Full Version: Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder...
BBC News article on abstinence education in the USA - pros and cons
But on the other side
Abstinence education has, with help from federal government, expanded dramatically in the past decade in domestic schools, and now also informs some of America's foreign aid to combat HIV/AIDS link
However, there are many people that doubt whether it is having any effective in combating teen pregancy and the spread of sexual transmitted infections - the stated aims of such programmes, both at home and abroad.
Additionally, as in the article, there are those who oppose abstinence education from an ideological standpoint rather than a simply practical one. And many supporters say that the only reason it has not had great success is that it has not been pushed hard enough.
Which statement is closest to your point of view, and why?:
1. Abstinence education is the best way forward because it works, and has only failed because it has not been tried extensively enough, despite government support. It should be expanded to catch the kids that are still becoming sexually active before they are really ready.
(1a Abstinence education has worked and this is just another example of the liberal media stirring up trouble)
2. Abstinence education has been given ample chance to show if it works and has failed to do so. Federal funds should be concentrated on what works, so funding should now be diverted into some other programme of <name your favoured approach> instead
3. Abstinence education is a complete waste of time, money and resources that has no possible hope of working because it is not based on the way people behave but on a particularly conservative religious belief system that is more about exerting political and ideological control than pragmatism or even reality. Funding should be immediately diverted from abstinence programs into <name your favourite approach>.
4. This is all nonsense anyway and the government shouldn't even be trying to influence how kids behave. This is a job for parents and government should stay out of it.
QUOTE
US lawmakers are investigating whether to cut government funding for health education programmes that promote sexual abstinence until marriage.
The move follows a report earlier this year from America's leading health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which revealed one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease.
Opponents of abstinence education say the approach ignores the fact that teenagers are sexually active and fails to give them accurate medical information or advice on safer sex.
<snip>
"This national programme which has wasted $1.5bn (£750m) of tax money is a failure and our teens are paying the price," says Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.
The move follows a report earlier this year from America's leading health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which revealed one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease.
Opponents of abstinence education say the approach ignores the fact that teenagers are sexually active and fails to give them accurate medical information or advice on safer sex.
<snip>
"This national programme which has wasted $1.5bn (£750m) of tax money is a failure and our teens are paying the price," says Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.
But on the other side
QUOTE
Roger Norman, a Texas lawyer, describes himself as being part of the religious right.
He runs an organization called Wonderful Days which does not receive government funding but teaches abstinence as part of the health curriculum in some local schools.
"I am convinced that abstinence is the only way for kids," he says. "You begin by teaching the consequences of bad behaviour and the benefits of proper behaviour and you do that in a way that a child can grasp.
<snip>
Eighteen-year-old Ashley says she believes teenagers who experiment with sex are laying the foundations for troubled relationships later in life.
"At some point everybody ends up getting married. Everybody wants commitment at some point and nobody likes to be cheated on.
"But a lot of the young people I know who go around have experiences with lots of different people are just preparing themselves for not knowing how to be committed to somebody.
He runs an organization called Wonderful Days which does not receive government funding but teaches abstinence as part of the health curriculum in some local schools.
"I am convinced that abstinence is the only way for kids," he says. "You begin by teaching the consequences of bad behaviour and the benefits of proper behaviour and you do that in a way that a child can grasp.
<snip>
Eighteen-year-old Ashley says she believes teenagers who experiment with sex are laying the foundations for troubled relationships later in life.
"At some point everybody ends up getting married. Everybody wants commitment at some point and nobody likes to be cheated on.
"But a lot of the young people I know who go around have experiences with lots of different people are just preparing themselves for not knowing how to be committed to somebody.
Abstinence education has, with help from federal government, expanded dramatically in the past decade in domestic schools, and now also informs some of America's foreign aid to combat HIV/AIDS link
However, there are many people that doubt whether it is having any effective in combating teen pregancy and the spread of sexual transmitted infections - the stated aims of such programmes, both at home and abroad.
Additionally, as in the article, there are those who oppose abstinence education from an ideological standpoint rather than a simply practical one. And many supporters say that the only reason it has not had great success is that it has not been pushed hard enough.
Which statement is closest to your point of view, and why?:
1. Abstinence education is the best way forward because it works, and has only failed because it has not been tried extensively enough, despite government support. It should be expanded to catch the kids that are still becoming sexually active before they are really ready.
