Abstinence only works, how moronic

It's also a waste of time, as teenagers will have sex. (I didn't, but I've never been normal.)
 
Teenagers can tell when they are being BS'd too.

Same with drugs. Marijuana makes you into a zombie junkie rapist -> try MJ -> I'm ok -> wait they lied to me.
 
They lied about MJ -> Who's to say they didn't lie about [insert anything dangerous here]

Or

Who's to say they didn't lie about STDs... etc.
 
Domination3000 said:
And it is a scientific fact that STDs are more common for gays so it evens out.
Click to expand...

Abstinence solves the issue either way. Voila.

I think rates among men and women would be very different in homosexual couplings. Call it a hunch.

MobBoss said:
My own objection was confined to my own kids. But the 'school' is not the parent of other children now is it? Which was the basis of my comment. It is indeed a parents responsibility to dicuss this with their (age appropriate) children, not the schools.
Click to expand...

While I agree in principle that the parents should be responsible for the introduction of condoms and responsible sex practices, how do we implement this in practice?

For every parent that will put the fear of God in a child that gets an F, there's a parent who won't.

Having parental opt ins/opt outs for things such as condom use would probably be best. The kid can do something else on any day the condoms are used - it never hurts to have the kid help the librarian out or some such.

As for taxes, that's a different matter since we can't all have what we want there.
 
Criticism of abstinence-only sex education by the scientific and medical communities

Abstinence-only education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association,[11] the American Medical Association,[48] the National Association of School Psychologists,[49] the Society for Adolescent Medicine,[16] the American College Health Association,[16] the American Academy of Pediatrics,[50] and the American Public Health Association,[51] which all maintain that sex education needs to be comprehensive to be effective.

The AMA "urges schools to implement comprehensive... sexuality education programs that... include an integrated strategy for making condoms available to students and for providing both factual information and skill-building related to reproductive biology, sexual abstinence, sexual responsibility, contraceptives including condoms, alternatives in birth control, and other issues aimed at prevention of pregnancy and sexual transmission of diseases... [and] opposes the sole use of abstinence-only education..."[48]

The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices... Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control."[50]

On August 4, 2007, the British Medical Journal published an editorial concluding that there is "no evidence" that abstinence-only sex education programs "reduce risky sexual behaviours, incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy" in "high income countries".[52]

A comprehensive review of 115 program evaluations published in November 2007 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that two-thirds of sex education programs focusing on both abstinence and contraception had a positive effect on teen sexual behavior. The same study found no strong evidence that abstinence-only programs delayed the initiation of sex, hastened the return to abstinence, or reduced the number of sexual partners.[53][54] According to the study author:

"Even though there does not exist strong evidence that any particular abstinence program is effective at delaying sex or reducing sexual behavior, one should not conclude that all abstinence programs are ineffective. After all, programs are diverse, fewer than 10 rigorous studies of these programs have been carried out, and studies of two programs have provided modestly encouraging results. In sum, studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination."

Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that abstinence-only sex education leads to the opposite of the intended results by spreading ignorance regarding sexually transmitted diseases and the proper use of contraceptives to prevent both infections and pregnancy.[56]

In July 2009, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released their analysis of national data collected between 2002 and 2007. Their findings included:[57]

* Birth rates among U.S. teens had increased in 2006 and 2007, following large declines from 1991 to 2005.
* About one-third of adolescents had not received instructions on methods of birth control before age 18.
* In 2004, there were about 745,000 pregnancies among females younger than 20, including an estimated 16,000 pregnancies among girls between 10 and 14.
* In 2006, about one million young people aged 10 to 24 were reported to have chlamydia, gonorrhea, or syphilis. Nearly one-quarter of females aged 15 to 19, and 45% of females aged 20 to 24, had a human papillomavirus infection during 2003 and 2004.
* In 2006, the majority of new diagnoses of HIV infection among young people occurred among males and those aged 20 to 24.
* From 2004 to 2006, about 100,000 females aged 10 to 24 visited a hospital emergency department for nonfatal sexual assault, including 30,000 females aged 10 to 14.
* Hispanic teens aged 15 to 19 are much more likely to become pregnant (132.8 births per 1,000 females) than non-Hispanic blacks (128 per 1,000) and non-Hispanic whites (45.2 per 1,000)
* Non-Hispanic black youth in all age groups have the highest rates of new HIV and AIDS diagnoses.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ed...ion_by_the_scientific_and_medical_communities

