Abstinence does not work

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jayb2000, Mar 10, 2004.

  1. jayb2000 macrumors 6502a

    jayb2000

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Location:
    RI -> CA -> ME
    #1
    http://www.iht.com/articles/509550.html
    "Teenagers who make a one-time pledge to remain virgins until marriage catch sexually transmitted diseases about as often as those who don't pledge abstinence, according to a study of the sex lives of 12,000 adolescents.
    ...
    One of the problems, researchers found, is that virginity pledgers are less likely to use condoms.

    ''It's difficult to simultaneously prepare for sex and say you're not going to have sex,'' said Peter Bearman, chairman of Columbia University's sociology department, who coauthored the study with Hannah Bruckner of Yale University."

    Just one more in the list of things President Bush is wrong about. :rolleyes:
     
  2. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #2
    'Scuse the heck out of me! How is Bush wrong?

    You get STDs from having sex. All this article shows is that the pledges weren't kept. Had the pledges actually been kept, there wouldn't have been sexual encounters and there wouldn't have been any STDs in the pledge group.

    Ya wanna blame Bush 'cause a bunch of kids lied?

    Sheesh!

    "The best way for a girl to avoid STDs or pregnancy is aspirin. One tablet: She holds it between her knees."

    'Rat
     
  3. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #3
    I think the point is that the Bush administration has a policy on teaching children about sex that doesn't work to protect our children. Kids have to take responsibility for their own actions, but it is the responsibility of their elders and their government to provide them with the knowledge to be able to make those choices. The Bushies shouting abstinence to the exclusion of everything else doesn't do that.
     
  4. jayb2000 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jayb2000

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Location:
    RI -> CA -> ME
    #4
    Simple, President Bush only wants to spend money on abstinece education. But, study after study shows that abstinence only eduction does not reduce teen pregnancy or STDs.
    Also, you can catch STDs with your legs closed, male or female. To put the onus (or blame) on women is chauvanistic.
     
  5. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #5
    You do get STDs from having sex. And these kids did lie about keeping abstinent. But it still indicates something Bush was wrong about: abstinence only education doesn't work.

    If abstinance only education tries to get kids to pledge they won't have sex, but those pledges aren't kept, then that education has failed. Compound that with the fact that abstinence only education often doesn't teach PROVEN STD prevention methods like condom use, and those kids are actually put at HIGHER risk.

    I wanna blame Bush because he believes abstinence only education is a valid way to keep kids from getting pregnant or getting a STD. All evidence points to the fact that this education has little value in reducing the rate of teen pregnancy and STD contraction. You can't blame Bush for the kids lying, but you can't blame the kids if they weren't taught realistic and effective methods for preventing pregnancy and STD contraction along with all of the risks associated with those methods.

    Abstinence is the only perfect method of birth control/STD prevention. It is also very unrealistic that all, or even most kids, would make that their lifestyle choice, even after telling them all of the horrible things that accompany STDs and/or teen pregnancy. Studies confirm this. Therefore, if kids will be kids and have sex no matter what you say, it might be wise to educate them in effective ways to REDUCE THE CHANCE of prenancy and STD contraction. Sure, there is still a chance that they will get pregnant or contract an STD, but the chances are FAR reduced. Bush is against this type of education.

    Don't believe me? Why have various STD education associations who promote comprehensive sexual education, including condom use, been audited at a rate not seen in any previous administration, even without evidence of wrongdoing? Why aren't associations which promote abstinence only education getting audited at the same rate? Why was the study my girlfriend works on in danger of losing federal funding for their research in how to teach comprehensive sexual education to developmentally challenged kids even though they had received strong support during the Clinton administration?

    Because Bush doesn't believe in science and statistics, THATS why.

    Taft

    [Edited for horrible grammar]
     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    who needs facts and studies when you've got strong beliefs?
     
