Statistics show that instances of unwanted cucmber pregnancies are down over 70% percent due to the sucess of in school cucumber protection demonstrations on proper condom application. Unfortunatly the same cannot be said for Mangos. Mango pregnancy terminations are on the rise by over 18 percent.
What is the world coming to these days!!!!????
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Sexual Education and the election
Sexual Education and the electionFollow
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Smasharoo wrote:
so you'll be spared the clinical burning wrath
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
gbaji wrote:
Well, to be fair though, even the most strict abstinence only program doesn't simply teach you not to ever have sex. The objective is to teach teens not to have sex until they're "ready", specifically when they're hopefully married to the person they're going to have sex with.
We can also debate the likelihood of that happening, however it's a much more reasonable restriction then just saying "don't have sex... ever!".
No **** Sherlock, if anyone actually thought that AO programs were intended to prevent people from ever having sex and to promote the eventual extinction of the species, I ******* hope they're not breeding. If you *really* thought that was what I was talking about, then stop drinking...I don't think you're really that stupid.
gbaji wrote:
Again. That's not what they teach. The objective isn't to prevent them from making decisions, but to encourage them to make the right one. At least until they get out of school and are an adult, and maybe have a bit more sense in their heads.
Only about whether to do it or not. I'm not arguing with you about what AO programs teach, I've reviewed over a hundred. I'm uninterested in your personal opinion when there are multiple studies reviewing both comprehensive (which is what you're talking about when you say "teach about abstinence AND birth control", and what is in the best interests of children) and AO programs and what they've found is that AO programs are not only not helpful, they're detrimental.
Hey folks, you want to tell your kids not to have sex, that's great. Share with them your family values, stress that it's better for them to wait for the right person, absolutely. Hell, if you want to punish them for having sex by grounding, curfews, taking away their extracurricular activities, fine...but I think letting them get pregnant or contract HIV is excessive.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
AlexanderrOfAsura wrote:
I could never get into the attitude of, "Well people are going to do it anyway, we might as well show them how to do it right". There are quite a few natural behaviors humans have, not all of them have a place in modern times.
If the children were taught that they shouldn't have sex before marriage, that bad things would result from it, then they go ahead and do it without any knowledge then they are f-ing stupid. If "Dont @#%^" is too difficult of a concept for them, how do you expect them to be able to handle buying/using condoms and birth control?
If the children were taught that they shouldn't have sex before marriage, that bad things would result from it, then they go ahead and do it without any knowledge then they are f-ing stupid. If "Dont @#%^" is too difficult of a concept for them, how do you expect them to be able to handle buying/using condoms and birth control?
May I respectfully suggest that perhaps you have a very low libido in comparison to a lot of other people? Especially the sort of libido that flares up like a conflagration of holy fire when you fall desperately in love for the first time, at an age when it would be idiotic to get married?
I don't have a set age that I think children should be educated that they wait for, but I would very gravely suggest to any friend or relative of mine that they don't get married until the age of 25.
Also, given that I think you can never truly get to know the "real" person until you live with them (you can only get to know their theoretical ideals, you don't get to know their actual practical personal living habits) I also advise people not marry someone without living with them first. I think that is super-important for upping the chances of a long-term happy and successful marriage. If some-one is a "no sex before marriage" person, I would STILL seriously advise them to move in and live with their beloved before they married them, in a house-mate type arrangement, for at least 6 months.
AlexanderrOfAsura wrote:
If the children were taught that they shouldn't have sex before marriage, that bad things would result from it, then they go ahead and do it without any knowledge then they are f-ing stupid. If "Dont @#%^" is too difficult of a concept for them, how do you expect them to be able to handle buying/using condoms and birth control?
Walking is a human instinct. We hold the hands of small children, and say: "Don't go anywhere near the road without Mummy and Daddy." But then we recognise they need some personal freedom and space, and teach them how to cross the road safely. It takes some stopping and thinking, about using traffic lights, and looking both ways, instead of charging blindly ahead. But kids grasp it, and parents can give their children more and more leeway and personal freedom in going off by themselves.
Having sex is also an ingrained human instinct, a very strong one. Instead of trying to cap a raging flood, it's ever so much less traumatic to channel it safely. With road-safety ou can impress on a kid the importance of not letting their impatience override waiting for the traffic light to change. With sex-safety you can impress on them the importance of planning ahead, and taking a small pause in proceedings to put a condom on. You can impress on them that it's just polite behaviour, (and it makes things MORE relaxed because it takes away worries) to say to a new sex partner: I've been for a check-up since I broke up with my ex, and I don't have any STDs.
