NRO: Killing Abstinence What teens and parents have to lose.

[spursncowboys]

Killing Abstinence
What teens and parents have to lose.

This week, the media gave us what appeared to be startling news: Research, appearing in a journal published by the American Medical Association, showed (shock!) that abstinence programs dramatically reduced teen sexual activity.

No one knowledgeable about abstinence education, however, would find this startling. In fact, eleven previous sound studies showed strong positive effects from abstinence programs. The mainstream media simply ignored them. Unfortunately, the most recent story came too late — President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have already terminated the federal government’s abstinence programs.


What other story has the mainstream media ignored? The big one concerns the positive effects of abstinence on teens. Obviously, abstinent teens are not going to get pregnant or contract an STD. But the research shows that, in general, they also will be happier and less depressed than their permissive peers.

Abstinent teens also do dramatically better in school. They are half as likely to drop out as their sexually active peers. And teens who abstain until at least age 18 are twice as likely to attend and graduate from college as those who become sexually active while in high school. The extra schooling achieved by abstaining teens will add, on average, an additional $400,000 to their lifetime earnings.

Skeptics might wonder if this effect occurs solely because some sexually active girls have babies and are forced to leave school; however, in this comparison, such cases have been left out. Perhaps abstinent teens come from better socio-economic backgrounds and are therefore more likely to go to college anyway? Nope, the stark differences in educational accomplishment persist, even when the abstaining teen is compared to a sexually active teen from the exact same background.

When an abstinent teen is matched against a sexually active teen who is identical in gender, race, parental education, family income and structure, educational aspiration, and self-esteem, the abstinent teen is still nearly twice as likely to attend and graduate from college.

Why is this? In part, it is because abstaining teens (contrary to elite opinion) are somewhat smarter and more mature, and have greater self control. In part, it is because sex is an overpowering psychological force that can cause youth to lose future orientation and work focus. In addition, teen sexual activity is linked to drug and alcohol abuse, violence, and oppositional attitudes towards parents — not a recipe for success.

The simple fact that abstaining teens are twice as likely to go to college would seem to be an important piece of information. It’s the sort of thing that should be made widely available to teens, parents, and educators. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the government or the media to tell anyone.

Abstinence-education programs used to provide this sort of information. But Obama has shut down the federal abstinence programs. The remaining federally funded sex ed has a very different message. According to the sex-ed experts favored by congressional liberals, as long as the teen wears a condom, teen sex has no negative effects. The federal government now promotes this same message in schools: “Protected sex” is all about fun, with no downside.

Masquerading as “comprehensive” sex ed, current sex-education programs show to students that society expects and accepts teen sexual activity. Casual, transitory sexual relationships in the teen years will be exciting, “fun” and “sexy.” For example, the highly touted curriculum Be Proud! Be Responsible! instructs teachers to
invite [students] to brainstorm ways to increase spontaneity and the likelihood that they’ll use condoms. . . . Examples: . . . Store condoms under [the] mattress. . . . Eroticize condom use with partner. . . . Use condoms as a method of foreplay. . . . Think up a sexual fantasy using condoms. . . . Act sexy/sensual when putting the condom on. . . . Hide them on your body and ask your partner to find it. . . . Wrap them as a present and give them to your partner before a romantic dinner. . . . Tease each other manually while putting on the condom.
A similar, widely promoted curriculum, Focus on Kids, prompts teachers to

state that there are other ways to be close to a person without having sexual intercourse. Ask youth to brainstorm ways to be close. The list may include . . . body massage, bathing together, masturbation, sensuous feeding, fantasizing, watching erotic movies, reading erotic books and magazines . . .
With the jettisoning of abstinence funding, teens will no longer be taught about the link between abstinence and educational success. They will, however, be taught about using “grape jelly, maple syrup and honey” as condom lubricants after the dance on Friday night. Who could object to that?

[ChumpDumper]

Why would you support a socialist federal abstinence program?

[clambake]

where are the numbers?

[boutons_deux]

I bet that teens that follow abstinence have "dramatically reduced teen sexual activity"

But what about teens that don't follow abstinence? :lol

And why are these people impinging on the freedom of teens (and gays and lesbians) to have sex? Isn't "freedom" a big issue with wrongies?