  7. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #7
    Yeah, you cn get STDs with crossed legs, but it sure doesn't come off of toilet seats. :)

    Funny. I started my sophomore year of high school in 1948. Austin HS, Austin, Texas. 3,500 students, the largest in the state at that time. Now this general discussion about SexEd and all has come up many time, so I've had more than one occasion to search my memory of the past. So far as I can recall, we had one gal drop out of school to get married because she and her boyfriend did the "Oops!" thing. It was the Big Deal at school for a while. Yeah, there could have been a couple of others, but such was a rarity..

    My point is that the times have changed, and not for the better, and I generally blame the last couple of generations of parents.

    Now, I'll admit I hadn't heard about "abstinence only" in the schools. I do remember the howls of outrage when the idea of teaching abstinence as well as other options was first raised. Quoting an "Educator" lady from the northeast, "But for some of those kids, it's the only recreation they have!" Sure says something for our society, doesn't it?

    Yeah, Bush might be naive, but he's danged sure morally correct. And I still believe that to put somebody down because they're fed up with the frequency of reading about grandmothers in their twenties or early thirties just strikes me as either cynical or stupid.

    But Gratification Is All, right?

    'Rat
     
  8. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #8
    Kids these days are exposed to a constant stream of sex and violence. The only way to deal with it is to make it perfectly clear that abstinence is the best way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies BUT by using condoms one can significantly reduce the risk. It's far too late to turn back the clock but it is also very stupid and patronizing to think that kids today are going to believe that abstinence is the only way to heaven when their parents or grandparents were whooping it up guilt free, during the sixties and seventies.

    Bush and his ilk are not only naive but are putting at risk an entire generation of children through their "faith based" stupidity. Gratification is not all and never has been but forced ignorance will be the death of many kids.
     
  9. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #9
    Yeah, Ugg, and the sad part is that all that's remembered is the "guilt-free" part. I had a lot of friends who did the Timothy O'Leary bit; tuned in, turned on and dropped out. "She ingested every chemical known to man, and some that weren't!"

    The behavior itself is not new; it's the amount of it that's awesome to me. I mean, we had the old joke over 50 years ago, where a teacher exclaims, "Would you want to ruin your life for twenty minutes of pleasure?" From the back of the room a small voice, "Ma'am, how do you make it last twenty minutes?"

    'Rat
     
  10. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #10
    Responsibility is reponsibility, if you are having sex you may get std's, if you eat at burger king 3 times a day you may be fat. If you pull the trigger of a gun while its pointed at someone you may kill. Be responsible and dont have sex and there is a good chance you will never get a std. Its simply common sense but that is lacking in todays world. If you got to do sex wrap that thing. its not rocket science its common sense.
     
  11. JamesDPS macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    #11
    DHM: I agree with you. The problem is, even though using a condom is hardly rocket science, there are plenty of kids who still don't have the foggiest idea. To use the murder analogy, kids need to be TAUGHT not to use guns, common sense can't just be expected, even though we would all like that! But anyways too many kids are being brought up in this "religious right" way where they don't learn **** because parents and politicians would rather keep telling themselves that their kids won't have sex if they tell them not to. I even met a girl who, IN HER THIRD YEAR IN COLLEGE (at a top 20 school, she's not a COMPLETE idiot) honestly thought a woman could get pregnant from swallowing! Okay, maybe she WAS an idiot ;) but it was because her equally idiotic parents brought her up to be a "nice conservative girl". Well, long story short, eventually she was taken advantage of, and has now gone off the deep end, going to male strip clubs nearly constantly (her new addiction) and basically whoring herself out.

    What kids need to be taught is that sex is an incredibly special thing that is so much better when it is with someone you truly love and who loves you, and that when you engage in it, you have to be smart about it and safe about it. And it's a parental responsibility, more than the schools', to teach the common sense, not bury their heads and pretend THEIR kid isn't like the rest of the animal kingdom.

