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

[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

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

[Wild Cobra]

Actually us lib s 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" 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 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 ty 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 ty that someone telling their kids about condoms will somehow undo years of good moral guidance, them. If your guidance was that ty, 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.

Actually the article was bemoaning the loss of funding for the ty 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 bull . Back the guys statement up, or admit he is full of when he claims that.

Your bull op-ed, your burden.

[Coach Buzzcut]

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

[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.