Report: Abstinence programs don't work

[Peach81]

If the efficacy of abstinence programs in general was the intended topic, you may want to edit the OP to reflect such and provide more than one study for consideration. I'll check back after the weekend and see if that's the desired direction. Take care all.

The title of the OP is the title of the report I posted. At the end of the report, I specifically said "discuss." If you have nothing to offer, then say so. Don't be coy with the "well, if you really want me to..." statements.

 

[NeTrips]

I discussed the one article presented and demonstrated the inherent bias of the group and the lack of credible sources. Is there some response you desired but did not receive?

 

[KomissarSteve]

If the efficacy of abstinence programs in general was the intended topic, you may want to edit the OP to reflect such and provide more than one study for consideration. I'll check back after the weekend and see if that's the desired direction. Take care all.

In other words, you're copping out because you don't have anything to back up your ludicrous claims. You know perfectly well that the OP leaves plenty of room for debate on the topic of the efficacy of abstinence-only programs.

 

[NeTrips]

In other words, you're copping out because you don't have anything to back up your ludicrous claims. You know perfectly well that the OP leaves plenty of room for debate on the topic of the efficacy of abstinence-only programs.

is there a particular response you are trying to achieve with the emotive post above?

I addressed the article's lack of credability. It truely doesn't deserve anything more. Provide a thread with some substance and I'll check it out.

 

[Peach81]

I discussed the one article presented and demonstrated the inherent bias of the group and the lack of credible sources. Is there some response you desired but did not receive?

Yeah, some evidence to back up your unfounded claims instead of just popping off at the mouth.

 

[mhager]

I addressed the article's lack of credability. It truely doesn't deserve anything more. Provide a thread with some substance and I'll check it out.

Indeed you did, but since it has been made evident that the effectivness of abstinence only education in general is fair game and the substance of this thread broader then you thought, perhaps you can address the evidence I provided if you disagree with it's conclusions.

 

[KomissarSteve]

is there a particular response you are trying to achieve with the emotive post above?

Yes, actually - shame, for such a blatant attempt at wiggling your way out of having to back up your claims.

I don't know where you got the "emotive" part from, though...

I addressed the article's lack of credability.

Mmmmmm, no you didn't, actually. You pointed to an area in which there could potentially be a conflict of interest, but that in and of itself does not discredit the article's findings.

Provide a thread with some substance and I'll check it out.

The topic of this thread is the efficacy, or lack thereof, of abstinence-only education. You will either back up your claim here, or continue to cop out.

 

[WatersMoon110]

The title of the OP is the title of the report I posted. At the end of the report, I specifically said "discuss."

I do have to say that the first post could use some more information about the topic of the thread than just the article and "discuss". Maybe you could put the link to the study that mhager posted and some of the information that has been discussed in the thread?

Not that I don't completely agree that saying "well, if you make a new thread/change the OP then I might consider saying something of depth" is a total cop out.

 

[SaintInChicago]

The sponsors of the study praised Kirby for his "thorough research" and for being "fair and evenhanded," but they also acknowledged that ETR Associates developed and markets several of the sex education curricula reviewed in the report. Several of the previous studies that were reviewed also were written by Kirby.

This just in: Pope's evaluation is decisive; find Catholicism to be the one true branch of Christianity.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

There's a quote I like that goes, "Vows of abstinence break more easily than latex condoms." And it's true.

That is true. I like that quote.

Abstinence only education doesn't work. never has, never will. It's beyond me how some people can continue to support something that has done nothing but fail. I wish that these abstinence only people would stop endangering our kids with false information.

 

[Maren]

I discussed the one article presented and demonstrated the inherent bias of the group and the lack of credible sources. Is there some response you desired but did not receive?

Actually, you didn't point out any lack of credible sources. You simply used an ad hominem argument, stating that there is a possible conflict of interest among sponsors of the study. At this point it was brought to your attention that this study is in line with other studies that do not appear to have a possible conflict of interest.

I would say that if you wish to further discuss the topic, even just the validity of the study in the OP, you need to find data that contradicts the study and not simply use an ad hominem argument that appears to have little validity in this case.

 

[Verv]

How completely and utterly ironic that Fox, then, that the most openly conservative network on TV, should be the spearhead of the smuttification of the American airwaves.

I do not watch enough TV to know either way. However, that is a bit ironic if it is indeed true.

Also keep in mind that studies show that the rates of premarital sex haven't gone up significantly since the 1950's.