    Also, don't forget that people don't generally get married as early as they used to: the behavior hasn't changed except that at least now the norm is to get married in mid to late 20's, rather than at 18 like it used to be (or 16 or 15 as it used to be before that). So clearly there's more time for more than one partner before marriage. For people who DO vow celebacy until their married, I think they run the risk of sex suddenly becoming a REASON to get married (whether consciously or, more likely, not) which it obviously isn't. And then we wonder why there's a 50% divorce rate... anyways these things why there probably seems to be more "sluttiness" these days, I think ;). Not to mention that at least in my personal experience, the most conservative kids are the ones more likely to "snap" at some point and go the complete opposite direction. And, of course, there are too many kids with no direction at all -- we ALL need to find that middle ground, that moderation, and it needs to be found (and taught) at an EARLY age.
     
  12. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #12
    i think there was a similiar phenomenon wrt nancy reagan's 'just say no' campaign. by treating all illegal drugs equally, someone would try pot, find out that it didn't kill them or make them crazy, and the message became "all drugs are as harmless as pot".

    i know a couple who did this. she would brag to me how they would have oral and anal sex, so they were still virgins (she was religious and had a holier-than-thou attitude). i sensed from him that he wanted the wedding so he could finally have vaginal sex.
     
  13. jayb2000 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jayb2000

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Location:
    RI -> CA -> ME
    #13
    QUICK - BLAME THE NORTHEAST (oh please)

    Yeah, and I heard some "Christian" from Texas advocating a death penalty, calling it "the ultimate justice". Ignoring Jesus' ideals of turning the other cheek and the New Testament meaning that Christians are not supposed to follow Jewish law, but Christ's example. :rolleyes:

    The only way to never die in a car crash is to never drive. But yet, we still teach people to wear their seatbelt. It's not a garauntee, but its better than not.
    Teaching kids the only "truth" is that they should never have sex means that the 5, 10, or 50 % who do ( I don't know the numbers) will have sex based solely on what they figure out themselves. Which means no condoms and increased pregnancy and STD rates.
    Teaching that abstinece is the only truly safe way AND that if they choose not to do it that, how to safely use condoms. dental dams, etc, will reduce the risk leads to lower rates of pregnancy and STD transmission.
    Teaching ONLY sex ed with condom use lowers STD and pregancy risk, compared to Abstinece education, but its not as low as teaching both.

    So, while common sense works, the Bush administration pushes for the least effective option, but one that fits with a minority's view of what is morally right. Pusing religious beliefs over proven empirical evidence costs the country money, gets more people sick or pregnant, and increases the number of situations where women might choose abortions. So, to save money (old Republican ideal), to save lives (generally human idea), and to prevent abortions, we should teach kids to wait on sex, BUT to use condoms in case they don't.

    That is why President Bush is wrong.
     
  14. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #14
    Rat, I understand where you are coming from. I, like you and many others, think that instant gratification is far too prevalent in our society. People just don't think about the consequences of their actions. Its a shame, because many people are paying a high price for that lack of consideration.

    But now that we have that out of the way, WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT??? That is, assuming you think something SHOULD be done about it. You seem to take an attitude of "well, in my day, people weren't having sex all the time and we were allright...so it serves these immoral bastards right!" Maybe its my idealist side (or my youth), but I can't be so callous.

    And with this issue, it isn't as black and white as: sexually active = dead and/or infected; sexually inactive = alive and uninfected. Condom use DOES prevent the spread of most STDs. Condom use DOES help. If a sexual education program doesn't acknowledge this fact, it is not a valid program, IMO.

    And, as other have stated, none of this is to say I don't want abstinence taught to the kiddies. If you talk to any responsible educator on this subject, they would be the first to tell you that abstinence is the first thing taught, but then is backed up by proper use of contraceptives. This is because, quite obviously, abstinence is the best way to prevent STD prevention and pregnancy. If a sexual education program doesn't acknowledge this fact, it is not a valid program, IMO.

