New Study says 'Abstinence-Only' works

[Missourian]

We did this subject a few weeks back. Turns out there was no "abstinence ONLY" course taught but rather a course taught where abstinence was encouraged while what to do if you caved was still discussed.

Which is the way most of us reasonable people have been saying was the best way to go about it.

I agree with that Ravi. I am not at all opposed to teaching safe sex.

But that doesn't explain the disparity between the group where abstinence was the focus and the group in which it wasn't.

What is to explain, it is just common sense.

So we're agreed that an abstinence focused sex education that also teaches safe sex is acceptable ?

Then what have we (not you and I but the two opposing groups) been fighting about?

 

[rikules]

Abstinence is working pretty well for me right now.

if you're over 18 and you are NOT getting laid then abstinance is most definitely NOT working for you.

 

[rikules]

I agree with that Ravi. I am not at all opposed to teaching safe sex.

But that doesn't explain the disparity between the group where abstinence was the focus and the group in which it wasn't.

What is to explain, it is just common sense.

So we're agreed that an abstinence focused sex education that also teaches safe sex is acceptable ?

Then what have we (not you and I but the two opposing groups) been fighting about?

abstinance until when?

marriage? (i oppose)
adulthood? (i accept)

 

[del]

Kids need both! According to the results in the article, 1/3 of the group receiving abstinence only education were having sex. I'm assuming that it's unprotected sex because of the sex ed they received. That's not good. So, if AOED can protect 2/3 the other 1/3 will need to know what they are doing and how to do it safely if we're going to get out of the unwed teen pregnancy epidemic that we have.


BTW, we also NEED to quit bombarding them with sex, sex, sex, in everything that's advertised!!

you really ought to read the article, your assumption is flawed.

i agreee with you about advertising.

From the article:

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.

So, if you're teaching AOSED, I don't think you're teaching the correct use of condoms, or birth control pills, are they? If not, then my assumption would seem correct. And I did read the article. Went back after your post and re-read it to make sure I didn't miss anything. I didn't see anywhere where it said the 1/3 that received AOSED and who were now having sex had been taught anything that would at least mitigate the undesirable outcomes from having unprotected sex.

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.

 

[rikules]

you really ought to read the article, your assumption is flawed.

i agreee with you about advertising.

From the article:

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.

So, if you're teaching AOSED, I don't think you're teaching the correct use of condoms, or birth control pills, are they? If not, then my assumption would seem correct. And I did read the article. Went back after your post and re-read it to make sure I didn't miss anything. I didn't see anywhere where it said the 1/3 that received AOSED and who were now having sex had been taught anything that would at least mitigate the undesirable outcomes from having unprotected sex.

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....

 

[Ravi]

I agree with that Ravi. I am not at all opposed to teaching safe sex.

But that doesn't explain the disparity between the group where abstinence was the focus and the group in which it wasn't.

What is to explain, it is just common sense.

So we're agreed that an abstinence focused sex education that also teaches safe sex is acceptable ?

Then what have we (not you and I but the two opposing groups) been fighting about?

I think your side thinks my side wants to force everyone to participate in orgies... Sometimes you have to take the wingnut talking points for what they are...a divisive tool.

 

[del]

From the article:




So, if you're teaching AOSED, I don't think you're teaching the correct use of condoms, or birth control pills, are they? If not, then my assumption would seem correct. And I did read the article. Went back after your post and re-read it to make sure I didn't miss anything. I didn't see anywhere where it said the 1/3 that received AOSED and who were now having sex had been taught anything that would at least mitigate the undesirable outcomes from having unprotected sex.

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.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I agree with that Ravi. I am not at all opposed to teaching safe sex.

But that doesn't explain the disparity between the group where abstinence was the focus and the group in which it wasn't.

What is to explain, it is just common sense.

So we're agreed that an abstinence focused sex education that also teaches safe sex is acceptable ?

Then what have we (not you and I but the two opposing groups) been fighting about?

Wow we AGREE, good deal.

 

[Nonelitist]

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.

 

[Ravi]

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.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

 

[Nonelitist]

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."

 

[Ravi]

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."

No results found for "You can't stop them, they are going to do it anyway.. so just give them condoms.".

 

[Cold Fusion38]

YES give them CONDOMS!!! Better than a BULLET in a six shooter!!!

 

[rdean]

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?

 

[rdean]

I agree with that Ravi. I am not at all opposed to teaching safe sex.

But that doesn't explain the disparity between the group where abstinence was the focus and the group in which it wasn't.

What is to explain, it is just common sense.

So we're agreed that an abstinence focused sex education that also teaches safe sex is acceptable ?

Then what have we (not you and I but the two opposing groups) been fighting about?

Liberals have always taught that abstinence is the only 100% fool proof method of avoiding disease and pregnancy. That's been the center of safe sex education since the concept was introduced. Republicans and conservatives ignore what they don't want to hear and as for the rest, they just "make it up", normally, we call that "lying".

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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

Not if you ask the Christians...

 

[beowolfe]

you really ought to read the article, your assumption is flawed.

i agreee with you about advertising.

From the article:

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.

So, if you're teaching AOSED, I don't think you're teaching the correct use of condoms, or birth control pills, are they? If not, then my assumption would seem correct. And I did read the article. Went back after your post and re-read it to make sure I didn't miss anything. I didn't see anywhere where it said the 1/3 that received AOSED and who were now having sex had been taught anything that would at least mitigate the undesirable outcomes from having unprotected sex.

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.

Don't get me wrong. If I were God, I'd program babies to not want to engage in sex until they were 21. I don't believe that teens and pre-teens are prepared for the consequences of sex. Heck, some adults are prepared for the consequences of sex. That said, if they were teaching about contraception, then they were not teaching abstinence only. They were teaching the same thing as any liberal sponsored sex ed class.

 

[MaggieMae]

You don't expect this obvious trend to continue?

Why?

What do you think will change?

It would be encouraging if the "trend" were actually true among a majority of adolescents and teens. Unfortunately, they are now exposed to "role models" who appear half-naked on Facebook, peer pressure by cliques, all in addition to the age-old problem of wanting to "fit in."

 

[MaggieMae]

We did this subject a few weeks back. Turns out there was no "abstinence ONLY" course taught but rather a course taught where abstinence was encouraged while what to do if you caved was still discussed.

Which is the way most of us reasonable people have been saying was the best way to go about it.

I agree with that Ravi. I am not at all opposed to teaching safe sex.

But that doesn't explain the disparity between the group where abstinence was the focus and the group in which it wasn't.

Well, for one thing, who would want to admit failure in an absinence only group? Kinda embarrassing to have to admit you screwed up. Literally. (Even in your own head.) So I think the results might have been skewed.