I am not terribly surprised; the people in the fifties had significantly more economic freedom than other generations. Furthermore, it was the sixties generation that initiated the decline of the American culture and civilization, they are infamous for their notion of free love.

I know one interesting difference:

Both my grandparents had sex before marriage. However, shortly thereafter they were married when my grandmothers became pregnant. Either that or both the first born in their families was several months premature from their 9 month anniversary of the marriage yet born without any of those complications.

My grandpa once told me that in his day, if you got a girl pregnant you had no choice but to marry her. Your life as a single personw as over and your life as a father began.

Today, conceptions of parenthood have changed and people are perfectly content to be in strange arrangements where we have teen mothers with kids of different fathers (!!!), etc.

I know, it's tough when so much of their money has to go to providing healthcare and other benefits that governments are providing in other countries, that parents have to take on more than one job or have to work longer hours to compensate.

Americans live very well -- much better than any Korean I know, whom generally work six days a week to struggle to get half of the benefits that Americans have. Most live in their homes until marriage (which is, like many Americans, on average in the mid to late twenties).

You should consider how well we live compared to others.

I was surprised to see you in these parts of the forum, Steve; we have all sorts of new things we can cover more in-depth now.

Mmmmmm, are you so sure that the source of the problem was never school? It seems to me that we've never really tried widespread comprehensive sex education yet in our country's history...

I received it.

Like all 13 year olds in 1997, I put condoms on bananas and that was supposed to be the cure to whatever issues I had. We learned extensively about STDs.

My girlfriend was telling me about sex education in China. In the great atheist socialist paradise there is absolutely none to speak of. I bring it up only to perhaps cut short arguments that we do not receive proper sex education due to religiosity.

Many societies which are by and large atheist have even very strict regulations on pornography (outright illegal in China and North Korea, two militantly atheist states).

Oh, it's that darn rock music those kids are listening to these days. No, I don't think so. Hormones push kids to sex, not music and tv. Once puberty happens, the sex button gets turned on, and nothing ever turns it off.

I think that hormones push people to sex but it is possible to have cultural barriers which prevent early sexual activity.

Many people traditionally waited due to responsibilities that were thrust upon them. And more than this, money did not have to wait because the institution of being a teenager was not even invented until the 1950s -- hitherto, the notion of teenager did not exist as the average life expectancy was much shorter and people entered the workforce almost immediately following elementary school.

Our social existence from the 1890s to the 1950s does not even remotely resemble one another and there is also a total lack of familiarity from the 1950s to now.

Humanity has changed a lot in its social institutions.

I am sure the teen pregnancy rate in the 1840s was through the roof... partly because people married at age 15 or 16 and had children.

Easy to say when you have money. Not so easy to say when you have to constantly work overtime because your base salary can barely support a dog, let alone a family.

Oh, I have witnessed as much! I was never that poor, but I have seen first hand what poverty can do to people in this country and the results.

However, are yous aying there is a correlation between poverty and sin?

 

[KomissarSteve]

I am not terribly surprised; the people in the fifties had significantly more economic freedom than other generations. Furthermore, it was the sixties generation that initiated the decline of the American culture and civilization, they are infamous for their notion of free love.

What evidence do you have that the notion of "free love" led to an increase in risky sexual behavior?

Today, conceptions of parenthood have changed and people are perfectly content to be in strange arrangements where we have teen mothers with kids of different fathers (!!!), etc.

That's an interesting theory.

Prove it.

Americans live very well -- much better than any Korean I know, whom generally work six days a week to struggle to get half of the benefits that Americans have. Most live in their homes until marriage (which is, like many Americans, on average in the mid to late twenties).

Wow. American standard of living is better than that of...Korea.

Pardon me if I'm not completely bowled over at this revelation...

You should consider how well we live compared to others.

I do, and I'm thankful for that fact. That doesn't mean that other countries that aren't as rich as our country nevertheless manage to have higher standards of living.

I received it.

Great. I'm not entirely sure how that diminishes my point that most American minors don't receive comprehensive sex education, but hey, I'm glad for you.

Like all 13 year olds in 1997, I put condoms on bananas and that was supposed to be the cure to whatever issues I had. We learned extensively about STDs.

"All" 13-year olds? Any evidence that all 13-year olds had to do that?

My girlfriend was telling me about sex education in China. In the great atheist socialist paradise there is absolutely none to speak of. I bring it up only to perhaps cut short arguments that we do not receive proper sex education due to religiosity.

That's great. Personally, as a proud American who is neither an atheist nor a socialist, I think we should be able to expect more out of America than China.

