIV status is unknown — you should automatically be using a condom, even if your partner is on the pill or using another form of contraception. Condoms greatly reduce the risk that either partner will pass a sexually transmitted virus or bacterium to the other. Condoms protect the penis and urethra, where sexually transmitted infections may begin after contact with STD-causing agents in the partner's vagina, rectum or mouth. In turn, they protect men's partners from sexually transmitted organisms that may be on the penis or in semen or pre-ejaculatory fluid.

Polyurethane and lambskin condoms do not protect against STDs as well as latex condoms do. Read the label on the package to see what the condom is made of and whether it's labeled for disease prevention. If you're concerned about preventing STDs, use a latex condom. Latex provides the best protection.

From http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm:

* Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including diseases transmitted by genital secretions, and to a lesser degree, genital ulcer diseases. Condom use may reduce the risk for genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and HPV-associated diseases, e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer.

From http://www.fda.gov/fdac/reprints/ots_stds.html:

You may have heard that birth control can also help prevent AIDS and other STDs. This is only partly true. The whole story is that only one form of birth control currently on the market--latex condoms (thin rubber sheaths used to cover the penis)--is highly effective in reducing the transmission (spread) of HIV and many other STDs.

Same source:

Latex condoms are the only form of contraception now available that human studies have shown to be highly effective in protecting against the transmission of HIV and other STDs. They give good disease protection for vaginal sex and should also reduce the risk of disease transmission in oral and anal sex.

Should I keep going? I can keep Googling relevant and well regarded sources all night long, if you keep spouting the nonsense that condoms do not reduce STDs.

I don't consider a 1/4 infection rate to be safe. What is being done is obviously not working.

All those other numbers were made up. Give me some sources about those numbers, then we can talk.

However, I can personally tell you that condoms have been 100% effective for me. No kids, no STDs, and I've had over 30 sexual partners, including one that I found out after the fact had herpes. Yet I'm clean. Go figure.

Is it false?

The part about "massive chance" is, at best, misleading. The rest is designed to mislead.

So if I have a 75 percent chance of not catching an STD if I use a condom, is that considered acceptable?

Source?

The problem is not solved by technology, but by behavioural. You are much more effective in reducing your risk by changing your behaviour rather then just grabbing a rubber and praying it works.

If we're talking about prayer, then teaching your kids about condoms is much more effective than praying with them and for them about not having sex before marriage. If we're talking about changing behavior, then good luck with that. Here in the real world, I'd rather focus on practical solutions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Drilling condom use isn't going to change anything from the status quo, but it will increase risky behaviours

Why?

So you think people only think about wanting sex once they've been told about a condom?


Yes or no, if some people are going to have sex regardless, wouldn't it be better if they knew about condoms?