New Study says 'Abstinence-Only' works

[MaggieMae]

I am with Ravi, I think teaching both works pretty well.

I think part of any sex education class should include mandatory viewing of MTV2's "Sixteen and Pregnant." Those girls (and the boys who got them pregnant) are so immature, no way in hell are they prepared for adulthood, let alone parenthood. In one segment I watched, the young couple discussed at various points their "goals" once the baby was born, and they iterated the goals in this order (every time): First, get a car. Next, move out of Mom's house. Next, get jobs.

 

[Againsheila]

For the study, released Monday in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, researchers followed sixth and seventh graders in separate groups.

In one, the focus was abstinence; in the other, they taught contraception and safe sex.

Two years later, they talked to the kids again.

Scholars Call the Results 'Groundbreaking'

Half the students learning about safe sex were now having sex, while only a third in the group focused on abstinence were engaged in sex.

New Study Says 'Abstinence Only' Works - ABC News​

This study refers to a more consequences based form of 'abstinence only' education, but the results are still staggering.


​

Half the students learning about safe sex were now having sex, while only a third in the group focused on abstinence were engaged in sex.

And those "half", if they are having sex, know how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease.

The "third" of the AO, are a cesspool of underweight babies, gonorrhea, syphilis and AIDS.

NEXT!

There is no such thing as "safe sex" and I think it's past time our schools taught that. Birthcontrol yes, but everytime you have sex, you are putting yourself at risk. 1/3 of all new aids patients say they got aids WHILE using a condom. I think that's a rather significant number and I think our kids should be INFORMED.

 

[MaggieMae]

I find the following interesting:

Libs told us that Tobacco companies were influencing teens and young ones to smoke. If only the companies would quit advertising to them, they would stop smoking.

But yet, they deny that anyone has any influence over children when it comes to sex. Can't have it both ways.

Interesting.

WHOT? Interesting only to you, who obviously made that up.

 

[Againsheila]

bstinence is the ONLY one that is 100% guaranteed to work each and every time it's practiced.

Not if you ask the Christians...

LOL, true story. Was watching a documentary on the birth and life of Christ. Seems that an hermaphrodite can actually impregnate her/himself AND have a male child. There are no actually instances in history, <except possibly Jesus> but it's possible according to theorists.

 

[MaggieMae]

Abstinence only education is like being told you're going on a trip down to Mexico, and being told to "just don't drink the water". In other words, you're told only one thing about what to do on your trip.

Bottom line? You are woefully unprepared to travel there.

Full sexual education covering STD's, condoms, pregnancy and all the other stuff? It's like being given a travel brochure which tells you where everything is, how to deal with the locals, where to stay away from, what to do in case of kidnapping, etc.

Forewarned is forearmed. That is why abstinence education only will never work.

There were far fewer out of wedlock pregnancies back before the pill and other protections when women had to practice what was referred to then as "the rhythm method," meaning there were a certain number of days every month when a woman knew there was a possibility she could become pregnant (when she ovulates). And she simply abstained from having sex on those days. I can remember watching my mother X-off the days on her "personal" calendar and a smile crossing her face when she was finally out of the "danger zone." (We always had something for supper that didn't include macaroni on that first night, too. )

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

Abstinence only education is like being told you're going on a trip down to Mexico, and being told to "just don't drink the water". In other words, you're told only one thing about what to do on your trip.

Bottom line? You are woefully unprepared to travel there.

Full sexual education covering STD's, condoms, pregnancy and all the other stuff? It's like being given a travel brochure which tells you where everything is, how to deal with the locals, where to stay away from, what to do in case of kidnapping, etc.

Forewarned is forearmed. That is why abstinence education only will never work.

There were far fewer out of wedlock pregnancies back before the pill and other protections when women had to practice what was referred to then as "the rhythm method," meaning there were a certain number of days every month when a woman knew there was a possibility she could become pregnant (when she ovulates). And she simply abstained from having sex on those days. I can remember watching my mother X-off the days on her "personal" calendar and a smile crossing her face when she was finally out of the "danger zone." (We always had something for supper that didn't include macaroni on that first night, too. )

Or she just had some pennyroyal tea before bed...

 

[rikules]

then we must have different interpretations of what this means:

"But in this study, the teachers didn't take it that far. They purposely stayed away from religion, morality and marriage. For example, they did not preach waiting for sex until marriage or disparage using condoms."

i read the study a couple of weeks ago and i'm pretty sure that this version of what's being called abstinence only included information on contraception. my experience has been that advocating for delaying sexual activity AND providing information on contraception is the best policy.

i thought the article in the OP included more definitive language regarding this, but it is pretty ambiguous. my mistake. i apologize.

i'm sorry...