I think that hormones push people to sex but it is possible to have cultural barriers which prevent early sexual activity.

If one of those cultural barriers is "Keep kids ignorant about safe sex," then it ain't working.

Humanity has changed a lot in its social institutions.

I am sure the teen pregnancy rate in the 1840s was through the roof... partly because people married at age 15 or 16 and had children.

That's great, but the reality is, the notion of being a teenager exists now, it exists for a good reason (ie: to help young people develop into productive members of society and cope with the sometimes-overwhelming hormonal changes they are undergoing). I think it's time for social conservatives like you to stop harping on what you think "should be", and recognize reality for what it is.

 

[Peach81]

Oh, I have witnessed as much! I was never that poor, but I have seen first hand what poverty can do to people in this country and the results.

You may have seen it and read the statistics, but you still don't know what it's like to be poor. Think twice before you judge working parents.

However, are yous aying there is a correlation between poverty and sin?

No, you are. You were the one that condemned parents for working long hours and not being around to participate in their kids' educations. As for me, I don't believe in sin.

 

[SaintInChicago]

This just in:

Smoking has beneficial health effect, tobacco company studies find

 

[Brennin]

Contraceptive education is an integral part of sex education, IMO. Parents who object can always pull their children out of such lessons.

 

[The Bellman]

This just in:

Smoking has beneficial health effect, tobacco company studies find

That would be a useful post if you could provide some studies by ANYONE showing that abstinence-only education works.

You can't.

You lose.

 

[NeTrips]

Whoever coined the phrase "you can't argue with success" never ran into the folks who run the pro-abortion lobby. The representatives of these groups are willfully blind to the fact that more teens are open to the message of abstinence and to incorporating it into how they lead their lives. They realize that sexual activity without a binding commitment is a dead-end; the consequences ranging from hurt feelings at least to abortions, pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases. What should be common sense — no sex before marriage — is antithetical to the viewpoint of the staffs of organizations such as NARAL Pro-Choice America and The Alan Guttmacher Institute and their cheerleaders in the news media.

The news media jumped upon a study by Texas A&M on the effectiveness of abstinence programs. News coverage about the report's findings indicated that children who received abstinence education were not working because teens were having sex after participating in abstinence education classes. However, the Associated Press did note that A&M researcher Buzz Pruitt "cautioned against drawing overarching conclusions from the study, which is incomplete and does have flaws" including the lack of a control group that would permit measurement of whether the increase in sexual activity would be even greater if teens had no abstinence education at all.

The Abstinence Clearinghouse examined the study by Texas A&M. It decided to compare results with those found by the Center for Disease Control's 2003 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance survey. In essence, the Texas teens in the YRBS study became the control group. The finding? Abstinence Clearinghouse found that "When compared with the general teen population [in the 2003 YRBS survey], teens who participate in abstinence education programs have significantly lower sexual activity rates." The difference was most pronounced among young males. Only 24% of ninth grade males engaged in sexual activity after abstinence classes, nearly 20 percentage points less than those in the larger YRBS study. Nearly 40% of males in the 10th grade did engage in sexual activity, 17 percentage points less than those 10th grade teen males surveyed in the YRBS study.

When NBC polled young Americans recently about their feelings involving sex, the survey turned up some surprising results. Most teens 13-16 years old have not engaged in sexual intercourse. Many are concerned about the adverse consequences, which include pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, even their parents' reactions. Forty-two percent say they have not had sex because of their moral or religious beliefs. The findings speak to the good sense displayed by many young Americans.

If only some of their elders possessed such common sense. The entertainment industry constantly besieges teens with messages urging sex in its ceaseless production of movies, television programs and songs glorifying sex. Who wants to hear a song about "Because I had sex and picked up a STD, I will never have a child?"

Last fall, the RAND Institute released the results of a study conducted for the National Institute of Child Health and Development. It showed teens who watched shows with a great deal of sexual content were much more likely to engage in sexual intercourse than those teens who watched programs with little sexual content. "This is the strongest evidence yet that the sexual content of television programs encourages adolescents to initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual activities," stated RAND psychologist Rebecca Collins. It is with reason that my friend, Leslee Unruh, President of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, asserts "clean programming is essential" to encourage young Americans to hold positive attitudes toward sex. Hollywood evidently has a very different idea.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Government Reform, challenged the curriculums of abstinence programs, even faulting them for relying upon religious beliefs and moral values and for engaging in gender stereotyping. However, the report prepared by Waxman's own staff was shown to have engaged in faulty analysis. A lesson plan issued by Teen-Aid Inc. that he cited as having claimed as many as 15% of women would be unable to become pregnant after an abortion did not even include that statistic.