Why aren't these do-gooders also impinging on people's "freedom" to smoke cigarettes (which actually kills 400K/year)?

or drink soft drink shit?

or be obese?

It seems that the abstinence proselytizers are also dead set against sex education.

Puritanism is alive and well with the Bible thumpers.

"it is because abstaining teens (contrary to elite opinion) are somewhat smarter and more mature, and have greater self control"

An assertion proven by the study? no, it's just a myth.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow..

Good article, and three lemming responses following.

Now watch the libtards here confuse teaching abstinence with abstinence only teaching.

[baseline bum]

Wow, another Heritage Foundation loser bitching about condoms. Didn't see this garbage coming.

[Marcus Bryant]

How about the sexual life of anyone is not a concern to Uncle Sam?

[sabar]

How about the sexual life of anyone is not a concern to Uncle Sam?

You mean a bunch of men in suits 1400 miles away shouldn't be legislating how my kids should learn a basic biological function and how to deal with it?

I'm sure I learned the opposite in my public school's gov't classes.


The simple fact that abstaining teens are twice as likely to go to college would seem to be an important piece of information. It’s the sort of thing that should be made widely available to teens, parents, and educators. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the government or the media to tell anyone.

It is a foregone conclusion that everything be done by someone else in America, regardless of party alignment.:rollin

Of course, the source and numbers are missing, so everything could be fabricated. That quote is too believable though, as sad as that is.

[clambake]

Wow..

Good article, and three lemming responses following.

Now watch the libtards here confuse teaching abstinence with abstinence only teaching.

show us the numbers, flaglot.

[ElNono]

How about the sexual life of anyone is not a concern to Uncle Sam?

My god man! Don't you know the mainstream media is hiding all these abstinence reports? Look at Jersey Shore man! What's Obama doing about all this?

[TeyshaBlue]

How about the sexual life of anyone is not a concern to Uncle Sam?

Exactly.

[spursncowboys]

Masquerading as “comprehensive” sex ed, current sex-education programs show to students that society expects and accepts teen sexual activity. Casual, transitory sexual relationships in the teen years will be exciting, “fun” and “sexy.” For example, the highly touted curriculum Be Proud! Be Responsible! instructs teachers to
invite [students] to brainstorm ways to increase spontaneity and the likelihood that they’ll use condoms. . . . Examples: . . . Store condoms under [the] mattress. . . . Eroticize condom use with partner. . . . Use condoms as a method of foreplay. . . . Think up a sexual fantasy using condoms. . . . Act sexy/sensual when putting the condom on. . . . Hide them on your body and ask your partner to find it. . . . Wrap them as a present and give them to your partner before a romantic dinner. . . . Tease each other manually while putting on the condom.
A similar, widely promoted curriculum, Focus on Kids, prompts teachers to state that there are other ways to be close to a person without having sexual intercourse. Ask youth to brainstorm ways to be close. The list may include . . . body massage, bathing together, masturbation, sensuous feeding, fantasizing, watching erotic movies, reading erotic books and magazines . . .
I agree with MB. However if they are going to teach this, then I would hope they teach or include an abstinence program.

[Winehole23]

I agree with MB. However if they are going to teach this, then I would hope they teach or include an abstinence program.So then, in principle you're ok with government sex-ed, so long as you agree with what it teaches.

[spursncowboys]

Why was sex ed introduced? It wasn't to show kids that having sex was fun and exciting. It wasn't to show kids how to put on a condom with ur mouth. I want a clear designed plan on what they are trying to accomplish.

[ChumpDumper]

Why was sex ed introduced? It wasn't to show kids that having sex was fun and exciting. It wasn't to show kids how to put on a condom with ur mouth. I want a clear designed plan on what they are trying to accomplish.Socialist.

[spursncowboys]

So then, in principle you're ok with government sex-ed, so long as you agree with what it teaches.
As long as they keep it with a parental permission, I'm ok with a basic sex ed. Going by the success rate and my personal belief, I feel an abstinence program should be included.
FWIW my kids aren't going to be in a sex ed class outside of health class.