    I think education is of the highest importance to reach a goal of higher public awareness on these issues. And I think its a cop out to say, "well some areas don't allow abstinance education, so its OK if others don't allow contraceptive education." While contraceptive only education is certainly bad, it performs better than abstinance only education (compared statistically, of course). And I don't see how piss-poor education (be it either abstinance-only or contraceptive-only) is acceptable, anyway.

    We should be giving our kids comprehensive education and help guide them down the path of making informed and rational decisions. Neither abstinance-only education or contraceptive-only education accomplished this.

    I'm for comprehensive sexual education for our kids.

    What's Bush for? Seemingly, piss-poor education.

    Go Bush!

    Taft
     
  15. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #15
    Based on the original post it doesn't look like either group is using protection since they contracted STD's at the same rate so apparently the sex education wasn't working either... that is odd.. I think I want to read the study...
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    I was all for sex when I was young and unmarried (oops, I still am unmarried) and I'm not going to act like it was foolish of me.

    I would do what I've done all over again. I knew what I was doing and I knew enough to do it safely and without high risk of negative consequences.

    I ask why we think of teenage sex as inherently bad. I remember it as quite good.
     
  17. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #17
    Abstinence only education didn't work because the children didn't practice abstinence. How is that the fault of anyone except the horny oversex undersupervised children bombarded by images of sex in the media?

    I think its time for chastity belts to make a comeback...
    Hmm... iPod chastity belts with 250Gigs of storage, in custom colors. :D
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    Nobody is disputing that the kids had sex. But would you rather they learn to use a $0.50 condom, or would you rather they went to the hospital and helped jack up our insurance rates by requiring treatment that would otherwise be unnecessary?
     
  19. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #19
    Why is there a high teenage birthrate in so many third-world nations that have no such media bombardment?
     
  20. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #20
    for 3 years i've been trying to teach my cat to fly. but he still won't! i blame the cat.
     
  21. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #21
    Did you try pixie dust? ;)
     
  22. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #22
    Because women in 3rd world nations are encouraged to have kids in order to provide for the family. Also, with not as advanced health care in 3rd world nations, mortality from childbirth complications necessitate younger mothers.
     
  23. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    several times. but it only made my dizzy.
     
  24. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #24

    I'm still confused. Because the original post said that those who signed the abstinence pledge had the *same* rate of STD's as those who had the "use condomn" training which more so suggests that *neither* was helpful. The kids who had the "use condoms" traiining apparently didn't use them...

    *waits for someone to address the point*
     
  25. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #25
    Jayb2000, I don't see the point in your rant about the northeast. I only mentioned it because the ABC News identified the woman's position in the local school system and the location. My point was that she didn't want abstinence ADDED to the SexEd curriculum.

    Taft, I don't think I'm callused about the situation, so much as accepting what I can't change--and my dislike of the situation is of no importance to much of the rest of the world...

    Solution? Damfino. Seems to me it's a family-by-family deal, and it's an issue of responsible parenting. Again, it's a problem that has always existed, but in today's world the problem has gotten much larger than in the past. Seems to me you look at those changes which affect behavior patterns.

    Whence cometh advocacy of hedonism? Whence cometh the notion that life is easy and that if you just wish strongly enough and long enough you can "have it all"?

    Yeah, pseudobrit, I surely agree with you about teenage sex feeling good. Trouble is that teenagers aren't commonly real swift about considering consequences. Physical maturity isn't the same as emotional maturity, and that's what the squabble is all about. They're old enough for physical performance but too young to put off instant gratification or to deal with the results.

    That's why I commented earlier about "Gratification is All" as that seems to be the desired way of life for not just the teeny-boppers but even their parents. Which ties back somewhat to our balance of payments deficits threads, with folks wanting the gratification of "stuff" at low prices. :)

    Question: People say that movies and TV portrayals of hedonistic lifestyles don't affect the audience's behavior; they merely reflect what people already do. Okay. Fine. My question is, then, why is there advertising?

    'Rat
     

Share This Page