I can't take all this civil discussion stuff....

could someone please call someone else a name!

maybe fling a few insults....

when i want your opinion, i'll give it to you, fuckwhistle.

Thanks!

now I feel better

all is right with the message board!

 

[rikules]

I find the following interesting:

Libs told us that Tobacco companies were influencing teens and young ones to smoke. If only the companies would quit advertising to them, they would stop smoking.

But yet, they deny that anyone has any influence over children when it comes to sex. Can't have it both ways.

Interesting.

WTF are you talking about?

he's making up a lie and then firmly believing it.

cons are very good at that.

I, personally, have never denied that, when it comes to sex, other people have some influence over our children.....

that's one of the reasons I WANT all-inclusive sexual education.

 

[Againsheila]

Abstinence only education is like being told you're going on a trip down to Mexico, and being told to "just don't drink the water". In other words, you're told only one thing about what to do on your trip.

Bottom line? You are woefully unprepared to travel there.

Full sexual education covering STD's, condoms, pregnancy and all the other stuff? It's like being given a travel brochure which tells you where everything is, how to deal with the locals, where to stay away from, what to do in case of kidnapping, etc.

Forewarned is forearmed. That is why abstinence education only will never work.

There were far fewer out of wedlock pregnancies back before the pill and other protections when women had to practice what was referred to then as "the rhythm method," meaning there were a certain number of days every month when a woman knew there was a possibility she could become pregnant (when she ovulates). And she simply abstained from having sex on those days. I can remember watching my mother X-off the days on her "personal" calendar and a smile crossing her face when she was finally out of the "danger zone." (We always had something for supper that didn't include macaroni on that first night, too. )

There's a word for people who use the rhythm method....we call them parents. I know, I got pregnant twice while using that particular method. Of course, I wasn't worried as I was married and did plan on having kids eventually.

 

[rdean]

This study refers to a more consequences based form of 'abstinence only' education, but the results are still staggering.


​

[/CENTER]

Half the students learning about safe sex were now having sex, while only a third in the group focused on abstinence were engaged in sex.

And those "half", if they are having sex, know how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease.

The "third" of the AO, are a cesspool of underweight babies, gonorrhea, syphilis and AIDS.

NEXT!

There is no such thing as "safe sex" and I think it's past time our schools taught that. Birthcontrol yes, but everytime you have sex, you are putting yourself at risk. 1/3 of all new aids patients say they got aids WHILE using a condom. I think that's a rather significant number and I think our kids should be INFORMED.

That's fucking bullshit and you told a damn dirty lie.

 

[Samson]

Half the students learning about safe sex were now having sex, while only a third in the group focused on abstinence were engaged in sex.

And those "half", if they are having sex, know how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease.

The "third" of the AO, are a cesspool of underweight babies, gonorrhea, syphilis and AIDS.

NEXT!

There is no such thing as "safe sex" and I think it's past time our schools taught that. Birthcontrol yes, but everytime you have sex, you are putting yourself at risk. 1/3 of all new aids patients say they got aids WHILE using a condom. I think that's a rather significant number and I think our kids should be INFORMED.

That's fucking bullshit and you told a damn dirty lie.

rdean, as compelling as your arguements always are, what part do you think is "fucking bullshit:" Informing kids?

 

[The T]

I find the following interesting:

Libs told us that Tobacco companies were influencing teens and young ones to smoke. If only the companies would quit advertising to them, they would stop smoking.

But yet, they deny that anyone has any influence over children when it comes to sex. Can't have it both ways.

Interesting.

"You can't stop them, they are going to do it anyway.. so just give them condoms."

True.

 

[The T]

I find the following interesting:

Libs told us that Tobacco companies were influencing teens and young ones to smoke. If only the companies would quit advertising to them, they would stop smoking.

But yet, they deny that anyone has any influence over children when it comes to sex. Can't have it both ways.

Interesting.

Apparently YOU have a problem with the truth. YOU are of the "Have their CAKE...and EAT IT TOO...Generation.

YOU are disingenuous.

 

[The T]

I find the following interesting:

Libs told us that Tobacco companies were influencing teens and young ones to smoke. If only the companies would quit advertising to them, they would stop smoking.

But yet, they deny that anyone has any influence over children when it comes to sex. Can't have it both ways.

Interesting.

WTF are you talking about?

Do the Research...SEE Lawsuits against 'BIG Tobacco'...there's NOTHING different here. The only change is subject line. PREMISE remains true. DO your own homework and STOP looking like a friggin' schmuck.

 

[Againsheila]

Half the students learning about safe sex were now having sex, while only a third in the group focused on abstinence were engaged in sex.

And those "half", if they are having sex, know how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease.

The "third" of the AO, are a cesspool of underweight babies, gonorrhea, syphilis and AIDS.

NEXT!