[I. Hustle]

How about the sexual life of anyone is not a concern to Uncle Sam?

But then in turn these kids pumping out babies usually get some kind of assistance from Uncle Sam because they can't afford to take care of themselves let alone a child.
It's a vicious circle. First it's stay out of my business I can make my own decisions then it's oops I got knocked up then it's why doesn't the government offer more help?! I can't live off the free housing, food, money they give me!

[RandomGuy]

Ah yes, conservative op-ed pieces: The intellectually dishonest leading the morally outraged.

"Rah-rah look at how bad big scary liberals are booga booga booga!"

GMAFB


Killing Abstinence
What teens and parents have to lose.

This week, the media gave us what appeared to be startling news: Research, appearing in a journal published by the American Medical Association, showed (shock!) that abstinence programs dramatically reduced teen sexual activity.

No one knowledgeable about abstinence education, however, would find this startling.

No they wouldn't. In fact, they have known about it for more than 10 years.

But hey, I have called the op-ed piece intellectually dishonest, so let me back up my claim first.

Here is a link to an abstract of the "new" study.
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/164/2/152?home


Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period

Yes, Virginia, SOME sex education is better than NO sex education, i.e. the control group. SHOCK!

What the intellectually dishonest op-ed piece doesn't really tell you is that we have known about this effect for years.

Jemmott, J.B., Jemmott, L.S., & Fong, G.T. (1998). Abstinence and safer sex HIV risk-reduction interventions for African American adolescents. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(19), 1529-1536.


Results indicated that individuals in the abstinence intervention were significantly less likely than control group participants to report having had sexual intercourse in the three months following the intervention, but this difference disappeared at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups.

The op-ed piece didn't tell you about this bit. Indeed, the study quoted didn't bother to examine any time periods beyond three months. Wonder why?

It then goes on to villify a private curriculum, "Be Proud! Be Responsible!" designed to increase awareness of HIV. Pandering pretty heavily to the "oh noes, they're teaching sexual techniques to children" crowd, while failing to mention that it is a curriculum from a private non-profit corporation.

More pablum for the converted.

The author then goes on to the astonishing conclusion that people who abstain from sex tend to go on to college more than those who spend time socializing or dating. Shock!

This bit doesn't mean a squirt of shit about whether abstinence-only education is more effective than a more balanced approach at preventing teen pregnancy and/or sexual activity.

Since we are on the subject of "the research" lets cut to an interesting bit about abstinence-only education:

Source: Joseph M. Strayhorn and Jillian C. Strayhorn, “Religiosity and Teen Birth Rate in the United States,” Reproductive Health 6.14 (September 2009).


Key Findings:

· Religiosity of a state was found to be very highly correlated with teen birth rates, such that more religious states have higher teen birth rates.
· When controlling for income to ensure that the correlation cannot be attributed to household income, the analyses indicated that the correlation between religiosity and teen birth rates was still highly significant.
· In controlling for abortion rates and income, analyses continued to show a strong and significant correlation between the two main variables of religiosity and teen birth rates.
· Along with the composite religiosity score being correlated with teen birth rates, each individual question was analyzed separately; each of the eight questions related to high religiosity also correlated with high birth rates.
· Teen birth rates were, in some cases, more highly correlated to the religiosity questions than some of the questions were to each other.
· Low religiosity, or “irreligiosity,” correlated with lower teen birth rates.

The researchers concluded that “conservative religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging use of contraception among their teen community members than in discouraging sexual intercourse itself.”

Oops. Add that to the list of research that shows that abstinance-only education isn't quite as good as the alternative versions of sex education that include honest talk about sex.

That is the crux of the REAL issue.

The issue here is not about whether abstinance as AN option is taught in schools, the issue here is whether or not abstinance is taught as THE option in schools.

Leaving me to confront the OP with his own strawman:


The federal government now promotes this same message in schools: “Protected sex” is all about fun, with no downside.

I have NEVER seen any public school curriculum that didn't emphasize that the ONLY way to avoid the consequences of sexual behavior is abstinance, and that all birth control has failure rates, both in preventing disease, and preventing unintended pregnancies. Abstinance as an option is not being forbidden here, that is yet another intellectually dishonest construct.

