Experts say US sex abstinence program doesn't work

[Shogun]

WASHINGTON, April 23 (Reuters) - Programs teaching U.S. schoolchildren to abstain from sex have not cut teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases or delayed the age at which sex begins, health groups told Congress on Wednesday.

The Bush administration, however, voiced continuing support for such programs during a hearing before a House of Representatives panel even as many Democrats called for cutting off federal money for so-called abstinence-only instruction.

"Vast sums of federal monies continue to be directed toward these programs. And, in fact, there is evidence to suggest that some of these programs are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active," Dr. Margaret Blythe of the American Academy of Pediatrics told the committee.

These programs, backed by many social conservatives who oppose the teaching of contraception methods to teenagers in schools, have received about $1.3 billion in federal funds since the late 1990s. Currently, 17 of the 50 U.S. states refuse to accept federal funds for such programs.

Experts from the American Public Health Association and U.S. Institute of Medicine testified that scientific studies have not found that abstinence-only teaching works to cut pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases or the age when sexual activity begins.

The American Psychological Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also issued statements to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform criticizing the abstinence-only programs.

Comprehensive sex education programs should emphasize abstinence as the best way for a teenager to avoid pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease (STD), Blythe said.

"Those adolescents who choose to abstain from sexual intercourse should obviously be encouraged and supported in their decisions by their families, peers and communities. But abstinence should not be the only strategy that is discussed," Blythe said.

HIGH STD RATES

Lawmakers cited government statistics showing that one in four U.S. teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease and 30 percent of U.S. girls become pregnant before the age of 20.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN23459576?rpc=64

 

[RetiredGySgt]

WASHINGTON, April 23 (Reuters) - Programs teaching U.S. schoolchildren to abstain from sex have not cut teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases or delayed the age at which sex begins, health groups told Congress on Wednesday.

The Bush administration, however, voiced continuing support for such programs during a hearing before a House of Representatives panel even as many Democrats called for cutting off federal money for so-called abstinence-only instruction.

"Vast sums of federal monies continue to be directed toward these programs. And, in fact, there is evidence to suggest that some of these programs are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active," Dr. Margaret Blythe of the American Academy of Pediatrics told the committee.

These programs, backed by many social conservatives who oppose the teaching of contraception methods to teenagers in schools, have received about $1.3 billion in federal funds since the late 1990s. Currently, 17 of the 50 U.S. states refuse to accept federal funds for such programs.

Experts from the American Public Health Association and U.S. Institute of Medicine testified that scientific studies have not found that abstinence-only teaching works to cut pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases or the age when sexual activity begins.

The American Psychological Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also issued statements to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform criticizing the abstinence-only programs.

Comprehensive sex education programs should emphasize abstinence as the best way for a teenager to avoid pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease (STD), Blythe said.

"Those adolescents who choose to abstain from sexual intercourse should obviously be encouraged and supported in their decisions by their families, peers and communities. But abstinence should not be the only strategy that is discussed," Blythe said.

HIGH STD RATES

Lawmakers cited government statistics showing that one in four U.S. teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease and 30 percent of U.S. girls become pregnant before the age of 20.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN23459576?rpc=64

Ohh so now 20 is the bench mark? Last I checked 18 you were considered an adult.

 

[Dogger]

Ohh so now 20 is the bench mark? Last I checked 18 you were considered an adult.

WTF does that even mean in the context of the article? It's better to have people wonder why you did not speak instead of why you did.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

WTF does that even mean in the context of the article? It's better to have people wonder why you did not speak instead of why you did.

There is only one reason to include 18 and 19 year olds in the statistic for getting pregnant, and that is because it gives them a bigger number to work with. 18 and 19 are ADULTS, might as well pick some other random number to include in the argument.

 

[Dogger]

There is only one reason to include 18 and 19 year olds in the statistic for getting pregnant, and that is because it gives them a bigger number to work with. 18 and 19 are ADULTS, might as well pick some other random number to include in the argument.

The article discussed the efficacy of abstinence-only sexual education. The Lawmakers didn't do an independent study; they cited available government statistics. Studies for teenage pregnancy and STDs measure data up to the age of 20.

But that is relevant to the efficacy of the program, because performance beyond high school reflects on what you learned in high school. Had the kids been given good information in school, they wouldn't be screwing up as much at ages 18 and 19.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The article discussed the efficacy of abstinence-only sexual education. The Lawmakers didn't do an independent study; they cited available government statistics. Studies for teenage pregnancy and STDs measure data up to the age of 20.

