Promoting Abstinence "proven to work"

[theprof00]

Kasz216 said:

Rath said:

Kasz216 said:

Rath said:

Kasz216 said:

The heck... in like the span of 2 seconds, 50 more posts appeared for me. Must be a site bug?

 

Anyway, anyone who doesn't think Absistence education doesn't work, is as dumb as people who WANT abistence ONLY education.

Absitence education is the most successful education.  It's just not perfect.  Hence why you want to teach ways to safeguard vs those still stupid enough to go through with it at a young age.

I disagree that abstinence education is the most succesful. The most succesful thing in bringing down STD rates and pregnancy rates surely has to be condoms and education about them?

But in any case, abstinence education should definitely be included as part of a wider sexual education. It's just abstinence only education that doesn't work.

The study above seemed to suggest otherwise, but what your missing is that abstinience education is the base that starts off keeping things down.

To use another, sillier example.  Absitence education is like telling people that snakes are dangererous.  While condom education is snake handling lessons.  That snakes are dangerous are enough to dissuade most people from handling snakes... while snake handling lessons helps more people... and nothing really helps others.

People don't have a natural and extremely powerful biological urge to play with snakes. It's not a very good example at all. People simply want to have sex - their body tells them to and the combined might of the media tells them to. A teacher telling them not to doesn't seem to work according to the majority of studies.

Your right.  The fact that it's a natural urge is why absitence education is even more important to be at the forefront of education.  Otherwise EVERYBODY would be doing it. 

With snake handling, it would only deter a part of the population that is interested in that in the first place.  So such statistics for something that's less of a universal urge would be less impressive and harder to measure.   In general, this is an arguement AGAINST your point, not for it.  I was going to mention it but left it out for brevity's sake.

 

Outside which, I don't believe there has been another study that's actually studied it.

The other studies I've seen has compaired abstinence only vs a combined apporach INCLUDING abistinence.

Which is like arguieng a diet doesn't work, because in studies, people with a diet and exorcise has a higher amount of weight loss then just the diet.

That is, unless you can offer a study that says the opposite...  I don't think you're likely to find it though.

 

All i've ever seen is the above, the mentioned study and then studies that show people who go through absitence only studies tend to preform better in school, likely due to students being drawn to it being the same people who would pass the "marshmellow" test.

Oh, and a metanalysis that seems to show it generally has less to do with the method but how it's carried out.  IE the more moralistic your abistence only program is the more likely it is to fail.  IE focusing on it being bad, is worse then focusing on it's danger.

You mentioned the person arguing with you was saying abstinence does help.

Who is this person, because rath said that abstinence only is bad, but that abstinence should be invluded in teaching along with other things.

 

I get what you're trying to do, but I gotta say, we want to talk about silly examples, let's use a serious and closely related one. Obesity.
Either way, I have no quarrel with your point, I just think you're both saying the same thing and there's no reason for argument.