(1a Abstinence education has worked and this is just another example of the liberal media stirring up trouble)
2. Abstinence education has been given ample chance to show if it works and has failed to do so. Federal funds should be concentrated on what works, so funding should now be diverted into some other programme of <name your favoured approach> instead
3. Abstinence education is a complete waste of time, money and resources that has no possible hope of working because it is not based on the way people behave but on a particularly conservative religious belief system that is more about exerting political and ideological control than pragmatism or even reality. Funding should be immediately diverted from abstinence programs into <name your favourite approach>.
4. This is all nonsense anyway and the government shouldn't even be trying to influence how kids behave. This is a job for parents and government should stay out of it.
A combination of 2 and 3, and maybe a little bit of 4.
Every study I have seen shows that abstinence only education (as opposed to programs which promote abstinence, along with accurate information about the prevention of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases) is not even slightly effective.
Here's just one example
Please note that this form of sex education does not abandon the effort to encourage abstinence; it merely avoids the unrealistic "Just Say No" attitude of abstinence only programs.
In a prefect world, parents could provide this kind of information. We live in something other than a perfect world, so it's better for young people to get it from school than from nowhere.
Every study I have seen shows that abstinence only education (as opposed to programs which promote abstinence, along with accurate information about the prevention of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases) is not even slightly effective.
Here's just one example
QUOTE
Based on over 15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality education programs for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use, and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delay the onset of sexual intercourse.
Please note that this form of sex education does not abandon the effort to encourage abstinence; it merely avoids the unrealistic "Just Say No" attitude of abstinence only programs.
In a prefect world, parents could provide this kind of information. We live in something other than a perfect world, so it's better for young people to get it from school than from nowhere.
4. This is all nonsense anyway and the government shouldn't even be trying to influence how kids behave. This is a job for parents and government should stay out of it.
Why does the government try and control a teenagers sex life?
It is alright to educate them on sexually transmitted diseases and how to prevent them, as it prepares them for life.
Sex isn't bad. A teenager who is pregnant is pregnant because they weren't careful.
By promoting abstinence, it promotes trying to control an aspect of someones life. Teenagers can make their own decisions.
Sex between two underage teenagers isnt illegal, and promoting abstinence is encouraging to be.
Why does the government try and control a teenagers sex life?
It is alright to educate them on sexually transmitted diseases and how to prevent them, as it prepares them for life.
Sex isn't bad. A teenager who is pregnant is pregnant because they weren't careful.
By promoting abstinence, it promotes trying to control an aspect of someones life. Teenagers can make their own decisions.
Sex between two underage teenagers isnt illegal, and promoting abstinence is encouraging to be.
I would definitely go with number 4. Schools can teach about sexually transmitted diseases in health class just like they teach about other diseases. However, beyond that is not their job.
It is the parent's job to teach abstinence (or whatever fits his/her value system).
It is the parent's job to teach abstinence (or whatever fits his/her value system).
I'm pretty much with number four too. The basics (venereal disease, how to get pregnant, how not to get pregnant...including failure rates as condoms do rip) should be covered in health class along with other health issues. Ovulation is a health issue so the mechanics behind that should be covered as well (also a means of birth control). Should take about a week to cover, total, within a semester long health course.
That's it. No money or time spent on either creative ways to place a condom on a banana, or "virginity pledges".
That's it. No money or time spent on either creative ways to place a condom on a banana, or "virginity pledges".
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 3 2008, 05:20 AM) 
I'm pretty much with number four too. The basics (venereal disease, how to get pregnant, how not to get pregnant...including failure rates as condoms do rip) should be covered in health class along with other health issues. Ovulation is a health issue so the mechanics behind that should be covered as well (also a means of birth control). Should take about a week to cover, total, within a semester long health course.
That's it. No money or time spent on either creative ways to place a condom on a banana, or "virginity pledges".
That's it. No money or time spent on either creative ways to place a condom on a banana, or "virginity pledges".
While I understand this approach, I find it somewhat unrealistic. Kids are curious, and they are especially curious about sex. At this age, it isn't likely that they will have no idea what sex is. I can imagine that all kinds of questions would come up during a typical health class. Where does an educator draw the line? If the kids ask to know how to prevent STIs or anything about condoms or other prophylactics, should an educator simply say "Well, that's not the point of this class"?