Does the OP's author provide evidence that any federally-advocated sexual education curriculum presents protected sex has having no downside?

That is a fair critical thinking question. Too bad fairness is not what was being aimed for in the op-ed piece.

[greyforest]

correlation is not causation

this article is largely based on if correlation WAS causation

[RandomGuy]

Wow..

Good article, and three lemming responses following.

Now watch the libtards here confuse teaching abstinence with abstinence only teaching.

Actually us libtards with reading comprehension and who follow news that doesn't come pre-filtered to us through op-ed pieces, know that the OP is talking about the funding elimination for abstinence only education in the new Obama budget in favor of "evidnence-based" (http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/AFY_Joe/2009/5/7/Obamas-new-budget-ELIMINATES-abstinenceonly-funding) comprehensive education.

You know, where he was talking about the "jettisoning of abstinence funding" at the end there?

Or maybe you can put your conservabrain to work supporting the statement:


teens will no longer be taught about the link between abstinence and educational success

The OP claims this.

Sure seems like he has confused "teaching abstinence with abstinence-only teaching".

Is he a libtard too?

[RandomGuy]

correlation is not causation

this article is largely based on if correlation WAS causation


Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—popular in states with high religiosity scores—are a perfect example of these failed initiatives. These curricula try to discourage sexual activity and, in so doing, often suggest that all contraceptive methods are ineffective.

Studies of virginity pledges—a cornerstone of most abstinence-only curricula—provide additional evidence that discouraging sexual activity and contraceptive use will lead to dangerous outcomes. Researchers found that young people who took the pledges were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged. Further research has confirmed that although some students who take pledges delay intercourse, ultimately they are equally as likely to contract an STD as their non-pledging peers.[1] Far from providing a solution to the complex problem of unintended pregnancy and disease transmission, these simplistic pledges are undermining the use of contraception among teens, potentially exposing them to greater harm.

Although many conservative religious communities support failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and virginity pledges, the authors of this article do not conclude that high religiosity is the problem. There are certainly many devout religious communities that support providing young people with accurate information about condoms and contraception. However, this article should be another clear call to conservative religious communities and politicians that their sexual health policies are not even achieving the goals they have set out for themselves.

[1] P. Bearman and H. Brückner, "Promising the Future: Virginity Pledges and the Transition to First Intercourse," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 106, no. 4 (2001), pp. 859-912; P. Bearman, et al., “The Relationship Between Virginity Pledges in Adolescence and STD Acquisition in Young Adulthood,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 110, no. 1 (2004), pp. 44-92.



http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featureid=1831&pageid=682&parentid=478

[RandomGuy]

Although many conservative religious communities support failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and virginity pledges, the authors of this article [the one about religiousity-RG] do not conclude that high religiosity is the problem. There are certainly many devout religious communities that support providing young people with accurate information about condoms and contraception. However, this article should be another clear call to conservative religious communities and politicians that their sexual health policies are not even achieving the goals they have set out for themselves.

If governments and communities are truly interested in helping young people prevent unintended pregnancies, as well as STDs and HIV, they should stop supporting programs and policies that discourage contraceptive use and focus solely on abstinence. Instead, it is imperative that we reach all of our country’s young people with age-appropriate, medically accurate, and non-judgmental information about condoms and contraception.

I agree with that last bit 100%.

The cessation of funding for the abstinence-only programs will free up money for things that actually work better.

[DMX7]

Bristol Palin, spokeswomen FOR abstinence, says abstinence 'Is Not Realistic At All'.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,495244,00.html

[spursncowboys]

Here is a link to an abstract of the "new" study.
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/164/2/152?home


Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 MonthsA Randomized Controlled Trial With Young Adolescents
John B. Jemmott III, PhD; Loretta S. Jemmott, PhD, RN; Geoffrey T. Fong, PhD

