[Aptorian]

He's thirsty?

[Shinrei]

LIES!

[Terez]

Shinrei, on 02 February 2010 - 10:15 AM, said:

...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.

I hope you're not talking about here, since that statement would be horribly inaccurate.

[Aptorian]

Terez, on 02 February 2010 - 12:45 PM, said:

Shinrei, on 02 February 2010 - 10:15 AM, said:

...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.

I hope you're not talking about here, since that statement would be horribly inaccurate.

Don't ever speak ill of here, that's crossing the line.

[Terez]

LOL, that's hardly the point. I am less prone to defend this forum than most people. But unless this 'crowd' he's talking about, if there is such a thing (I doubt it), consists of only you and Jusentantaka, then I'm not sure what he's talking about. Epiph and HD are usually pretty anti-Republican, but both of them have responded to the study quite reasonably, and most of the rest of the 'crowd' of dubious existence hasn't even bothered to post in this thread, which is not to say that we haven't read it.

This post has been edited by Terez: 02 February 2010 - 01:22 PM

[Aptorian]

Oh. You're talking about the forum. I though you'd left out a word, like a persons name or a place...

[Obdigore]

Don't worry, I have arrived to cast doubt upon the study.

doubt. Doubt. DOUBT!

To be fair, it says that kids who were taught abstinance in 6 and 7th grade then had their sexual habits (or lack thereof) over the next two years examined. 8th and 9th grade is about the time it starts, from what I recall.

I'm not going to criticize the people quoted in the article, as most of them make no effort to hide their beliefs.

I have no problem with teaching 'wait until you are ready, and when you are, don't be a fool and wrap your tool.' That message is a tiny bit different than 'IF YOU HAVE SEX AND AREN'T MARRIED, YOU WILL DIE AND THAT IS WHY GOD CREATED STD'S'. Also, Hell.

[cerveza_fiesta]

I recall from sex ed being taught, starting around grade 7:

- boys parts & girls parts
- what a condom is and its purpose
- what various other contraceptives are and their purpose
- What STDs are and what they do to you.
- Methods of safe sex and
- Do not have sex until you're ready...which was an overlying theme and pretext to any discussion.
- Abstinence is the only 100% contraceptive and STD prevention method.

And always with a heavy emphasis on the last 2 points, which I think would compare to the "comprehensive program" that included both safe sex education AND abstinence emphasis. It was very effective on my brain and I didn't have sex until I was ready. Easy. In the following years, I was very glad that I was given the full dose of information and left alone to make my own decision on the issue.

My problems with the study are pretty similar, namely the obvious single cultural demographic of the study (black students only) and the effects of the single location (Northeastern US large city). It would be interesting to see how this compared if implemented in a high-class private school in the same area or a rural small-town school in the midwest.

The main exception I take to the study, and the whole abstinence thing in general, is the idea that sex itself is something to be avoided. I'm just generally not keen on the idea that abstinence is the ONLY way to be safe and that it is the ONLY option to keep yourself from getting pregnant. Sex with due dilligence and appropriate levels of contraception (eg. the pill + condom) is still pretty dang safe and I'm not sure why it should be discouraged as a rule.

[Jusentantaka]

Terez, on 02 February 2010 - 01:22 PM, said:

LOL, that's hardly the point. I am less prone to defend this forum than most people. But unless this 'crowd' he's talking about, if there is such a thing (I doubt it), consists of only you and Jusentantaka, then I'm not sure what he's talking about. Epiph and HD are usually pretty anti-Republican, but both of them have responded to the study quite reasonably, and most of the rest of the 'crowd' of dubious existence hasn't even bothered to post in this thread, which is not to say that we haven't read it.

I is the lost and confusked about this whole thing back to shinrei's comment. Anyone?



Also, for those of you who seemingly can't be bothered to read comments, or know jack about American social distribution. The study was done in Philadelphia, with only african americans because that is one of the cities with the highest incidence of teen stds/pregnancy/ect, and the demographic wherein they are also most common in that city.

[Terez]

Jusentantaka, on 02 February 2010 - 04:11 PM, said:

I is the lost and confusked about this whole thing back to shinrei's comment. Anyone?

I quoted him, you know. Post before last.

[Epiph]

What Junsentantaka said. Although I too would like to see this study repeated with a larger, more varied sample.

As for being supportive of this study, when I started reading it I was commenting a stream of "but they didn't take this into account" "conservatives are going to have a field day with this" etc etc, but then I got to the second page, and a lot of those concerns (although not the conservative field day concern) were laid to rest.

What I find really interesting and want more information about is the difference between the abstinence program and the comprehensive program. I can't figure out how there was such a big difference between the two.

[Obdigore]

It appeared that the Abstinence one touched on condoms but only briefly, and concentrated on Abstinence.

The Comprehensive one talked about waiting until you are ready, then about condoms and the pill and stuff.

That is the only difference I could find. They also claimed that, if I read it correctly, students in the Comprehensive one had more sex in the trial time than ones in the Abstinence one. I can see no study of protected/not protected which would be a much bigger factor in my mind.

If, for example, the abstinence ones only had a 40% sexual rate, but only 50% of those used protection, then you have the Comprehensive with a 60% sexual rate, with 80% using protection, which one is going to do better preventing STD's and pregnancy?