QUOTE(kimpossible @ May 3 2008, 11:57 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 3 2008, 05:20 AM)
I'm pretty much with number four too. The basics (venereal disease, how to get pregnant, how not to get pregnant...including failure rates as condoms do rip) should be covered in health class along with other health issues. Ovulation is a health issue so the mechanics behind that should be covered as well (also a means of birth control). Should take about a week to cover, total, within a semester long health course.
That's it. No money or time spent on either creative ways to place a condom on a banana, or "virginity pledges".
That's it. No money or time spent on either creative ways to place a condom on a banana, or "virginity pledges".
While I understand this approach, I find it somewhat unrealistic. Kids are curious, and they are especially curious about sex. At this age, it isn't likely that they will have no idea what sex is. I can imagine that all kinds of questions would come up during a typical health class. Where does an educator draw the line? If the kids ask to know how to prevent STIs or anything about condoms or other prophylactics, should an educator simply say "Well, that's not the point of this class"?
The educator should answer these questions, as condoms aren't illegal.
An educator is there to teach, and teach they shall.
I'd go for a combo of 3 and 4. Sex is a normal human drive, and abstinence education is like trying to put out a skyscraper fire with a water pistol. Ain't gonna work. I believe in sex education. Considering most of these virginity pledge kids don't think oral or anal is "real" sex, it's not as if it even works a little bit.
Some studies claim 1 in 4 teenagers have an STD. Keeping the blinders on and denying teenagers' desire to have sex won't improve the numbers.
Funny thing; the cover story of the local paper is a 17 year old who "felt her baby's head coming out" while she was in the shower, so she left the shower, pushed the kid out, then dressed and walked several blocks to the hospital with the umbilical cord still attached.
She was afraid to tell her parents she was pregnant. Hey, on the bright side, she didn't toss the baby in a dumpster.
QUOTE
Teenagers who take virginity pledges -- public declarations to abstain from sex -- are almost as likely to be infected with a sexually transmitted disease as those who never made the pledge, an eight-year study released yesterday found.
Although young people who sign a virginity pledge delay the initiation of sexual activity, marry at younger ages and have fewer sexual partners, they are also less likely to use condoms and more likely to experiment with oral and anal sex, said the researchers from Yale and Columbia universities. WaPo
Although young people who sign a virginity pledge delay the initiation of sexual activity, marry at younger ages and have fewer sexual partners, they are also less likely to use condoms and more likely to experiment with oral and anal sex, said the researchers from Yale and Columbia universities. WaPo
Some studies claim 1 in 4 teenagers have an STD. Keeping the blinders on and denying teenagers' desire to have sex won't improve the numbers.
Funny thing; the cover story of the local paper is a 17 year old who "felt her baby's head coming out" while she was in the shower, so she left the shower, pushed the kid out, then dressed and walked several blocks to the hospital with the umbilical cord still attached.
She was afraid to tell her parents she was pregnant. Hey, on the bright side, she didn't toss the baby in a dumpster.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ May 3 2008, 10:20 PM)
I'd go for a combo of 3 and 4. Sex is a normal human drive, and abstinence education is like trying to put out a skyscraper fire with a water pistol. Ain't gonna work. I believe in sex education. Considering most of these virginity pledge kids don't think oral or anal is "real" sex, it's not as if it even works a little bit.
Some studies claim 1 in 4 teenagers have an STD. Keeping the blinders on and denying teenagers' desire to have sex won't improve the numbers.
QUOTE
Teenagers who take virginity pledges -- public declarations to abstain from sex -- are almost as likely to be infected with a sexually transmitted disease as those who never made the pledge, an eight-year study released yesterday found.
Although young people who sign a virginity pledge delay the initiation of sexual activity, marry at younger ages and have fewer sexual partners, they are also less likely to use condoms and more likely to experiment with oral and anal sex, said the researchers from Yale and Columbia universities. WaPo
Although young people who sign a virginity pledge delay the initiation of sexual activity, marry at younger ages and have fewer sexual partners, they are also less likely to use condoms and more likely to experiment with oral and anal sex, said the researchers from Yale and Columbia universities. WaPo
Some studies claim 1 in 4 teenagers have an STD. Keeping the blinders on and denying teenagers' desire to have sex won't improve the numbers.