But that is relevant to the efficacy of the program, because performance beyond high school reflects on what you learned in high school. Had the kids been given good information in school, they wouldn't be screwing up as much at ages 18 and 19.

Sure thing. Don't you mean screwing as much at 18 and 19?

 

[nibor]

Uhuh Isa wunder ifa awll thisa here educasion creatted brot about girls gown stoopid to???????????

Litle darlins justa caint seem to keep thar close own anymore..............or figger out who thar sposed ta be fuckin'

 

[Ravi]

RGS, the entire purpose of this nonworking program is too keep babies from being born outside of marriage.

 

[nibor]

RGS, the entire purpose of this nonworking program is too keep babies from being born outside of marriage.

I thought that's what the fifty million baby genocide was all about..............I wish girls could make up their minds...................AND USE A FREAKIN' PICKLE!

 

[The_Hammer]

Ohh so now 20 is the bench mark? Last I checked 18 you were considered an adult.

The article mentions teenagers. Whether you are considered an Adult or a Minor if you are 19 you are still a teenager.

 

[jillian]

The article mentions teenagers. Whether you are considered an Adult or a Minor if you are 19 you are still a teenager.

Don't mind him...he just thinks it's very mean to say old men have to stop raping young girls in the name of religion so is going to try to offtrack the thread...it deals with teenagers and sex, after all.

It's clear that Abstinence Only is a failure. But we've known that for a long time.

 

[Gunny]

WASHINGTON, April 23 (Reuters) - Programs teaching U.S. schoolchildren to abstain from sex have not cut teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases or delayed the age at which sex begins, health groups told Congress on Wednesday.

The Bush administration, however, voiced continuing support for such programs during a hearing before a House of Representatives panel even as many Democrats called for cutting off federal money for so-called abstinence-only instruction.

"Vast sums of federal monies continue to be directed toward these programs. And, in fact, there is evidence to suggest that some of these programs are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active," Dr. Margaret Blythe of the American Academy of Pediatrics told the committee.

These programs, backed by many social conservatives who oppose the teaching of contraception methods to teenagers in schools, have received about $1.3 billion in federal funds since the late 1990s. Currently, 17 of the 50 U.S. states refuse to accept federal funds for such programs.

Experts from the American Public Health Association and U.S. Institute of Medicine testified that scientific studies have not found that abstinence-only teaching works to cut pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases or the age when sexual activity begins.

The American Psychological Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also issued statements to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform criticizing the abstinence-only programs.

Comprehensive sex education programs should emphasize abstinence as the best way for a teenager to avoid pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease (STD), Blythe said.

"Those adolescents who choose to abstain from sexual intercourse should obviously be encouraged and supported in their decisions by their families, peers and communities. But abstinence should not be the only strategy that is discussed," Blythe said.

HIGH STD RATES

Lawmakers cited government statistics showing that one in four U.S. teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease and 30 percent of U.S. girls become pregnant before the age of 20.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN23459576?rpc=64

Wonder how much money was spent for how long for these "geniuses" to figure this one out? And how much of that money were my tax dollars at "work."

Expecting abstinence to work in a society that exploits and over-glorifies sex is just kind of dumb.

 

[Dogger]

Wonder how much money was spent for how long for these "geniuses" to figure this one out? And how much of that money were my tax dollars at "work."

Expecting abstinence to work in a society that exploits and over-glorifies sex is just kind of dumb.

What's really dumb is trying to set social policy without valid information, and pointless grumbling about the cost necessary to collect that information.

 

[Gunny]

What's really dumb is trying to set social policy without valid information, and pointless grumbling about the cost necessary to collect that information.

Perhaps you don't care what your tax dollars are spent on, but I do happen to care in regard to mine.

Since social policy is an ever-changing thing, and pretty much set by what is and is not accepted by society and not some arbitrary line in the sand drawn by some egghead, what exactly is there to set?

If the threat of AIDS and other STDs isn't enough to set social policy for our oversexed society, the individuals that make up that society will pay the consequences for their choices.

I personally have never had a piece of ass so good I was willing to play Russian roulette with my life over it. But if you have, power to you. Enjoy.