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(2):152-159.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of an abstinence-only intervention in preventing sexual involvement in young adolescents.
Design Randomized controlled trial.
Setting Urban public schools.
Participants A total of 662 African American students in grades 6 and 7.
Interventions An 8-hour abstinence-only intervention targeted reduced sexual intercourse; an 8-hour safer sex–only intervention targeted increased condom use; 8-hour and 12-hour comprehensive interventions targeted sexual intercourse and condom use; and an 8-hour health-promotion control intervention targeted health issues unrelated to sexual behavior. Participants also were randomized to receive or not receive an intervention maintenance program to extend intervention efficacy.
Outcome Measures The primary outcome was self-report of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were other sexual behaviors.
Results The participants' mean age was 12.2 years; 53.5% were girls; and 84.4% were still enrolled at 24 months. Abstinence-only intervention reduced sexual initiation (risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.96). The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). Abstinence-only intervention did not affect condom use. The 8-hour (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.00) and 12-hour comprehensive (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99) interventions reduced reports of having multiple partners compared with the control group. No other differences between interventions and controls were significant.
Conclusion Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.
Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00640653 (http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00640653)





Yes, Virginia, SOME sex education is better than NO sex education, i.e. the control group. SHOCK!

What the intellectually dishonest op-ed piece doesn't really tell you is that we have known about this effect for years. who has known? Democrats? Yeah no shit. They should also know by now that school vouchers work better for minorities than the public schools but do they change them? That is the big trash talk about the dishonesty of the article? That was a lot of build up. Not much delivery.


Jemmott, J.B., Jemmott, L.S., & Fong, G.T. (1998). Abstinence and safer sex HIV risk-reduction interventions for African American adolescents. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(19), 1529-1536.



The op-ed piece didn't tell you about this bit. Indeed, the study quoted didn't bother to examine any time periods beyond three months. Wonder why? Because they are kids. I would also say that there would be too many variables included to base anything past three months. I noticed that all the studies were three months though. I don't think that every study done has used a 3 month window indicates some sinister plot. The one in 88 and the study you linked were both 3 mo. So what.


It then goes on to villify a private curriculum, "Be Proud! Be Responsible!" designed to increase awareness of HIV. Pandering pretty heavily to the "oh noes, they're teaching sexual techniques to children" crowd, while failing to mention that it is a curriculum from a private non-profit corporation.If they are teaching this, than it is not some conservative are overreacting:
invite [students] to brainstorm ways to increase spontaneity and the likelihood that they’ll use condoms. . . . Examples: . . . Store condoms under [the] mattress. . . . Eroticize condom use with partner. . . . Use condoms as a method of foreplay. . . . Think up a sexual fantasy using condoms. . . . Act sexy/sensual when putting the condom on. . . . Hide them on your body and ask your partner to find it. . . . Wrap them as a present and give them to your partner before a romantic dinner. . . . Tease each other manually while putting on the condom.




The author then goes on to the astonishing conclusion that people who abstain from sex tend to go on to college more than those who spend time socializing or dating. Shock! Good job completely brushing that off. You were saying something about dishonesty. This is a pretty big piece of the article.


This bit doesn't mean a squirt of shit about whether abstinence-only education is more effective than a more balanced approach at preventing teen pregnancy and/or sexual activity. like how to put on a condom?

[ChumpDumper]

If they are teaching this, than it is not some conservative are overreacting:Ok, which federal program teaches this?


like how to put on a condom?If one is going to have sex regardless of being told abstinence is the greatest thing ever, is that not good information to have?

[ploto]

The primary outcome was self-report of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up.

Maybe the kids in the abstinence-only group did not want to admit they had sex because of what they were taught.

[Wild Cobra]

Bristol Palin, spokeswomen FOR abstinence, says abstinence 'Is Not Realistic At All'.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,495244,00.html
It sure would be nice if you framed a proper account for us. As is, you framed it to the degree , it becomes a lie.


VAN SUSTEREN: I don't want to pry to personally, but I mean, actually, contraception is an issue here. Is that something that you were just lazy about or not interested, or do you have a philosophical or religious opposition to it or...

BRISTOL: No. I don't want to get into detail about that. But I think abstinence is, like -- like, the -- I don't know how to put it -- like, the main -- everyone should be abstinent or whatever, but it's not realistic at all.