Frankly, I think the handling buying and using contraception and protection is a truck-load less loaded, complicated, stressful, and full of responsibilities (half of them LEGAL) than getting married! If some-one can't handle contraception they sure shouldn't be walking down the aisle!
Edited, May 17th 2008 7:43am by Aripyanfar
Edited, May 17th 2008 7:45am by Aripyanfar
Aripyanfar wrote:
I don't have a set age that I think children should be educated that they wait for, but I would very gravely suggest to any friend or relative of mine that they don't get married until the age of 25.
The average age of first marriage in the U.S. is around 25 for women, 27-28 for men (at least as of the 2000 census, we'll see again in a year and half). This being another reason that AO programs don't work. Teens report seeing the "virginity until marriage pledge" as being impossible anyway, since they have no intention of getting married anytime soon. Why wait for an impossibly long time?
I've talked to a lot of people, and I've only found one women who was over the age of 21 when she got married that remained a virgin until the day. I've met a few that managed to wait until they were 18, which would have been great in the times of Jane Austen. I don't think many parents want their kids married at 18 so that they can get it on. Maybe though. There are crazy people everywhere.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
"Anyone who thinks AIDS education isn't needed anymore is a moron"
Sad but true
Edited, May 17th 2008 7:50am by johnnny
Sad but true
Edited, May 17th 2008 7:50am by johnnny
gbaji wrote:
Well, to be fair though, even the most strict abstinence only program doesn't simply teach you not to ever have sex. The objective is to teach teens not to have sex until they're "ready", specifically when they're hopefully married to the person they're going to have sex with.
I can see two scenarios here, because I deeply believe that people mature into sexual beings waaaaaaaay before they mature into adults who are capable of of holding down a long-term relationship, with good conflict-resolution skills, good communication skills, good quid-pro-quo skills and consistent problem-solving skills.
I believe that the practise at negotiations, at getting along, of give-and-take, and of giving unreservedly that comes along with having sex is very vital practice of the skills needed for the very much harder practise of living happily ever after with a different human being to yourself.
First scenario: person holds off on having sex until they know themselves ready for marriage, and spends years of restless writhing in bed and furious ************ afterwards whenever they see their girlfriend/boyfriend. Endless hours of sexual frustration, and wrestling with it.
This seems like a lot of really unnecessary torture to me, that could possibly lead to a bout of depression through stress.
Second scenario: person gets married early to the first person they fall deeply in love with (before they've even done their major growing up), just so they can finally lose their virginity with their beloved.
This seems like a horrific disaster in the making to me.
Joking aside, abstinence only programs have been closely watched over the last 6+ years and it is pretty much written in stone that
a)It in no way has been shown to decrease sexual activities in teens, at all. Zip zero, unless you want to go quote doctor mcquackenstein with a degree in African languages who was paid directly by a faith based initiative to say otherwise.
b) That the focus on not having sex at the expense of an actual sexual education in terms of birth control, sexual health etc has been proven to leave kids at increased risk of teen pregnancy or just plain getting a case of the clap when they do finally decide to have intercourse.
That isn't even getting into the social ramifications of having unrealistic sexual goals placed on them that leave them a veritable hornets nest of emotional issues when they are unable (like 99% of the rest of the population) to achieve. Kind of a sexual pocahontas syndrome for American teens. I can understand why gbaji can support it, a generation of sexually ignorant knocked up teenage sluts with negative sexual images of themselves and low self esteem due to an inability to meet unmeetable goals is probably a gold mine in the making for a guy elbow deep into Femdom. In general though you would have to be a stupid f'ucking c'unt to think it is working though.
Edited, May 17th 2008 9:56am by bodhisattva
a)It in no way has been shown to decrease sexual activities in teens, at all. Zip zero, unless you want to go quote doctor mcquackenstein with a degree in African languages who was paid directly by a faith based initiative to say otherwise.
b) That the focus on not having sex at the expense of an actual sexual education in terms of birth control, sexual health etc has been proven to leave kids at increased risk of teen pregnancy or just plain getting a case of the clap when they do finally decide to have intercourse.
That isn't even getting into the social ramifications of having unrealistic sexual goals placed on them that leave them a veritable hornets nest of emotional issues when they are unable (like 99% of the rest of the population) to achieve. Kind of a sexual pocahontas syndrome for American teens. I can understand why gbaji can support it, a generation of sexually ignorant knocked up teenage sluts with negative sexual images of themselves and low self esteem due to an inability to meet unmeetable goals is probably a gold mine in the making for a guy elbow deep into Femdom. In general though you would have to be a stupid f'ucking c'unt to think it is working though.