 

[Shogun]

Wonder how much money was spent for how long for these "geniuses" to figure this one out? And how much of that money were my tax dollars at "work."

Expecting abstinence to work in a society that exploits and over-glorifies sex is just kind of dumb.

i dunno.


ask a republican who not only forced this kind of "values" issue but ignored the failure rate long enough to wave a bible around.

 

[Shogun]

I personally have never had a piece of ass so good I was willing to play Russian roulette with my life over it. But if you have, power to you. Enjoy.



fortunately, you are mature enough to know better. Do you think ripening virgins full of natural and social urges to fuck are equipped with the same scope of comprehension? Is it time to PROVIDE that full scope of education yet or does jesus require more pregnancy?


like christopher walken and his cowbell fever..

 

[jillian]

Wonder how much money was spent for how long for these "geniuses" to figure this one out? And how much of that money were my tax dollars at "work."

Expecting abstinence to work in a society that exploits and over-glorifies sex is just kind of dumb.

Actually, women's and children's health groups have been saying it for years. The rabid relgious types didn't want to hear it.

 

[Gunny]

i dunno.

ask a republican who not only forced this kind of "values" issue but ignored the failure rate long enough to wave a bible around.

I personally have never had a piece of ass so good I was willing to play Russian roulette with my life over it. But if you have, power to you. Enjoy.

fortunately, you are mature enough to know better. Do you think ripening virgins full of natural and social urges to fuck are equipped with the same scope of comprehension? Is it time to PROVIDE that full scope of education yet or does jesus require more pregnancy?

like christopher walken and his cowbell fever..

Actually, women's and children's health groups have been saying it for years. The rabid relgious types didn't want to hear it.

It's a little more complex an issue than blaming it on "rabid religious types."

It's a double-edged sword, and both arguments need to be weighed against the other, and religion is not the sole reason in the "con" column. It's a copout to discussing the topic trying to point a finger at "religion" as "the" reason.

The first, one undeniable fact is that abstinence is "the" only 99 44/100% sure-fire prevention of contracting STDs. That isn't a religious belief nor a moral judgement -- it's fact.

Second, minors having sex are irresponsible. Few of them if any are going to commit a spur of the moment, emotional and irresponsible act but somehow remember to go get a condom first. That's whether or not they've been taught how to screw safely by the school. trying to lay that on "rabid religious types" is lame.

If you'r going to teach them anything at all, teach it ALL to them. Abstinence IS the safest policy. Teach them about the protection, but that's not enough. Make a field trip to the HIV/AIDS ward at a hospital mandatory with the class. Let them see the possible consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior.

I don't care if scares the Hell out of them. In fact, it should. It beats the alternative.

 

[jillian]

Abstinence should be PART of what is taught. And certainly it should be told that it's the only sure fire way to avoid pregnancies and STD's. That isn't the problem, nor is it the objection.

The objection was the loonies ONLY teaching abstinence because they have this retarded idea that sex will go away if they don't talk about it. Kids advocacy groups and women's advocacy groups have been saying for at least as long as I've been on this board, that it doesn't work. I know, because I've been posting on the subject.

 

[Gunny]

Abstinence should be PART of what is taught. And certainly it should be told that it's the only sure fire way to avoid pregnancies and STD's. That isn't the problem, nor is it the objection.

The objection was the loonies ONLY teaching abstinence because they have this retarded idea that sex will go away if they don't talk about it. Kids advocacy groups and women's advocacy groups have been saying for at least as long as I've been on this board, that it doesn't work. I know, because I've been posting on the subject.

My point is, those you call "loonies" are not just religious. There's a real concern with what our children are being taught in public schools, and not everyone agrees in the socialist policy of the state indoctrinating our children with whatever it and its advocates deem worthy.

Child advocacy and women's advocacy groups may very well be saying abstinence doesn't work. Hardly a revelation. I've never been to either and I knew it didn't work.

But you're also presenting a one-sided, misleading argument. As stated in my previous post, the education isn't working either; which, you aren't addressing. Rather, you're trying to blame it on some "loonies."

Responsible sex requires responsible behavior. Teenagers having sex is NOT repsonsible behavior to begin with. Sexual promiscuity has never been stopped. People died of the "pox" (venereal diseases) prior to the discovery of antibiotics. That was their "AIDS." Did it stop irresponsible sexual behavior? No.

All we can do is educate our children the best we can and hope for the best because the final decision will come down to them.