Very weak bringing this interview into the mix. It appears you never read the interview transcript:

February 18, 2009 Interview with Bristol Palin (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494205,00.html)

A year old also. Must not be any good attack material out there to resort to old, weak material.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually us libtards with reading comprehension and who follow news that doesn't come pre-filtered to us through op-ed pieces, know that the OP is talking about the funding elimination for abstinence only education in the new Obama budget in favor of "evidnence-based" (http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/AFY_Joe/2009/5/7/Obamas-new-budget-ELIMINATES-abstinenceonly-funding) comprehensive education.

Yes, but it also eliminates the "Community-Based Abstinence Education Program," which is not "abstinence only."

I'm am not opposed to eliminating the "abstinence only" programs that require other means of prevention not be taught. Teenagers will experiment and should be taught abstinence is the preferred way, but also be prepared if they choose to have sex.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe the kids in the abstinence-only group did not want to admit they had sex because of what they were taught.
That study was for the very young children.

You telling us it's common for 11-13 year old to have sex, when taught otherwise?

Seems to me this is OK to reinforce the concept in Jr. High, but we still need to be realistic that in High School, kids are even more rebellious.

Now I do agree the kids in an abstinence only group will more likely lie about it. However, we are still talking about pre-teens rather than teens. Little activity to start with, and I'll bet much of the study increased their awareness of consequences.

[Marcus Bryant]

You're gonna enjoy this freedom whether you like it or not.

Or, you are free to do as you want so long as it fits one of the prescribed choices stated in the Federal Register.

Again, under what authority does the federal government claim the right to instruct the young as to proper sexual habits? We pretend this is the land of the free and the home of the brave but this is as regulated and socialistic a nation as Scandinavia could have conceived. We are a cowed and pliant people, quick to boast and yet, quick to fold.

When freedom became the ability to instruct your neighbor how to live, I'm not sure, but that was a sad, sad day.

[RandomGuy]

The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group...

Conclusion: Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.



The danger of straight line projections. I left out the "model-based" numbers because they were predictions based that were seemingly solely based on the three month data.

You will note, that the study I cited actually had data for subsequent periods, NOT PROJECTIONS, and showed that the differences in sexual activity actually disappeared.

I fully accede that SOME sex education, even abstinance-only education, is better than NO sex education, as the data I have seen supports that.

The question you so seemed to have again overlooked:

Does the data show that abstinance-only education is less or more effective than comprehensive education in terms of both preventing sexual activity, and the more serious consequences of teen pregnancy?

The data that I have seen is that comprehensive education is MORE effective than abstinence-only education.

Why do you seem to want us to waste our tax dollars on shit that doesn't work as well as the alternative?

Are you that committed to government waste?

[RandomGuy]

Jemmott, J.B., Jemmott, L.S., & Fong, G.T. (1998). Abstinence and safer sex HIV risk-reduction interventions for African American adolescents. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(19), 1529-1536.

Results indicated that individuals in the abstinence intervention were significantly less likely than control group participants to report having had sexual intercourse in the three months following the intervention, but this difference disappeared at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups.


The op-ed piece didn't tell you about this bit. Indeed, the study quoted didn't bother to examine any time periods beyond three months. Wonder why?


[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]
Because they are kids. I would also say that there would be too many variables included to base anything past three months. I noticed that all the studies were three months though. I don't think that every study done has used a 3 month window indicates some sinister plot. The one in 88 and the study you linked were both 3 mo. So what.

Sigh.

Read it again, please. The '98 study actually did follow-ups to the initial 3 month data collection. It was during the follow-ups where it was found that the benefit of the "abstinence-only" bit over the "no education" control groups disappeared.

It was not simple projections like the happy fun study the OP cited, but actual data.

Data trumps models. QED

It might not have been a "sinister plot", but simply mediocre science.

The danger is when dumbasses try to use it as some sort of support for the shitty abstinence-only education, as if telling kids about condom usage is the end of civilization.

It isn't.

If people are so scared that their parenting is so shitty that someone telling their kids about condoms will somehow undo years of good moral guidance, fuck them. If your guidance was that shitty, a lecture on birth control is the least of your problems.

[mogrovejo]

You're gonna enjoy this freedom whether you like it or not.