Well, according to your link 4.6 percent of the consistent pledgers got an STD, as compared to 7 percent of the non-pledgers. Also, pregnancy rates were lower in the pledge group. Wouldn't that indicate that pledges work? Nor do I think that the fact that more teens are having anal and oral sex instead of 'regular' sex is a sign that things are going down-hill (figuratively). It's pretty prudent if they don't want to get pregnant.
I disagree with your analogy about the skyscraper fire, myself. I never understand the 'they'll have sex anyway!' arguments, as though sex is like amoebic dysentery and everyone starts to drink it in the water at the age of 12 and no one can possibly wait to have intercourse until they are eighteen or the amoebas will make their bodies explode!!! I don't think most teenaged girls under 18 are interested in the sex act itself much at all (not of course the case with teen boys). That's why effeminate boys make the popular teen idols rather than masculine men...they don't appear to be sexually threatening, by appearance they are just basically girls too. What teenaged girls are interested in is being accepted and liked, and if that requires sex they'll often go along with it to be "cool". And that's a tragedy because they are being used, and someday they will come to that realization. They make up the market of cosmo magazine buyers who peruse ways to 'stun your new man with sex tricks he's never seen' on page five so that you can 'get him to marry you' on page fifteen, followed by 'Shocka! why you don't need the jerk who left you after you showed him the best sex tricks' on page 25, and 'make him jealous by doing those tricks with his best friend' on page 30.
But to continue, a sex pledge to never-ever have sexual intercourse before marriage isn't wise. That's like buying a car without a test drive and it might not even function properly (my own father gave me that lecture when I was eighteen, advice which did prove helpful later). But if those 'pledges' stave off intercourse until the age of eighteen and the person is, at least in theory, a functional adult, it has served its purpose. So suggesting (as the article does) that the pledges don't work because those teens have sex later in life but before marriage is disingenuous, I think. Sounds to me like they do work. But I'm in fundamental disagreement with the premise itself and I don't think it's healthy to lie to oneself and make a promise that not only likely won't be kept, it probably shouldn't be.
QUOTE
Well, according to your link 4.6 percent of the consistent pledgers got an STD, as compared to 7 percent of the non-pledgers. Also, pregnancy rates were lower in the pledge group. Wouldn't that indicate that pledges work?
To me this indicates that the people who do pledge are less inclined to engage in sexual activity than the general population; not the other way around. I'm fairly certain that if you were to take a personality profile from this group, asking questions about their personal and religious beliefs, they would correspond to other segments of the population that don't participate in abstinence-only programs and also have lower std and pregnancy rates.
I didn't see an abstinence only program when I went to school, and I didn't bump uglies at any point during high school (and not for religious reasons...) If I had participated in such a program though, it would probably be with like minded people, and the numbers would skew to show a benefit which isn't real.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ May 4 2008, 08:41 AM)
QUOTE
Well, according to your link 4.6 percent of the consistent pledgers got an STD, as compared to 7 percent of the non-pledgers. Also, pregnancy rates were lower in the pledge group. Wouldn't that indicate that pledges work?
To me this indicates that the people who do pledge are less inclined to engage in sexual activity than the general population; not the other way around. I'm fairly certain that if you were to take a personality profile from this group, asking questions about their personal and religious beliefs, they would correspond to other segments of the population that don't participate in abstinence-only programs and also have lower std and pregnancy rates.
I didn't see an abstinence only program when I went to school, and I didn't bump uglies at any point during high school (and not for religious reasons...) If I had participated in such a program though, it would probably be with like minded people, and the numbers would skew to show a benefit which isn't real.
That's a very good point. You're actually probably right.
But that isn't an assertion I've seen made in any of the studies that counter the "success" of 'virginity pledges'. Usually what you see is exactly the type of thing demonstrated by the article article. "These teens often eventually have sex before marriage just like others do so it doesn't work!" or alternately, "these teens have STDs too (though in lower percentages) so it doesn't work!" or "These teens have anal and oral sex instead of regular intercourse so it doesn't work!" All erroneous points, IMO.
But, yes I agree with you. Anyone taking 'the pledge' would probably be the type less likely to have sex anyway. There were no virginity pledges or abstinence only courses when I was in highschool and, had I been presented with said pledge I would not have signed it but I somehow managed to be STD free my whole life and pregnant for the first time only after seven years of marriage. We had health class, like what I described above. It worked for me...sex was a two-day part of the class. I don't feel undereducated.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.