By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Promoting Abstinence "proven to work"

Kasz216 on 26 February 2012
theprof00 said:
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.

Ali.  The person who was argueing about it at the time.  Who was using the "Show them it's a bad idea and kids will want to do it more" arguement.

Which if often used (though incorrectly) in smoking... which was an arguement you yourself tried to use.



Around the Network
theprof00 on 26 February 2012
Kasz216 said:

Ali.  The person who was argueing about it at the time.  Who was using the "Show them it's a bad idea and kids will want to do it more" arguement.

Which if often used (though incorrectly) in smoking... which was an arguement you yourself tried to use.


I was referring to the moralistic approach.



Kasz216 on 28 February 2012
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:

Ali.  The person who was argueing about it at the time.  Who was using the "Show them it's a bad idea and kids will want to do it more" arguement.

Which if often used (though incorrectly) in smoking... which was an arguement you yourself tried to use.


I was referring to the moralistic approach.


Except the "Don't smoke" abstinence methods if summed up in one word would be "Cancer."



theprof00 on 28 February 2012
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:

Ali.  The person who was argueing about it at the time.  Who was using the "Show them it's a bad idea and kids will want to do it more" arguement.

Which if often used (though incorrectly) in smoking... which was an arguement you yourself tried to use.


I was referring to the moralistic approach.


Except the "Don't smoke" abstinence methods if summed up in one word would be "Cancer."

yes but fortunately nobody just says, "quit or get cancer".

They say, try e-cigs for a while, or get on the patch, or tyr chewing gum, or even simply, try to cut down. Nobody expects anyone to just stop smoking, because it is an unreasonable expectation. Rather, they try to keep people form ever first trying it, and in doing so, kids are just self medicating in other ways.

Yes, kids today try to get away from cigarettes because it isn't the cool thing anymore. The way they've adapted, is by moving to weed, which people like to say is not carcinogenic, and actually good for the body. In becoming health conscious, kids have moved towards a cool medication that is more societally acceptable, weed.



Kasz216 on 28 February 2012
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:

Ali.  The person who was argueing about it at the time.  Who was using the "Show them it's a bad idea and kids will want to do it more" arguement.

Which if often used (though incorrectly) in smoking... which was an arguement you yourself tried to use.


I was referring to the moralistic approach.


Except the "Don't smoke" abstinence methods if summed up in one word would be "Cancer."

yes but fortunately nobody just says, "quit or get cancer".

They say, try e-cigs for a while, or get on the patch, or tyr chewing gum, or even simply, try to cut down. Nobody expects anyone to just stop smoking, because it is an unreasonable expectation. Rather, they try to keep people form ever first trying it, and in doing so, kids are just self medicating in other ways.

Yes, kids today try to get away from cigarettes because it isn't the cool thing anymore. The way they've adapted, is by moving to weed, which people like to say is not carcinogenic, and actually good for the body. In becoming health conscious, kids have moved towards a cool medication that is more societally acceptable, weed.


While I could take the bait here.  Instead I'll point out nothing you've said suggests you were talking about the moralistic based approach... because your example was not a moralistic approach, but in fact a logic based one... and one that works.


Though for what it's worth...

While Marijuna use is going up... when you compare it to the smoking graph below, it doesn't really support your hypothesis... and the growth rate really is somewhat negligable.

Really it seems like they mirror each other quite a bit.


If anything though, i think this thread is a good example of how often, public health risks are greatly exaggerrated.  Modern Media would have you think Smoking and Marijuana use among teens is higher then it's ever been ever!   When really... not so much.


Another fun graph along those lines that's fairly relevent?

 

Can't find any actual "Teen sex statistics" though because I can't find a way for such a google search to NOT bring up porn.

 

EDIT: Here's one.

 

 

Also going down... moral of the story?  Kids right now are actually all right, and somewhat turning away from such things.  All this stuff latley has been nothing more then your average media created "epidemic."



Around the Network
Runa216 on 28 February 2012

how did this thread turn into a drugs debate?



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android