Abstinence-Until-Marriage Still Doesn't Work

By Liza Doubossarskaia, NOW Communications Volunteer

March 22, 2010

"Abstinence-Only Education Works According to New Study"

That is the typical headline found recently in newspapers and on websites across the country. The only problem is that this new finding is drawn from a study of programs that are worlds away from the misleading and fear-mongering abstinence-only programs that have come under fire from advocates like NOW. However, conservative groups that promoted abstinence-only-until-marriage federally-funded programs were quick to claim success in the hopes that funding would be restored.

Last year, the Obama administration eliminated more than $170 million in annual federal funding targeted at abstinence programs in response to a series of studies which found these programs to be ineffective. Instead, $114 million -- and maybe as much as $183 million -- will be directed toward a pregnancy prevention effort that will be based only on programs that have been shown scientifically to work. Additionally, for the first time ever, grants will be made available to fund comprehensive, factual and science-based sex education programs.

Effective, Factual Programs Needed - For years, NOW and other groups have urged that federal funds be spent only on proven programs. Our concern relates to a recent increase in teen pregnancy, births and sexually-transmitted infection (STIs) rates -- after a decade of decline. Some observers attribute these unwelcome increases to the biased and incomplete information presented in abstinence-only programs.

As an example of the misinformation contained in many conservative-backed abstinence-only programs, in 2004 an investigation by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) found that a majority of the teaching materials used inaccurate information, such as: HIV can be spread via sweat or tears; condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse; and a 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."

Then, along came the new research that seemed to contradict previous conclusions. According to findings published earlier this year in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 662 sixth and seventh graders who underwent abstinence-only "intervention" were more likely to delay having sex than their peers who were assigned to only general health information classes or classes teaching only safer sex. Out of the different intervention programs tested, only 33 percent of the students from the abstinence intervention started having sex within two years after the program's completion. Comprehensive, safe-sex-only and health-promotion programs registered higher rates of students engaging in sexual intercourse (42 percent, 52 percent and 47 percent respectively).

Proponents of abstinence-only curricula were quick to laud the new findings as a long-awaited justification for conservative-endorsed funding, which totaled $1.5 billion over the past 25 years.

We say, not so fast.
Click to expand...
http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/032210abonly.html

TREND TOWARD ABSTINENCE-ONLY SEX ED MEANS MANY U.S. TEENAGERS ARE NOT GETTING VITAL MESSAGES ABOUT CONTRACEPTION


Sex Ed Teachers Believe They Are Not Meeting Students' Needs for Reproductive Health Information-One in Four Are Told Not to Teach About Contraception

Public school sexuality education teachers report that the focus on abstinence-only instruction increased markedly during the 1990s: In 1999, 23% of these teachers taught abstinence as the only way of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), compared with 2% in 1988, according to a new study by The Alan Guttmacher Institute. While some topics-HIV and other STDs, abstinence, correct condom use and how to resist peer pressure to have intercourse-are being taught earlier than they were a decade ago, most are still taught less often and in later grades than teachers think they should be. Moreover, instruction in all grades is much less likely to cover birth control, abortion, how to obtain contraceptive and STD services, and sexual orientation than it was in the late 1980s.

"Teachers on the front line in high schools around the country recognize that young people need a range of information to support them in making responsible decisions regarding their sexuality," comments AGI President Sara Seims. "Yet this study reveals that teachers are covering far less, far later than they believe is needed. Our findings are particularly disheartening, considering that abstinence accounted for about one-quarter of the recent drop in the U.S. teenage pregnancy rate, while improved contraceptive use was responsible for the rest. And the teenage pregnancy rate and adolescent rates of STDs remain high. Abstinence messages are very important, but clearly the coverage of contraceptive topics is also crucial in helping our youth prevent unplanned pregnancy and STDs."

