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

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

sethnintendo on 23 February 2012

Just show a bunch of stds pictures. If that doesn't scare them then let them have them!



Around the Network
Alby_da_Wolf on 23 February 2012
sethnintendo said:
NightDragon83 said:
Funny thing is that with the increase in focus on "sex-ed" classes in schools and easier than ever access to birth control / contraceptive products over the past 2 decades, the STD rates in this country have skyrocketed during the same time frame. The only thing that's actually gone down is teen pregnancy, but that's attributed more to the fact that teens are experimenting and trying other stuff more frequently instead of just the old in-out, in-out.


They are doing it in the butt and not the vag.

All's well that ends well!   



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


MrBubbles on 23 February 2012

ref: the questionable study posted

being that santorum says contraception is immoral and causing a degradation of society, i think we can safely assume he would go for the variety of program that "typically portray sex and condom use in a more negative light" rather than the torturous sounding 8 hour abstinence classes mentioned.

on top of this the increasing sexual promiscuity of kids is definitely not because of the sex ed classes.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

VGhippy on 23 February 2012
NiKKoM said:


He's the man! A babe in each arm and the people sitting near him are so ashamed of not being the pulling machine that he is, they ripped off their own faces in self lothing. Learn from him people.... learn.



highwaystar101 on 23 February 2012

Abstinence only works if you can convince people to stick to it...

I don't support teaching "abstinence only", although if people want to teach their children that it is one method of avoiding *insert problem with sex here*, then I would be fine long as they also teach the alternatives too. Parents should at least tell them about condoms, if only to give them a contingency plan should their abstinence plan fail (after all, you are dealing with hormone driven teens here).

But hey, we live in a free country, if parents want to teach abstinence only that's their choice.



Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 23 February 2012
MrBubbles said:
ref: the questionable study posted

being that santorum says contraception is immoral and causing a degradation of society, i think we can safely assume he would go for the variety of program that "typically portray sex and condom use in a more negative light" rather than the torturous sounding 8 hour abstinence classes mentioned.

on top of this the increasing sexual promiscuity of kids is definitely not because of the sex ed classes.


I could be wrong but I suspect the "8 hour class" was probably spread out over several weeks; although the article doesn't make that clear.

 

I personally don't think it is the "sex ed" that is increasing promiscuity but the lack of arguing for teenage abstinence in these programs that is leading to increased promiscuit. Way back in the day (mid 1990s) we had (about) weeks of sex education classes per year (from grade 4 through grade 10) and we only (really) had about 1 day devoted to contraception; while the vast majority of the time was spent on the consequences of sexual activity (pregnancy, child birth, STDs, etc.). The overwhelming impression that the vast majority of people had leaving these courses was that the consequences of sexual activity at a young age are extreme; which is (essentially) the truth.

The impression I get from the news is that sexual education courses (especially in the united states) seem to be moving away from the ultimately practical consequence focused education that was highly successful in the 1990s to a program that is focused on gender identity and sexuality issues.



theprof00 on 23 February 2012
HappySqurriel said:

I'm assuming he is referring to the studies that were released a couple years ago:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/02/health/main6165752.shtml

(AP)  An experimental abstinence-only program without a moralistic tone can delay young teens from having sex, a new study found.

Billed as the first rigorous research to show long-term success with an abstinence-only approach, the study released Monday differed from traditional programs that have lost U.S. federal and state support in recent years.

The classes didn't preach saving sex until marriage or disparage condom use. Instead, they involved assignments to help students around the age of 12 see the drawbacks to sexual activity at their age. It included having them list the pros and cons themselves, and it found their "cons" far outnumbered the "pros."

The study appears in the February edition of Archives of Pediatrics&Adolescent Medicine. It was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and involved 662 black children in Philadelphia.

The students were assigned to one of four options: eight hour-long abstinence-only classes; safe-sex classes; classes incorporating both approaches; or classes in general healthy behavior. Results for the first three classes were compared with the group that had only the general health classes. That was the "control group" the study used for comparison.

Two years later, about one-third of abstinence-only students said they'd had sex since the classes ended, versus nearly half - about 49 per cent - of the control group. Sexual activity rates in the other two groups didn't differ from the control group.

Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Program, praised the study and said she hopes it revives government interest in abstinence-only sex education.

Critics of abstinence-only programs have long argued that most evidence shows they don't work. The new study challenges that, but even the authors say the results don't mean that more comprehensive sex education should be ignored.

The abstinence-only program was based on social psychology theories about what motivates behavior. It encouraged abstinence as a way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Psychologist John Jemmott III, the lead author, called the findings surprising given negative results in previous abstinence-only research. Jemmott said the single focus may have been better at encouraging abstinence than the other approaches in his study.

"The message was not mixed with any other messages," said Jemmott, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who has long studied ways to reduce risky behavior among inner-city youngsters.

Monica Rodriguez of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, an advocacy group favoring comprehensive sex education, said the study doesn't mean other abstinence-only programs would work.

"It's unfair to compare this abstinence-only intervention to the typical abstinence-only-until-marriage program that young people in this country have been put through," she said. These typically portray sex and condom use in a more negative light, she said.

Rodriguez said the program studied might be one approach to try with younger children, but that it probably would be less successful with older, more sexually experienced teens.

Almost one-fourth of the teens studied said they'd already had sex at least once, similar to other studies of urban, mostly black children of middle school age, around 11 to 13.

Interestingly enough, the actual details of the study can't be found anywhere. It has not been peer-reviewed, methods not tested, etc etc.



TruckOSaurus on 23 February 2012

Teaching only abstinence is incredibly naive. The kids most likely to follow that practice are also the ones least likely to get laid to start with.



Signature goes here!

theprof00 on 23 February 2012
osamanobama said:
MrBubbles said:

this is a reference to a comment by santorum in the republican debate

 

im just curious if anyone knows what it has been proven to do?  because it definitely is not preventing sex.


wait, abstaining from sex doesnt prevent sex?

if you dont mind me asking, What does?

Telling kids not to do something doesn't work....they do it anyways.

Inevitably, people need to make their own mistakes in order to learn. With that in mind, it is more important to help kids minimize the consequences of their mistakes rather than telling them not to make mistakes.

I fact, many kids today call themselves virgins even with anal sex. They say they are saving their virginity. This is the kind of twisted logic you get when you use fear and illogical methods to try and control something.

 

Also, about the study brought up above, this was for 11 year olds. When I was eleven I was able to give more cons than pros for drug use too. I still did them though. Teaching an abstinence program based on fear to eleven year olds is one thing, let's see what happens when they reach the rebellious years of 15-16.

Hilarious how the program never stopped to check back in these many years later.

 

Honestly, you want kids to stop having sex? Stop injecting meat with hormones. The whole reason why the trend of kids having sex is on the rise is directly related to earlier and earlier pysical development derived from artificial hormone levels. It's the same reason everyone is getting taller. The food industry strikes again, wish there were some way we could regulate it. Oh wait, republicans are against that too.



Panama on 23 February 2012

Oh dear, I hope no one in America takes anything Santorum says seriously.