[Epiph]

Study finds focus on abstinence in sex-ed classes can delay sexual activity

Abstinence education works, and has no negative effect on condom use. Mind: blown.

I had all these questions and caveats as I was reading this article, but they all got answered...positively. The study focused on a program that isn't religious and emphasizes waiting until you're "ready" rather than until you're married, which is a pretty significant difference. Only 30% of the 6th & 7th graders in that program went on to have sex, as opposed to 50% and 40% in the controls.

It's pretty awesome that it works to tell kids, "Uh, you know, you don't have to have sex because other people are."

[HoosierDaddy]

Well, as long as it works. The critical thing here is that this study isn't used as evidence for ALL abstinence programs. This program doesn't portray sex as wrong in any sort of way, while some more "traditional" abstinence programs would not say that. The bits about how it didn't affect condom usage is quite interesting as well.

However, 32% of 8th and 9th graders are having sex? Now, I'm a tad old, but not too old, that is WAY higher than when I was in 8th and 9th grade.

[Illuyankas]

Quote

Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until they were married, did not portray sex outside of marriage as never appropriate or disparage condoms.

About bloody time already.

I'd still like to wait for a comparison of pregnancy/STD rates from the sampled teens, though.

[Jusentantaka]

Awful tiny and particular group for a study like this. 660 kids? I just don't buy it. Not with decades of proof that abstinence-only is bullshit.

This sounds nice and all, but... more studies, broader test groups or no sell. I'm curious what the research paper actually says though, since this article seems way too 'everything about this is perfect' to be believed.

[HoosierDaddy]

 Jusentantaka, on 02 February 2010 - 01:06 AM, said:

Awful tiny and particular group for a study like this. 660 kids? I just don't buy it. Not with decades of proof that abstinence-only is bullshit.

This sounds nice and all, but... more studies, broader test groups or no sell. I'm curious what the research paper actually says though, since this article seems way too 'everything about this is perfect' to be believed.

I think it's quite obvious there is a long road yet to walk before it's verified as a good way to do this, and that will include much more rigorous testing.

The key point from the article, I took, was that abstinence programming budgets were getting severely cut by the Obama Administration (because they haven't worked), and this allows "abstinence" groups to submit game-plans to regain more funding. Thus, it's not dead yet.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Smoke and mirrors anyhow.

I'd think that the most telling statistic is the 40-50% in the control. God DAMN those kids are getting more action than me.
For such a high rate of gettin' it on, I'd say that almost any form of authority figure recrimination would impact it.

[Anomander]

I'm not at all surprised by the number of kids having sex at that age. I recall junior high being stupid easy with plenty of free time available.

[RodeoRanch]

The focus on "when you're ready" and the non-religious aspect of it is definitely the key to that group's success rate.

And I sure missed out on all the sexy time in junior high, apparently.

[Illuyankas]

I'd guess that at least some of them are saying 'Yeah, I totally banged some hot chicks, man. Totally.'

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Yeah, the "don't do it or you'll die / go to hell / be attacked by wombats" line is definitely lacking in the credibility department for a horny young pubescent kid.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

 Jusentantaka, on 02 February 2010 - 01:06 AM, said:

Awful tiny and particular group for a study like this. 660 kids? I just don't buy it. Not with decades of proof that abstinence-only is bullshit.

This sounds nice and all, but... more studies, broader test groups or no sell. I'm curious what the research paper actually says though, since this article seems way too 'everything about this is perfect' to be believed.

With anything like this (potentially controversial) I would also like to know more about the background of the research leads.

[Jusentantaka]

 Gwynn ap Nudd, on 02 February 2010 - 01:58 AM, said:

With anything like this (potentially controversial) I would also like to know more about the background of the research leads.

Well, this is the head researcer: John B. Jemmott III. Cursory looksee says he knows his shit. Link that ISNT the Washington Post about the study Couldn't find the paper on the Hopkins omniweb though, maybe in a couple days or something. Though even if I do, I won't be able to post it, so if anyone sees it and can, they should post it up here.


Also: Philadelphia. not representative of the general population.

[Epiph]

I'd like to second the request for the actual paper if anyone runs across it.

[maro]

 RodeoRanch, on 02 February 2010 - 01:28 AM, said:

And I sure missed out on all the sexy time in junior high, apparently.

I thought I did well but todays kids...............

[Sindriss]

Actually, 660 people is plenty to do a proper statistical analysis and get a significant value.

But sounds swell, finally somebody is getting that stigmatizing sex is a bloody stupid idea, at least if you want children to not get pregnent and avoid STD's.

[Aptorian]

Man I don't like that article.

Quote

The study released Monday involved 662 African American students from four public middle schools in a city in the Northeastern United States. It was conducted between 2001 and 2004.

It's my impression that America is a place with very different cultures spread out over half a continent. What level of wealth was the average in the areas this study was made in? Does the teenage frame of mind and their upbringing differ from kids in the east, south, west? Does the statistics change if you did this with Caucasian students? Hispanics? Asian? Nav'ii? Were the kids the religious types? What are their families like?

What more, this being an American study, I can't help but being suspicious of who made this survey. It's nice to hear about their phd's and positions on boards I've never heard of before, but do they have an agenda? Are they Christians? Republicans? What kind of work have they churned out before?

I would be more impressed if this survey had been done in four different states with 66200 kids.

[Shinrei]

Fair comments Apt. I too would like to see the study spread out across different demographics and areas. It is probably being done though, or if not right now, it will be in the near future. To be honest, this issue doesn't really interest me and I don't feel like taking sides since I'm not a crispy-christian...



...except to point out that it is interesting (and unsuprising) that the anti-anything-related-to-republican crowd is quick to poo poo the study.

[Aptorian]

If the democratic and republican parties are able to manipulate the media, I have no doubt they would be willing to tamper with research without a second thought.

[Morgoth]

 H.D., on 02 February 2010 - 12:44 AM, said:

Well, as long as it works. The critical thing here is that this study isn't used as evidence for ALL abstinence programs. This program doesn't portray sex as wrong in any sort of way, while some more "traditional" abstinence programs would not say that. The bits about how it didn't affect condom usage is quite interesting as well.

However, 32% of 8th and 9th graders are having sex? Now, I'm a tad old, but not too old, that is WAY higher than when I was in 8th and 9th grade.

they were probably doing it behind your back. All of them laughing at you with their sex and their condoms and their teen pregnancies. What did you get? A law degree? Pah!

[Shinrei]

Why do you think he drinks so much?