Or, you are free to do as you want so long as it fits one of the prescribed choices stated in the Federal Register.

Again, under what authority does the federal government claim the right to instruct the young as to proper sexual habits? We pretend this is the land of the free and the home of the brave but this is as regulated and socialistic a nation as Scandinavia could have conceived. We are a cowed and pliant people, quick to boast and yet, quick to fold.

When freedom became the ability to instruct your neighbor how to live, I'm not sure, but that was a sad, sad day.

Good question.

There's nothing wrong about telling people how they should live - that's what, among many others, Christ, Confucius, Sade, Plato, Aquinas, Franklin, Camus and Will Rogers did - some better than others. Obviously, people may choose to not even listening to you.

What's scary is the state entering the game - now a few people can indoctrinate others by speaking in behalf of everybody (including of those who completely disagree with their message), using their money (including of those who completely disagree with their message) and forcing people to hear them - if not to follow their prescriptions.

[mogrovejo]

One has only to think of the sinister possibilities of the radio, State-controlled education and so forth, to realise that "the truth is great and will prevail" is a prayer rather than an axiom.

George Orwell

[RandomGuy]

The author then goes on to the astonishing conclusion that people who abstain from sex tend to go on to college more than those who spend time socializing or dating. Shock!


[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]
Good job completely brushing that off. You were saying something about dishonesty. This is a pretty big piece of the article.


:rolleyes
Actually the article was bemoaning the loss of funding for the shitty abstinence-only programs. That was the main point of the article was it not?

But since you seem to think I somehow brushed it off, even though I tacitly acknowledged it, let me be a bit more explicit:
I will readily and happily accede that putting off sexual activity will likely lead to increased educational success.

As for the rest of the piece:

The entire thing is hysteronic hand-waving and that can be summed up in the following point that YOU brushed off:


teens will no longer be taught about the link between abstinence and educational success

Please find where current plans or curriculums completely ingore or don't advocate abstinence as an option (that was DEFINITELY IMPLIED) and/or that they don't acknowledge that abstinence helps educational success.

I call bullshit. Back the guys statement up, or admit he is full of shit when he claims that.

Your bullshit op-ed, your burden.

[Coach Buzzcut]

Goddamn it! Buncha pansies in Washington telling me what to teach kids about sex!

K_4EHfqeiaE

[Winehole23]

/win

[PixelPusher]

Threads like these are useful, if only to remind everyone why the libertarian pose the board Republicans like to strike is just that...a pose.

[Winehole23]

When SnC said that he more disagreed with the content of sex ed more than the fact of it, he admitted as much. There's something to that, PixelP.

[Winehole23]

Most soi disant conservatives don't hate activism. They just hate activism they disagree with.

[coyotes_geek]

Most soi disant conservatives don't hate activism. They just hate activism they disagree with.

I'd say that statement applies to pretty much everyone.

[mogrovejo]

Threads like these are useful, if only to remind everyone why the libertarian pose the board Republicans like to strike is just that...a pose.

I didn't see that. Maybe you're confusing libertarian with libertine.

It'd be funny to have a poll where people would vote if they agree with giving the government a role in telling people how to behave in their sexual life (be it by promoting abstinence or whatever).

[spursncowboys]

Threads like these are useful, if only to remind everyone why the libertarian pose the board Republicans like to strike is just that...a pose.

Yeah because anyone on the left has any belief that a libertarian does. Sex ed wasn't started by conservatives.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah because anyone on the left has any belief that a libertarian does. Sex ed wasn't started by conservatives.But "conservatives" like you love sex ed as long at is their kind of sex ed.

Socialist.

[spursncowboys]

When SnC said that he more disagreed with the content of sex ed more than the fact of it, he admitted as much. There's something to that, PixelP.

How cute. When did I make a measured comment about the reality of sex-ed? Is science not part of the seven liberal-arts subjects? Is health not a taught subject since the beginning of this country? Like always, in your attempt to put people in a nice little sentence, you assumed what my idea of sex ed should be. About the government's involvement, we are all talking about parents aggreeing to their kids being involved. Something the communist republicans came up with.