There is no such thing as "safe sex" and I think it's past time our schools taught that. Birthcontrol yes, but everytime you have sex, you are putting yourself at risk. 1/3 of all new aids patients say they got aids WHILE using a condom. I think that's a rather significant number and I think our kids should be INFORMED.

That's fucking bullshit and you told a damn dirty lie.

I don't lie, but that's okay, believe what you will. I used to have a link to the study but now when I try to find it, all I get is my own post on the USMB. Great.....

Do you really believe that condoms are 100% effective in preventing aids when they are the least effective method of birth-control, sans the "rhythm method"? And remember that sperm are larger than the aids virus.

You go ahead and put on your condom and believe that will protect you from getting aids...I just want to point out that when it fails, it's more likely to give aids to the girl from the man than it is to give aids to the man from the girl. Life's just not fair.

I repeat...there is no such thing as "safe sex" and teaching kids that there is, is putting their lives in danger. There is only "safer sex".

 

[Missourian]

There is no such thing as "safe sex" and I think it's past time our schools taught that. Birthcontrol yes, but everytime you have sex, you are putting yourself at risk. 1/3 of all new aids patients say they got aids WHILE using a condom. I think that's a rather significant number and I think our kids should be INFORMED.

That's fucking bullshit and you told a damn dirty lie.

I don't lie, but that's okay, believe what you will. I used to have a link to the study but now when I try to find it, all I get is my own post on the USMB. Great.....

Do you really believe that condoms are 100% effective in preventing aids when they are the least effective method of birth-control, sans the "rhythm method"? And remember that sperm are larger than the aids virus.

You go ahead and put on your condom and believe that will protect you from getting aids...I just want to point out that when it fails, it's more likely to give aids to the girl from the man than it is to give aids to the man from the girl. Life's just not fair.

I repeat...there is no such thing as "safe sex" and teaching kids that there is, is putting their lives in danger. There is only "safer sex".

From the website of the CDC:

​

Condoms and STDs: Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel

Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission.


To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly.


Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner.


Similarly, if condoms are not used correctly, the protective effect may be diminished even when they are used consistently.


The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.


However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized.

CDC - Condom Effectiveness - Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases
​

 

[rikules]

I find the following interesting:

Libs told us that Tobacco companies were influencing teens and young ones to smoke. If only the companies would quit advertising to them, they would stop smoking.

But yet, they deny that anyone has any influence over children when it comes to sex. Can't have it both ways.

Interesting.

Apparently YOU have a problem with the truth. YOU are of the "Have their CAKE...and EAT IT TOO...Generation.

YOU are disingenuous.

what good is having cake if you can't eat it?

how can I eat cake...if I don't have it?

seems to
if you have cake...you should eat it!

i believe the french consider those words to live by

 

[The T]

Apparently YOU have a problem with the truth. YOU are of the "Have their CAKE...and EAT IT TOO...Generation.

YOU are disingenuous.

what good is having cake if you can't eat it?

how can I eat cake...if I don't have it?

seems to
if you have cake...you should eat it!

i believe the french consider those words to live by

But the question IS? Can you Have the *CAKE* and eat it and STILL Retain IT?

Rhetorical question to be sure. You cannot consume sometyhing and still reatain posession OF IT...well? You CAN in the *END GAME*...but what you ultimately end up with is a pile of FECES is the point.

 

[Againsheila]

Apparently YOU have a problem with the truth. YOU are of the "Have their CAKE...and EAT IT TOO...Generation.

YOU are disingenuous.

what good is having cake if you can't eat it?

how can I eat cake...if I don't have it?

seems to
if you have cake...you should eat it!

i believe the french consider those words to live by

But the question IS? Can you Have the *CAKE* and eat it and STILL Retain IT?

Rhetorical question to be sure. You cannot consume sometyhing and still reatain posession OF IT...well? You CAN in the *END GAME*...but what you ultimately end up with is a pile of FECES is the point.

Why do these threads always end up in the crapper?

 

[beowolfe]

I find the following interesting:

Libs told us that Tobacco companies were influencing teens and young ones to smoke. If only the companies would quit advertising to them, they would stop smoking.

But yet, they deny that anyone has any influence over children when it comes to sex. Can't have it both ways.

Interesting.

WTF are you talking about?

Do the Research...SEE Lawsuits against 'BIG Tobacco'...there's NOTHING different here. The only change is subject line. PREMISE remains true. DO your own homework and STOP looking like a friggin' schmuck.

In case you didn't know, there is a slight difference between smoking and having sex. There is no biological drive urging one to smoke. In case you've forgotten, promulgation of the species (aka sex drive) was implanted by nature; so, getting kids to not respond to what their bodies are crying out for isn't the easiest thing in the world to do, especially, when the entire society uses sex (or at least the idea of sex) as it's most powerful marketing tool.