Edited, May 17th 2008 9:56am by bodhisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
No sh*t Sherlock, if anyone actually thought that AO programs were intended to prevent people from ever having sex and to promote the eventual extinction of the species, I @#%^ing hope they're not breeding. If you *really* thought that was what I was talking about, then stop drinking...I don't think you're really that stupid.
Apparently not quite that busy...
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Nexa's dressing-down of gbaji was so satisfying I could almost use a cigarette.
Granted I haven't done years of research, but I do have some time in the field of minority health and what I see, time and again, are these poor girls (14-year-old on Friday) giving birth because they didn't understand that what they did constituted sex. I have actually heard them ask "He just put it in real quick and took it out, like, twice. Is that sex? I'm still a virgin, right?"
It's ******* heartbreaking to think someone is that ignorant for no good reason. Not knowing about sex doesn't prevent the sperm from penetrating the ova. All it does is lessen the individual's ability to evaluate the risks and deal with the consequences.
It's ******* heartbreaking to think someone is that ignorant for no good reason. Not knowing about sex doesn't prevent the sperm from penetrating the ova. All it does is lessen the individual's ability to evaluate the risks and deal with the consequences.
Nexa wrote:
If you *really* thought that was what I was talking about, then stop drinking...I don't think you're really that stupid.
It's not alcohol. It's crystal meth. It's all the classic symptoms. So no, he wasn't that stupid, once, but he made one very poor decision and now...well...it's kind of pointless to continue.
gbaji wrote:
Most programs use a combination of the two.
According to the Guttmacher research folks, about 25% of school districts teach abstinence only (as opposed to combined programs). So while "most" may teach a combination of the two, a full quarter of the districts teaching AO is shameful.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Smasharoo wrote:
No, the evidence shows if you give them condoms they use them. If you tell them how to use them correctly they use them correctly. If you don't, they get pregnant, not to mention STDs.
No. The evidence shows that teens taught how to use birth control end up getting pregnant at *exactly* the same rate as those taught to abstain. And they get STDs at a higher rate...
Doesn't take a genius to see that while less teens taught to abstain have sex, a higher percentage of those who do get pregnant (duh), while those taught birth control techniques have sex more often, resulting in about the same pregnancy rate, but higher STD rates (since birth control methods aren't even close to 100% effective at preventing STDs).
That's another "obvious observation" for you. You can feel free to claim that you already knew and understood this one fully as well...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
The evidence shows that teens taught how to use birth control end up getting pregnant at *exactly* the same rate as those taught to abstain. And they get STDs at a higher rate...
Hahahaha. No.
Holy ****, where did you get that ludicrous steaming turn from? Please link something, I could use the laugh when Nexa gets home.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Doesn't take a genius to see that while less teens taught to abstain have sex, a higher percentage of those who do get pregnant (duh), while those taught birth control techniques have sex more often
Hahahahaha, no.
Apparently it takes an idiot, not a genius, to see that.
Man, you're in rare form today.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
That's another "obvious observation" for you.
Yeah. Here's another "your ludicrous guess is proven wrong by facts" for you"
http://www.thebody.com/content/art32960.html
Summary of the Evidence
Results from systematic reviews (in which the data and outcomes from several studies are analyzed together to obtain an overall finding) are mixed.
* The most rigorous published review to date of 28 sex education programs in the United States and Canada aimed at reducing teen pregnancy and STDs, including HIV, found that none of the three abstinence-only programs that met inclusion criteria for review demonstrated evidence of efficacy for delaying sexual debut.6
* Furthermore, these three programs did not reduce the frequency of sex or the number of partners among those students who had ever had sex.6
* This same review found that nine abstinence-plus programs showed efficacy in delaying sexual debut, as well as reducing the frequency of intercourse and increasing condom use once sex began.6
* A systematic review of the efficacy of AIDS risk reduction interventions for adolescents in the U.S. found that two out of six studies meeting inclusion criteria showed efficacy in postponing sexual debut among virgins and an increase in "secondary" abstinence (return to abstinence) among those who had been sexually active.8
* A systematic review of the efficacy of adolescent reproductive health interventions in developing countries found that of the 15 abstinence-plus programs that measured sexual debut, five showed efficacy in delaying sexual debut.5
* A review of 11 school-based HIV prevention programs for youth in Africa found that only one program was effective in delaying sexual debut.7
Across these reviews, programs were considered generally effective if they reduced one or more behaviors that lead to unintended pregnancy or HIV/STD infection; gave clear messages about sexual activity and contraceptive/condom use; provided accurate basic information about the risks of teen sexual activity; provided activities to address social pressures that influence sexual behavior; modeled and practiced communication, negotiation, and refusal skills; set behavioral goals that were age, culture, and experience specific; and lasted a sufficient length of time.5-8
These reviews conclude that programs are more likely to be effective in delaying sexual debut if they have an explicit theoretical basis, target younger rather than older youth, build youth development skills, and provide abstinence plus risk reduction information, rather than just an abstinence-only message.
Other relevant data come from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a U.S. government-supported survey of more than 20,000 American young people. Researchers examined the difference between young people who took a pledge to remain a virgin until marriage -- perhaps the most explicit statement of behavioral intentions -- and those who did not, and found that:
* There is no significant difference in STD rates between virginity pledgers and non-pledgers, despite the fact that pledgers tend to postpone sexual debut, have less cumulative exposure to HIV and sexually transmitted diseases, and have fewer sex partners, especially non-monogamous partners.11
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
No, the evidence shows if you give them condoms they use them. If you tell them how to use them correctly they use them correctly. If you don't, they get pregnant, not to mention STDs.
No. The evidence shows that teens taught how to use birth control end up getting pregnant at *exactly* the same rate as those taught to abstain. And they get STDs at a higher rate...
Doesn't take a genius to see that while less teens taught to abstain have sex, a higher percentage of those who do get pregnant (duh), while those taught birth control techniques have sex more often, resulting in about the same pregnancy rate, but higher STD rates (since birth control methods aren't even close to 100% effective at preventing STDs).
That's another "obvious observation" for you. You can feel free to claim that you already knew and understood this one fully as well...
Obvious to who exactly? The illiterate? Or those who are speaking directly to God?
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Jophiel wrote:
According to the Guttmacher research folks, about 25% of school districts teach abstinence only (as opposed to combined programs). So while "most" may teach a combination of the two, a full quarter of the districts teaching AO is shameful.
Just figured I'd point out some "interesting" statements from that page:
First. Let's remember that this was written in 2002.
Quote:
Sexuality education teachers are more likely to focus on abstinence and less likely to provide students with information on birth control, how to obtain contraceptive services, sexual orientation and abortion than they were 15 years ago.
Quote:
The proportion of sexuality education teachers who taught abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs increased from 1 in 50 in 1988 to 1 in 4 in 1999
Quote:
The pregnancy rate among U.S. women aged 15-19 has declined steadily--from 117 pregnancies per 1,000 women in 1990 to 93 per 1,000 women in 1997. Analysis of the teenage pregnancy rate decline between 1988 and 1995 found that approximately 1/4 of the decline was due to delayed onset of sexual intercourse among teenagers, while 3/4 was due to the increased use of highly effective and long-acting contraceptive methods among sexually experienced teenagers.
Quote:
Despite years of evaluation in this area, there is no evidence to date that abstinence-only education delays teenage sexual activity. Moreover, recent research shows that abstinence-only strategies may deter contraceptive use among sexually active teenagers, increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy and STDs
Um...? What exact kind of "evaluation" did they do? I found evidence of this just in the preceding paragraphs on the same damn page!
Let's recap. Between 1988 and 1997 (presumably when the data was collected for this study), teaching of "abstinence only" increased from 1 in 50 to 1 in 4 (note that "15 years ago" means 1987). During that same period of time, pregnancies dropped from 117/1000 to 93/1000 (no actual numbers for STDs on that page). They even say that 1/4th of that reduction was due to teens delaying sexual activity (how do you *not* attribute that to abstinence education?). The other 3/4ths was due to longer lasting birth control methods (which managed to happen despite all that "evil" abstinence education out there).
Again. What "evidence" do they need? Sounds like whoever did the study is so convinced (as are many) that teaching only abstinence in the classroom *must* be bad that even when the data suggests otherwise, they ignore it and continue to print their assumed conclusions instead of the ones the actual data shows.
Good thing there's science involved in this though...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
No. The evidence shows that teens taught how to use birth control end up getting pregnant at *exactly* the same rate as those taught to abstain. And they get STDs at a higher rate...
American Journal of Public Health wrote:
Our data suggest that declining adolescent pregnancy rates in the United States between 1995 and 2002 were primarily attributable to improved contraceptive use. The decline in pregnancy risk among 18- and 19-year-olds was entirely attributable to increased contraceptive use. Decreased sexual activity was responsible for about one quarter (23%) of the decline among 15- to 17-year-olds, and increased contraceptive use was responsible for the remainder (77%). Improved contraceptive use included increases in the use of many individual methods, increases in the use of multiple methods, and substantial declines in nonuse.
[...]