The study, "Changing Emphases in Sexuality Education in U.S. Public Secondary Schools, 1988-1999," by Jacqueline E. Darroch, David J. Landry and Susheela Singh, is published in the September/October 2000 issue of the Institute's bimonthly professional journal, Family Planning Perspectives-a special issue devoted to sexuality education.

The new study presents findings from two nationally representative surveys of 7th-12th- grade public school teachers of subjects that usually include sexuality education. The surveys, conducted in 1988 and 1999, each included about 4,000 teachers. Most of the information in the 1999 analysis is from a subset of 1,767 teachers who actually taught sexuality education in recent years. This group represents an estimated 81,000 teachers and school nurses currently responsible for teaching sexuality education in grades 7-12.

When asked what they consider their most important messages, four in 10 teachers in 1999 cited abstinence, up from one in four in 1988. Seven in 10 teachers think that students who receive education that stresses abstinence are less likely to have intercourse than students who do not. At the same time, 86% think that students who are taught to use contraceptives if they are sexually active are more likely to do so than are students who do not receive similar instruction. While teachers now consider that contraception should be taught later than they did in the late 1980s, 93% still favor covering it; half believe it should be taught in grade seven or earlier. Yet one in four teachers are told not to teach the topic.

The vast majority of teachers believe that sexuality education courses should also cover where to go for birth control (89%), factual information and ethical issues about abortion (84-89%), the correct way to use a condom (82%) and sexual orientation (78%). However, gaps between teachers' recommendations and actual coverage of these topics are large-24-30 percentage points. Other key findings from the 1999 survey include the following:

• One-third of teachers said they had to be careful about what they taught because of the possibility of adverse community reactions.

• One-quarter of teachers said that information their students needed was not in the curriculum they followed.

• Six in 10 teachers who taught an abstinence-only approach presented no information about contraceptive methods or taught that they are ineffective.

AGI Senior Research Associate David Landry comments of the study findings, "In today's environment, where teenagers are exposed to so many influences, beneficial and otherwise, school-based sexuality education is an essential source of factual information. It is also an important place for building decision-making skills and learning concepts that are important for healthy sexuality. Students need early and balanced information to best prepare them to make the responsible choices necessary to prevent STDs and unplanned pregnancy."
Click to expand...
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/newsrelease3205.html

Abstinence Only Sex Education Curriculum

Federally funded abstinence-only programs use curricula that contain "false, misleading or distorted information about reproductive health," according to a 2004 congressional study prepared for Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-CA).1 Abstinence-only (or abstinence-only-until-marriage) classes teach teenagers only about abstinence and not about any other ways of protecting themselves against sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy.

Federal support for abstinence-only education programs has increased steadily under the Bush administration, rising from $80 million in fiscal year 2001 to $167 million in fiscal year 2005.2 The Waxman study says that support for abstinence-only programs has risen despite the fact that rigorous academic studies have found them to be ineffective.

For example, while abstinence-only classes encourage young people to take a pledge that they will remain virgins until marriage, the Waxman study cites research that indicates "virginity pledgers" are no less likely to engage in premarital sex than their peers. Pledgers have rates of sexually transmitted diseases similar to other teens, and are less likely to use contraception in the event that they do engage in sexual intercourse.3

The Bush administration distorted science-based performance measures when testing whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective. The administration insisted that the Centers for Disease Control, the federal agency sponsoring abstinence education, measure success by the participation rates and attitudes of teens attending the programs,4 not the pregnancy rates of those teens, as had been the previous standard.5

In addition to being ineffective at deterring teen pregnancy and disease, the Waxman study reports that federally-funded abstinence-only programs teach children false scientific information. "Eleven of the thirteen curricula most commonly used by [federally funded abstinence-only programs] contain major errors and distortions of public health information," says the study.6

