Abstinence Classes Fail

[Phenomanul]

No, I mean like a world war or economic collapse.

Ok... Now I understand the context of your comment.

As in... it would take a "Grapes of Wrath" scenario to speed up the maturity process of irresponsible people/parents/kids.

[scott]

Federal Abstinence Programs fail because their focus is entirely based on stressing the avoidance of STDs and unplanned pregnancies... but humans will be humans and it is extremely difficult to curb the human sex drive on these premises alone.

Besides, your observation is not as pronounced as you seem to indicate because the applicability of federal abstinence programs to homeschoolers is... ummmm..... quite irrelevant. Don't let that little fact escape the argument.

If for example the Federal Government surveyed 50 million students and found that the success rate for their abstinence programs was 1%. That dismal figure doesn't allow anyone to conclude that abstinence programs fail. The data doesn't say that. It suggests federal abstinence programs are failing. Again, 'federal' is the key word.

If on the other hand, 50% of all home-schoolers managed to remain abstinent that would suggest that the parents were doing something right, something better, that their 'programs' (i.e. approach) was better. The fact that their population pool were 80 times smaller than the public school pool would not negate that argument. You seem to think it does... whatever.

And don't fool yourself into thinking that 'safe-sex' is an entirely risk free alternative to abstinence. If I designed the reliability of the refinery's safety systems, or any other critical quality control measure to match the reliability of a condom I would be fired. Those values are unacceptable... not to mention the fact that condoms have minimal effectiveness against disease - a parameter not even factored into the mix.

The study was about Federal Abstinence Programs. You immediately went to:

I'm pretty sure the results would be different if the entire student pool had been adequately represented.... in particular the home-schooled crowd.

Which I interpreted to mean you felt the effectiveness of Federal Abstinence Programs would be measured differently if "the entire student pool" had be adequately represented.

I assumed you were staying on topic. Guess I was wrong. My bad.

As for the rest of your rant about the risk involved in safe-sex, you must be addressing someone else as I have not approached nor expressed any interest in approaching the topic. So, don't fool yourself into thinking Trix are just for kids... CUS THEY AREN'T!

[Phenomanul]

The study was about Federal Abstinence Programs. You immediately went to:

I'm pretty sure the results would be different if the entire student pool had been adequately represented.... in particular the home-schooled crowd.

Which I interpreted to mean you felt the effectiveness of Federal Abstinence Programs would be measured differently if "the entire student pool" had be adequately represented.

I still fail to see why you would see a pool size 1/80th the size of the one represented as insignificant? Especially when we are talking about millions of students. Furthermore, if you seek out the details of the study itself most of the surveyed schools were from large metropolitan areas.... why weren't the smaller schools from rural towns included in the survey? I would be a little more worried about whose agenda the survey wanted to appease. But I guess people will always find ways for studies to say what they want to hear - it's all in the framework of the study itself.

I assumed you were staying on topic. Guess I was wrong. My bad.

What a cop out. The focus of the topic was never the linked study itself. It was nbadan's implied assertion that we shouldn't be surprised to see abstinence programs fail. I simply went on to explain why they do. Sorry you couldn't keep up.

As for the rest of your rant about the risk involved in safe-sex, you must be addressing someone else as I have not approached nor expressed any interest in approaching the topic. So, don't fool yourself into thinking Trix are just for kids... CUS THEY AREN'T!

My bad... that paragraph wasn't meant for you. It was a general footnote related to the thread that just managed to get included in my response to your post.

But by now I'm pretty sure you are aware that the teaching of safe-sex is the only other alternative to abstinence in the fight against STD's and unwanted pregnancies - when it comes to the teaching of sexuality to minors that is. So you may not have any interest in discussing the topic, but they are certainly intertwined.

Safe-sex is not safe.... simple as that. Hence if federal abstinence programs are failing and the teaching of safe-sex is the only other choice -- watch out.

[JoeChalupa]

I still preach abstinence to my daughters.
Yeah, that is correct. My liberal ass teaches abstinence and the whole family goes to Church.

[scott]

I still fail to see why you would see a pool size 1/80th the size of the one represented as insignificant? Especially when we are talking about millions of students. Furthermore, if you seek out the details of the study itself most of the surveyed schools were from large metropolitan areas.... why weren't the smaller schools from rural towns included in the survey? I would be a little more worried about whose agenda the survey wanted to appease. But I guess people will always find ways for studies to say what they want to hear - it's all in the framework of the study itself.

I think home schoolers are not significant to the study, because I only take the study for what it truly was - a condemnation of Federal programs. I don't read what Dan says most of the time, my apologies for missing his attempt to broaden the scope.

No blood, no foul.