That lack of accurate information did not stop the pro-abortion lobby from welcoming the study. The response on their "Bush v. Choice" blog is likely to strike more than a few readers as being more suitable for scrawling on bathroom walls than to be placed on the webpage of a national lobbying organization. "Whatever it is that p — me off most, it seems that I'm not the only one," states the NARAL Pro-Choice America section on the Waxman report. "...abstinence-only programs also push bull — sex stereotypes." What specifically raises the ire of the writer? One point she takes exception to is, "One [abstinence-only] curriculum cited in the report teaches that women need 'financial support,' while men need admiration." Unless the young women who are pregnant come from a wealthy family, they generally do need financial support. Unfortunately, this assertion is just "not progressive" enough for the NARAL Pro-Choice America writer.

Conveniently ignored by the anti-abstinence forces are the good work of pro-abstinence programs such as Project Reality and Choosing the Best.

Project Reality's Game Plan program aimed at teens in grades seven to nine has been evaluated by Northwestern University researchers.

An August 2002 study by Northwestern University Medical School researcher John S. Lyons, Ph.D., discovered that "youth have a clearer understanding of abstinence and of the health consequences of engaging in or refraining from sexual activity after participating in the program. It also appears that the abstinence message can reach youth who are already sexually active. Finally, the reported behavioral intentions to remain abstinent from sexual activity until marriage increased significantly to two-thirds of all program participants."

Lyons note that there was a lack of a control group but added that the results would be unlikely to be achieved otherwise since most teens become more permissive about issues of sexual activity over time. The youth who were tested could simply be parroting back what their elders would like to hear. Even if that were so, Lyons said, "...that would be evidence that they clearly had head the "Game Plan" message."

An October 8, 2004 executive summary prepared by Stan Weed, Ph.D., at the Department of Health & Human Services' Institute for Research and Development assessed the results for students in grades seven to nine in two Georgia counties, Pike and Spaulding. Of the 938 students, 549 received the Choosing the Best curricula while a comparison group of 389 students did not receive education. Spaulding was considered to be "higher risk" in regard to teen pregnancies. Pike was lower risk. Weed's research found that "Spaulding County experienced significant reductions in initiation rates in all three treatment grades compared to comparison students." The results were less clear for Pike County given the comparison groups. However, the overall finding made clear that teen sexual intercourse might be able to fall by between 50 to 60% when students were exposed to the curricula of "Choosing the Best" for three years.

More young Americans need to hear the abstinence message despite what the naysayers may say. The fact is that many teens seek sex not because they are happy and successful, but because the opposite is true. Catching an STD or experiencing an unplanned pregnancy is no self-esteem booster. The fact that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention recently noted that America leads the developed world in deaths and disabilities related to STDs is no cause for celebration but good reason to take stock of where our country is headed. "Given the size and chronicity of HIV, HPV and other hepatitis virus epidemics, the overall health burden related to sexual behavior is unlikely to decline rapidly in the coming years," predicted the authors of the CDC study. With a gloomy finding like that sensible Americans would think the opponents of abstinence would be willing to rethink their position.

The fact is that the best prevention against STDs and unplanned pregnancies is not having sex before marriage. There are probably some Americans who think the San Francisco 49ers with 2 wins and 14 losses deserved to be in the Super Bowl this year. Get real. All the wishes and curse words and glossing over reality would not have given the 49ers a Super Bowl slot this year. Nor will they change the reality of abstinence as the best protection against STDs and unplanned pregnancies.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/weyrich/050215

 

[NeTrips]

Fact: Sexual activity at an early age has multiple harmful consequences.
The earlier a teenage girl begins sexual activity the more likely she is to suffer from increased rates of infection with sexually transmitted diseases, increased rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth, increased rates of single parenthood, decreased marital stability, increased maternal and child poverty, increased abortion, increased depression, and decreased adult happiness.

Robert E. Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Lauren Noyes, and Shannan Martin,, “The Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women: A Book of Charts,” The Heritage Foundation, June 26, 2003. www.heritage.org/research/family/abstinence_charts.cfm

 

[NeTrips]

Fact: Most sexually active teens say they wish they had waited until they were older before having sex.
Nearly two thirds of sexually active teens state that they regret their initial sexual activity and wish they had waited until they were older before becoming sexually active.

National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Americans Sound Off About Teen Pregnancy, National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, December 2003, p. 17.