Some of the misinformation suggests poor research and editing by curricula authors. For example, one curriculum explains that "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual;" the actual number is twenty-three.7

Most of the errors, however, appear to stem from an ideological effort to scare young people about sex, contraception, and abortion. The treatment of condoms is one example. The U. S. Center for Disease Control has found that "latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens."8 Still, one abstinence curriculum sought to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of condoms:

Think on a microscopic level. Sperm cells, STI organisms, and HIV cannot be seen with the naked eye—you need a microscope. Any imperfections in the contraceptive not visible to the eye, could allow sperm, STI, or HIV to pass through. . . . The size difference between a sperm cell and the HIV virus can be roughly related to the difference between the size of a football field and a football.9

The curriculum goes on to falsely state that "the actual ability of condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS, even if the product is intact, is definitely not known." Another curriculum says "the typical failure rate for the male condom is 14 percent in preventing pregnancy."10 This statement is a distortion of the fact that given typical use, couples have a 15 percent chance of experiencing a condom failure over the course of a year; the failure rate falls to 2-3 percent with perfect condom use.11

Abstinence-only education programs also contain misinformation about abortions. "Sterility: Studies show that five to ten percent of women will never again be pregnant after having a legal abortion," one curriculum says.12 In actuality, as obstetricians are taught, an elective abortion does not alter fertility.13

Unfortunately, this pseudo science is fed to young people in need of correct, factual information regarding important life decisions. The Waxman study highlights the necessity for more government oversight to ensure that federally funded education programs teach scientific fact, not falsehood.
Click to expand...
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/abstinence-only-curriculum.html
 
Taniciusfox said:
While I agree in principle that the parents should be responsible for the introduction of condoms and responsible sex practices, how do we implement this in practice?
Click to expand...

Darwinism.
 
Cutlass said:
But lots of false and misleading information that does not specifically say that sex does cause pregnancy.
Click to expand...
You concluded that because it was not specifically mentioned in a criticism section, that it is not mentioned at all...hurm...I guess there should be little problem with the programs anyway. It's unlikely that students are ever told how to recieve absistenance only education, as they are never instructed where and when the class is. It's not mentioned there either.
 
otago said:
Just how moronic can a young woman be when she is running around spouting that abstinence only works, then she comes out with , well it did not work so well when I and my real bright boyfriend got down and dirty.

No wonder the rate of pregnancy is so high among those whose parents rant that their daughter would never have sex outside of marriage because they have taken a pledge to wait until the wedding night.

A high school drop out's normal vernacular ? canard ? why do I have some doubts.
(Accusing me of hypocrisy is by now, an old canard. What Mr. Olbermann lacks in originality he makes up for with insincere incredulity)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/03/bristol-palin-strikes-back-olbermann_n_791478.html
Click to expand...

I have some problems understanding the point(s) of your post. First, why did you have to classify the woman in question as young, can't an old woman be moron as well? Second abstinence does work. It isn't moronic to claim it works, it's moronic to actually practice it. But third, and most importantly, is WHY on Earth a high rate of pregnancy is seen as a bad thing? It certainly is much better than a low rate of pregnancy. Abstinence is unnatural, evil (torture) and wrong.
 
Abstinence is a 100% successful practice - I don't have any children for instance. Teaching it without reference to common sense, good medical practice or without allowing for teenage emotion, however, is sheer folly.
 
ParkCungHee said:
You concluded that because it was not specifically mentioned in a criticism section, that it is not mentioned at all...hurm...I guess there should be little problem with the programs anyway. It's unlikely that students are ever told how to recieve absistenance only education, as they are never instructed where and when the class is. It's not mentioned there either.
Click to expand...

I don't have the articles, but have read elsewhere that many students who get AO do not get factual information on reproduction. I'm sure that's not true in all cases, but it should not be true in any cases.
 
Arakhor said:
Abstinence is a 100% successful practice - I don't have any children for instance.
Click to expand...
abstinence.jpg


You were saying?
 
Abstinence also doesn't work nearly as well for girls as for guys. Rape and all that. So the girls still need factual information and access to birth control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom