Abstinence pledges don't work - who saw that coming?

Trancendental

Trancendental

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
Something needs to be done about lowering the STD rate in kids, and **Warning - Shocking Revelation** the abstinence educational program isn't working. Don't think the christians will stop trying to jam it down all of our throats though...

LINK

Teenagers who take virginity pledges -- public declarations to abstain from sex -- are almost as likely to be infected with a sexually transmitted disease as those who never made the pledge, an eight-year study released yesterday found...

In terms of high-risk behavior, the raw numbers were small, but the gap was statistically significant, Bearman said. Just 2 percent of youth who never took a pledge said they had had anal or oral sex but not intercourse, compared with 13 percent of "consistent pledgers."...

Ralph DiClemente, a professor at Emory University's School of Public Health in Atlanta, compared virginity pledges to adults' efforts to make New Year's resolutions.

"I wish it was that easy. We'd all be a lot healthier," he said. "If we can't do it as adults, why would we expect kids to be able to handle those issues?"

But Joe S. McIlhaney Jr., chairman of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, said the study offers an incomplete picture because it could not say whether sexually active teens who did not take a pledge had been pregnant or treated for an STD before the 2002 testing. The analysis "doesn't prove or disprove" assertions that virginity pledges are flawed, he said.

On the other hand, Bill Smith, public policy vice president for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, said, "Not only do virginity pledges not work to keep our young people safe, they are causing harm by undermining condom use, contraception and medical treatment."

Conservative academics said the paper overlooked earlier important findings about adolescents who take virginity pledges, most notably that they have fewer pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births.

"It's hugely successful on those variables," Rector said. "Bearman has focused in on the one variable he thinks can show they [pledgers] don't do better."

President Bush has requested $206 million in federal funding for abstinence-only programs this year.
Click to expand...

Is this Rector guy pushing the program on the fact that kids are having more ass sex? Unbelievable.
 
Abstinence *pledges* don't work, no.
*Abstinence* does. For those of us who think oral/anal sex *is* sex, and that words/promises *mean* things, abstinence pledges are not a problem.
But these kids grew up with Bill Clinton [somehow what he did didn't count as sex], and Hollywood where if you're a sixteen year old virgin [in movies or on tv] you're abnormal], and where politicians, both D and R, try to show every day that promises don't really mean a whole lot.
Of course empty pledges fail.
Fewer unplanned pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births is a good thing. And since D's allegedly support all sorts of sex, you would think they'd rejoice over these teens' acceptance of oral and anal options.
Step two is rectifying all this moral relativism that the kids have been exposed to, about the amorphous definition of sex and the 'if it feels good, do if' vibe of the go-go 70's and 90's.

Abstinence-only *does* work. Totally prevents unplanned pregnancy or diseases. If you're having anal or oral sex, you're not abstaining. Simple as that.
 
Abstinence pledges don't work - who saw that coming?

Even the title of the thread is jam packed with innuendo.
This is gonna be good :)
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Abstinence *pledges* don't work, no.
*Abstinence* does. For those of us who think oral/anal sex *is* sex, and that words/promises *mean* things, abstinence pledges are not a problem.
But these kids grew up with Bill Clinton [somehow what he did didn't count as sex], and Hollywood where if you're a sixteen year old virgin [in movies or on tv] you're abnormal], and where politicians, both D and R, try to show every day that promises don't really mean a whole lot.
Of course empty pledges fail.
Fewer unplanned pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births is a good thing. And since D's allegedly support all sorts of sex, you would think they'd rejoice over these teens' acceptance of oral and anal options.
Step two is rectifying all this moral relativism that the kids have been exposed to, about the amorphous definition of sex and the 'if it feels good, do if' vibe of the go-go 70's and 90's.

Abstinence-only *does* work. Totally prevents unplanned pregnancy or diseases. If you're having anal or oral sex, you're not abstaining. Simple as that.[/quote]

The fact that abstinence works is not the debate, it's whether an education system focused on abstinence, and abstinence alone, is effective. Practically every study that comes out say it is not. Even look at regional differences

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/state_pregnancy_trends.pdf

The states with better comprehensive sex ed tend to rank near the bottom, massachusetts, new hampshire, maine, vermont etc., the highest rates are tend to be held by states such as texas, mississippi, new mexico, nevada etc. There are some that buck the trend, Utah most likely the best example, but generally it seems the states more focused on abstinence had a higher rate in 2000. Hell I went to a religious school and while there was a heavy focus on abstinence, they always said if you don't abstain at least use a condom. They didn't go into all the lies about them either.

Maybe I just don't get the whole moral aspect of it. Obviously I don't want 15 year olds having sex (though when I was 15 I wouldn't have said that), but if the sexually active rate increased 50%, but the pregnancy rate and std rate lowered, or even stayed the same, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I follow my own morals to the letter, but they often aren't the average persons morals.

Abstinence only is just unrealistic. You got two kids and the girl tells the guy to drop his pants, you think any abstinence pledge is gonna stop him?
 
Exactly.

I went to a Catholic high school... and if anything, these "abstinence" lectures only make kids want to do it more.

There's no way to stop it. All teenagers already know sex is a risk, and nobody wants to deal with pregnancy at this age. But, the body is primed for intercourse when we're 13-14. Just because society dictates that we're not ready to have children until our 20's at least... won't change a thing. I had sex when I was 15, and I honestly don't regret it. It was awful, but a very knowledgeable experience for the future.
 
Teens are going to have sex. It's the most basic primal urge for humans (one of them, anyway).

You can attempt to ignore that fact and allow them to have sex without condoms or other birth control, or you can help them do it safely.
 
[quote name='Lina']Exactly.

I went to a Catholic high school... and if anything, these "abstinence" lectures only make kids want to do it more.

There's no way to stop it. All teenagers already know sex is a risk, and nobody wants to deal with pregnancy at this age. But, the body is primed for intercourse when we're 13-14. Just because society dictates that we're not ready to have children until our 20's at least... won't change a thing. I had sex when I was 15, and I honestly don't regret it. It was awful, but a very knowledgeable experience for the future.[/quote]

I new person wh ohas some common sense, now that is a shock!

It's like when your parents go "Don't do that!" or "Don't go there!" what is the first thing you do? Do that and go there.

But your body is not prime for sex at 13-14, thats when the feeling comes. The real prime for for sex is 18 for males, and 40, yep 40, for women. Slight difference there, eh? :)
 
[quote name='David85']
But your body is not prime for sex at 13-14, thats when the feeling comes. The real prime for for sex is 18 for males, and 40, yep 40, for women. Slight difference there, eh? :)[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that's a common misconception. Especially the part about 40 yr old females. Females that are younger (20s, even early 30s) are definitely more likely to have healthy babies.
 
[quote name='David85']But your body is not prime for sex at 13-14, thats when the feeling comes. The real prime for for sex is 18 for males, and 40, yep 40, for women. Slight difference there, eh? :)[/quote]
That's the 'peak' for human sex drive, but that doesn't mean that the human body isn't ready, willing and able long before then.
 
its like in cartoons where they say never press the big red button. In the end someone always ends up pushing. Schools keeps slammin the kids with sex is wrong, they are going to want to see what is so wrong about it.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='David85']But your body is not prime for sex at 13-14, thats when the feeling comes. The real prime for for sex is 18 for males, and 40, yep 40, for women. Slight difference there, eh? :)[/quote]
That's the 'peak' for human sex drive, but that doesn't mean that the human body isn't ready, willing and able long before then.[/quote]

I know, I never said it wasn't.
 
its the same way with beer: one of the main reasons why, but if we lower the drinking age to 18... one conclusion is that alcohol abuse will decrease a bit...


or all hell will break loose
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='David85']But your body is not prime for sex at 13-14, thats when the feeling comes. The real prime for for sex is 18 for males, and 40, yep 40, for women. Slight difference there, eh? :)[/quote]
That's the 'peak' for human sex drive, but that doesn't mean that the human body isn't ready, willing and able long before then.[/quote]

That was my point. :p

The body is made to reproduce by ~14 years old.

Plus, in the ancient days, it was normal for girls to get pregnant at such a young age.
 
[quote name='Lina']The body is made to reproduce by ~14 years old.

Plus, in the ancient days, it was normal for girls to get pregnant at such a young age.[/quote]

Plus in Utah and various places in the south (including east Texas), it is normal for girls to get pregnant at such a young age.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Lina']The body is made to reproduce by ~14 years old.

Plus, in the ancient days, it was normal for girls to get pregnant at such a young age.[/quote]

Plus in Utah and various places in the south (including east Texas), it is normal for girls to get pregnant at such a young age.[/quote]

I love stereotypes. Actually, if you look at the statistics for 2000 (I posted them earlier), only 5 states have a lower teen pregnancy rate than utah. They are maine, minnesota, new hampshire, north dakota and vermont. There are only 16 other states with a lower birth rate, but utah does have the lowest abortion rate.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='Lina']The body is made to reproduce by ~14 years old.

Plus, in the ancient days, it was normal for girls to get pregnant at such a young age.[/quote]

Plus in Utah and various places in the south (including east Texas), it is normal for girls to get pregnant at such a young age.[/quote]

I love stereotypes. Actually, if you look at the statistics for 2000 (I posted them earlier), only 5 states have a lower teen pregnancy rate than utah. They are maine, minnesota, new hampshire, north dakota and vermont. There are only 16 other states with a lower birth rate, but utah does have the lowest abortion rate.[/quote]

Is this on the record or off the record? Because we all know that on the record, bigamy is illegal in Utah as well :wink:
 
alonzo needs to laugh sometimes. Stereotypes are quite fun.

And alonzo has a point. Abstinance has been done before, and it did not work then (50s mindset). Partly because abstinance goes against human nature. A program that is more in tune with reality is going to fit better with the audience and provide some knowledge in risk and minimalization.

And personally, I would completely support Anal-alternative education as opposed to abstinance.

=P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top