200 kids, 100 in each group,
40 abstinence sex-time with 20 unprotected.
60 comp sex-time with 12 unprotected, if I did the math correctly.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Jusentantaka, on 02 February 2010 - 04:11 PM, said:

Terez, on 02 February 2010 - 01:22 PM, said:

LOL, that's hardly the point. I am less prone to defend this forum than most people. But unless this 'crowd' he's talking about, if there is such a thing (I doubt it), consists of only you and Jusentantaka, then I'm not sure what he's talking about. Epiph and HD are usually pretty anti-Republican, but both of them have responded to the study quite reasonably, and most of the rest of the 'crowd' of dubious existence hasn't even bothered to post in this thread, which is not to say that we haven't read it.

I is the lost and confusked about this whole thing back to shinrei's comment. Anyone?



Also, for those of you who seemingly can't be bothered to read comments, or know jack about American social distribution. The study was done in Philadelphia, with only african americans because that is one of the cities with the highest incidence of teen stds/pregnancy/ect, and the demographic wherein they are also most common in that city.

True,

I should rephrase to say that my problem isn't that the study is too narrow in demographic and geographic scope. Studies need to be limited due to funding and time restrictions, so doing it in a an area where teen pregnancy rates are particularly high gives the best chance of obtaining a measurable result.

My problem is near the end of the OP linked article where proponents of abstinence-only education are using the study as evidence that somehow supports abstinence-only education works as a whole. Really, it doesn't say anything about any other social class, geographic location, or even other categories of A-O education (eg. Don't have sex or you're going to hell).

But that's always an issue when studies like this come out. Most view it as an interesting case worthy of further study, while a few organizations grasp it like the holy grail of conclusions and use it as a bludgeon to get gov't to do what they want.

[Epiph]

Obdigore, on 02 February 2010 - 04:57 PM, said:

That is the only difference I could find. They also claimed that, if I read it correctly, students in the Comprehensive one had more sex in the trial time than ones in the Abstinence one. I can see no study of protected/not protected which would be a much bigger factor in my mind.

If, for example, the abstinence ones only had a 40% sexual rate, but only 50% of those used protection, then you have the Comprehensive with a 60% sexual rate, with 80% using protection, which one is going to do better preventing STD's and pregnancy?

200 kids, 100 in each group,
40 abstinence sex-time with 20 unprotected.
60 comp sex-time with 12 unprotected, if I did the math correctly.

Oh right, that was another of my unaddressed concerns. Because the sex isn't really the problem unless you think God is going to send you to hell; it's the condomless sex that's the problem.

[Obdigore]

The article indicates that abstinence education has 'no negative impact on condom use', but the study seems to say that there is no impact on condom use with abstinence only education. This leads me to believe kids that learn abstinence only do not consider condoms any more or less than kids with no sex ed, and kids with full sexual education use them more. That statement seems intentionally misleading.

@Epiph - Freedom of religion please. If your proclaimed goal is to cut down on STD and teen Pregnancy, then in the US Public school system, there is no place for religious reasons. That is something the parents should indoctrinate their kids for, not the public school system.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 02 February 2010 - 05:37 PM

[Jusentantaka]

Even sex-ed in general (comprehensive) has been rather hit or miss with younger sex-having people as far as getting them to use condoms, for various reasons) And the ones who are more at risk (stds) are the ones less likely to use condoms, so what we really need is a little shunt of say... 0.1% of the defense budget to fund free clinics to do std tests and treatment. Except for the fast-HIV test (the one where you can find out if you contracted it in a week rather than months) they're all cheap, and even that one isn't prohibitively expensive for the gov to pay for. And free *quality* condoms in schools, none of those bargain-bin feels-like-a-trash-bag types. Either that or mandatory chastity belts. I wonder which one would be easier to set up.

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 02 February 2010 - 05:50 PM

[Obdigore]

Puritan Spiky cock-rings.

A US invention, hurts the poor boys if they get a hard-on. Of course it might equate pain with sex, and we don't need any more of that.

[Epiph]

Obdigore, on 02 February 2010 - 05:36 PM, said:

@Epiph - Freedom of religion please. If your proclaimed goal is to cut down on STD and teen Pregnancy, then in the US Public school system, there is no place for religious reasons. That is something the parents should indoctrinate their kids for, not the public school system.

Huh? I thought that's what I was saying. I don't support abstinence only education for any religious purpose, in fact, reading this study is the first time I've ever felt anything but bridled indignation about it. I was just saying the only reason to discourage sex is if you think fornication will get you sent to hell, but that the problem isn't going to hell, it's STDs and unplanned pregnancy because of condomless sex.

[Obdigore]

Epiph, on 02 February 2010 - 05:57 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 02 February 2010 - 05:36 PM, said:

@Epiph - Freedom of religion please. If your proclaimed goal is to cut down on STD and teen Pregnancy, then in the US Public school system, there is no place for religious reasons. That is something the parents should indoctrinate their kids for, not the public school system.

Huh? I thought that's what I was saying. I don't support abstinence only education for any religious purpose, in fact, reading this study is the first time I've ever felt anything but bridled indignation about it. I was just saying the only reason to discourage sex is if you think fornication will get you sent to hell, but that the problem isn't going to hell, it's STDs and unplanned pregnancy because of condomless sex.

Sorry, I was agreeing with you, while taking a small shot at the agencies that claim to be against STD's and Teen Pregnancy, but want abstinence only education.

[Epiph]

Ah, in that case, confusion remedied, and EXACTLY. It doesn't even work when it's family indoctrination, and I should know: my dad's family are raving Southern Baptists and several of my cousins had shot gun weddings as a result.