The limited evaluations of abstinence-only sex education programs provide no evidence that they are successful in delaying initiation of sexual intercourse.( n22) Although abstinence is theoretically highly effective in preventing unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), in actual practice abstinence intentions often fail.( n14, n23) Abstinence programs may undermine the promotion of other prevention behaviors. For example, a longitudinal examination of the virginity pledge movement showed that pledgers did delay initiation of sexual intercourse; however, they were less likely to use contraception when they initiated sexual activity and were less likely to seek STI screenings.( n24)
--
Explaining Recent Declines in Adolescent Pregnancy in the United States: The Contribution of Abstinence and Improved Contraceptive Use
[...]
The limited evaluations of abstinence-only sex education programs provide no evidence that they are successful in delaying initiation of sexual intercourse.( n22) Although abstinence is theoretically highly effective in preventing unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), in actual practice abstinence intentions often fail.( n14, n23) Abstinence programs may undermine the promotion of other prevention behaviors. For example, a longitudinal examination of the virginity pledge movement showed that pledgers did delay initiation of sexual intercourse; however, they were less likely to use contraception when they initiated sexual activity and were less likely to seek STI screenings.( n24)
--
Explaining Recent Declines in Adolescent Pregnancy in the United States: The Contribution of Abstinence and Improved Contraceptive Use
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Let's recap. Between 1988 and 1997 (presumably when the data was collected for this study), teaching of "abstinence only" increased from 1 in 50 to 1 in 4 (note that "15 years ago" means 1987). During that same period of time, pregnancies dropped from 117/1000 to 93/1000 (no actual numbers for STDs on that page). They even say that 1/4th of that reduction was due to teens delaying sexual activity (how do you *not* attribute that to abstinence education?).
The same way that the fact that it was raining when my Grandfather died didn't lead me to conclude that the rain killed him.
Again. What "evidence" do they need? Sounds like whoever did the study is so convinced (as are many) that teaching only abstinence in the classroom *must* be bad that even when the data suggests otherwise, they ignore it and continue to print their assumed conclusions instead of the ones the actual data shows.
That and they reviewed hundreds of AO programs, found only three that made any effort to track outcomes, and all three of those failed in every measure.
"The data" suggests nothing other than AO programs have no efficacy.
Hey, did you know that more anteaters have died in Africa since 2000? Why is AO sex ed killing anteaters??
Christ, you're ******* stupid.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Christ, you're @#%^ing stupid.
Moths & flames, baby.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
gbaji wrote:
Let's recap. Between 1988 and 1997 (presumably when the data was collected for this study), teaching of "abstinence only" increased from 1 in 50 to 1 in 4 (note that "15 years ago" means 1987). During that same period of time, pregnancies dropped from 117/1000 to 93/1000 (no actual numbers for STDs on that page). They even say that 1/4th of that reduction was due to teens delaying sexual activity (how do you *not* attribute that to abstinence education?). The other 3/4ths was due to longer lasting birth control methods (which managed to happen despite all that "evil" abstinence education out there).
gbaji wrote:
Again. What "evidence" do they need? Sounds like whoever did the study is so convinced (as are many) that teaching only abstinence in the classroom *must* be bad that even when the data suggests otherwise, they ignore it and continue to print their assumed conclusions instead of the ones the actual data shows.
As for the 2002 numbers, the Jan 2007 edition of Education Digest still found the same 1-in-4 results. However you'd have to go buy a copy because I'm reading it through an academic journal search and so it's not linkable. The Guttmacher study was linkable so it was what I used.
Edited, May 19th 2008 5:49pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
[You're conflating "abstinence education" with "abstinence only education".
See quotes one and two above Joph.
Quote:
It's perfectly possible (even probable) that a significant number of those students who delayed sexual activity were taught in a comprehensive sexual education environment.
Possible, but not supported by the evidence. What the evidence shows us is that during this 10 year period of time, public education increasingly focused on teaching abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancy (and STDs) and during the same time period the rates of teen pregnancies dropped.
If we are to assume that what we teach has any effect at all, we have to conclude that the switch to a greater focus on abstinence in some way contributed to the numbers. I'd suspect that it accounts for the 1/4th figure, while the other 3/4ths is the result of parents taking a stronger role in teaching their kids about safe sex (which is how it *should* be).
In any case, that's darn strong "evidence" that abstinence only programs did have an effect, and the effect was to reduce teen pregnancies. I know you (and many others) don't want to believe it, but that's what the data suggests.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Is this the thread that convinces me that gbaji is really just a great troll?
Nobody that thick could possibly type.
Nobody that thick could possibly type.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Recent Visitors: 197
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (197)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Sexual Education and the election
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC