Teen Abstinence

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by inked

Let's see, 1988 only 2% of sex ed programs were abstinence only, now only 25% are abstinence only. Sure looks like they are TAKING OVER THE PROCESS since 75% of programs are not abstinence only! And what about teenage pregnancy rates during those years? or abortion rates?

Perhaps the concern being voiced is that the number of such programs has increased 12.5 times since 1988, and the current budget for them is being tripled. Which means that at a fairly naive straitforward rate they could increase at 37.5 times over the next 20 year period.... Which would make them ... somewhere around 75%...

ACOG just reported that the lowest rate of PGcy among 14 - 15 year olds since 1955. Is that due to the success of abstinence only programs which delays intercourse by 18 months on average? Or is it due to more successful contaception by your average 14 - 15 yr old? Or both? The latest data on abortions show minimal but slightly lowering rates of abortion as well. Abstinence only or sex-ed of any stripe? or both? I vote both on each!

Since, as you state, 75% of the programs were not abstinence only during that period, one can only asume that it is due more to the non-absitnence only programs...

Did it strike anyone else that reporting the failure rates of different contraceptive techniques in abstinence only programs is actually informing the student body of the existence of those other techniques?

Did it strike you as interesting that churches are actively informing their worshipers of the existence of athiests by informing them that they will burn in lakes of fire for all eternity? That's pretty disingenious... Merely providing information on failure rates in not useful information when presented alone and out of context. It's more closely akin to lying than informing...

And the comparison of century old facts with current techniques. NOT MUCH OF A REACH THERE, IS THERE? I mean it's like the attitude of the country hadn't changed between the World Wars or anything! 'Sixties, what sixties?At least, we got sex ed in those gym classes, right! And the pre-1988 classes really had an effect. Surveys at the time indicated that sondom usage pre-class was 50% and haphazard while after the classes it was 49% and haphazard. So, I am impressed if they have in either mode achieved a 60% consdom usage rate!

The failure rates of birth control regarding contraception and the failure rates of barrier protection regarding viral transmission are from different ages.

In the 50's many 18 year olds were quite capable of supporting a family on factory wages. Using a condom was important if you didn't get a girl pregnant.

Nowadays, you think about using a condom if you don't feel like dying, but still want to have sex... There are far easier and more effective methods of contraception than a condom...

Times have changed and it's no wonder that children are more sophisticated now. If anything I'd say that a 60% rate was cause for alarm, and a call for an improvement in the amount of information available about the relevant issues. Not for sweeping them under the rug.

What time warp jumped from 1904 to 1988! Oh, I see, it was the vast right-wing conspiracy that caused 75,000 LHJ subscribers to cancel their subscriptions... the visualize whirled peas effect then catapulted those subscribers into the control of the Bush administration appointments in 2001 to take this long to do whatever it is they did. And it was undoubtedly this same cabal who withheld antibiotic therapy for gonorrhea and syphillis back until WWII relented their hearts to release it?!

Probably the same time warp that the conservatives who would like to see american culture returned to a pre 1950's style of fantasy (It never fuc_ing existed) Suburban Cleaver-esqueness hopped out of. Which is remarkably similar to turn of the century taboos about sex and discussion of sex. Not to mention rolling back socialism (the new deal which was obviously intended soley for welfare mothers) and those damned liberal judges who have perverted the constitution with decisions like Roe V Wade and lawrence V Texas....

And that 18 month delay in sex occurence, why that means nothing. Look it really didn't happen because 88% of them had premarital sex anyway! So if the 13 year old waited til 14 1/2, what ... she denied herself or he denied himself 18 months of sexual pleasure? Same for the 17 year olds? But then

"A National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy task force examined the issue and concluded: "There do not currently exist any abstinence-only programs with strong evidence that they either delay sex or reduce teen pregnancy." "
Which is it?

That depends on which study you lend more weight to. Either study however holds out little hope for abstinence based programs. It's like worrying about whether the Mack Truck bearing down upon you is hauling a load of Lead, or Feather Pillows.... It just isn't going to matter a whole hell of a lot in the long run.

]And that last paragraph, where's the data to support that fear-mongering, hyperbolic speculation presented as fact? Gawd, I do love reading the OP-ED in the NY TIMES. The cartoons are not merely drawings there!

You mean this part? : "More troubling, the pledgers were much less likely to use contraception when they did have sex - only 40 percent of the males used condoms, compared with 59 percent of those who did not take the pledge."

And this part? : "why should we pour additional tax money into abstinence-only initiatives, which are likely to lead to more pregnancies, more abortions and more kids with AIDS?"

A 19% increase in unprotected sex amongst the study group is not insignificant, nor is it fear-mongering, hyperbolic speculation... Connect the dots, it's not hard. Unless you work for the CIA maybe.

[inked]

Let me see, that connection and data work for destroying the claims of abstinence programs, right? But, if I take the same logic and say that delaying sexual activity for 18 months on average reduces the pregnancy rate and abortion rate, I'm screwing with the statistics?

Just wanna be on the same page!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Perhaps the concern being voiced is that the number of such programs has increased 12.5 times since 1988, and the current budget for them is being tripled. Which means that at a fairly naive straitforward rate they could increase at 37.5 times over the next 20 year period.... Which would make them ... somewhere around 75%...

(psst - Inky - you have to remember how evolutionists love to extrapolate ... )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Did it strike you as interesting that churches are actively informing their worshipers of the existence of athiests by informing them that they will burn in lakes of fire for all eternity?

Maybe YOUR church does, but MY church (and the church described in the Bible) says to love them, and if they are poor, then help them out, and if they are hungry, then feed them, and if they are in prision, then visit them, etc. And if they hurt you, then pray for them and do them good in return for evil.

...and those damned liberal judges who have perverted the constitution with decisions like Roe V Wade and lawrence V Texas....

Ah, Lawrence V. Texas - that lovely case where the US gave up its sovereignty and caved in to the opinions of other countries ... Using that logic, I should go buy a long black veil ...

[Nurvingiel]

Roe v. Wade is relevant to this thread... but what the heck are you guys talking about?

One could say that abstinence-only programs are increasing from those numbers, but I don't think they're enough to predict when, or if, they will reach 75%. There are many extraneous factors. The most important one is its budget - I'm sure we can all agree government budgets are fleeting things.

[Rían]

Probably the same time warp that the conservatives who would like to see american culture returned to a pre 1950's style of fantasy (It never fuc_ing existed) Suburban Cleaver-esqueness hopped out of.

Then my family never ****ing existed, I guess.

You're wrong, Blackheart. You ... are ... wrong. EVERY family wasn't like the Cleavers (I think I've only seen one or two shows in my life, but I know what you're referring to), but SOME were, and IMO, it is very close to the ideal, altho not to reality, esp. now.

Nurv - Lawrence v. Texas was a case that struck down a rather ridiculous law against sodomy. I think laws like that are impractical, but what I disagreed with was the reasoning why they struck it down. I think Scalia's scathing dissenting opinion was brilliant, and his prophetic guesses are certainly coming true.

[Insidious Rex]

so how would you strike it down? or would you keep sodomy laws on the books? if you ruled the world what would be allowed and what wouldnt be allowed?

[Nurvingiel]

I was also going to ask why you didn't like what you termed "a rather ridiculous law" being struck down. (Given that I don't know the background here.)


And, it's national condom week! No glove, no love.

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Then my family never ****ing existed, I guess.

You're wrong, Blackheart. You ... are ... wrong. EVERY family wasn't like the Cleavers (I think I've only seen one or two shows in my life, but I know what you're referring to), but SOME were, and IMO, it is very close to the ideal, altho not to reality, esp. now.

Does anybody find it strange that the writers of that show named the main character 'Beaver'? I mean seriously, 'Beaver Cleaver'? With conversations like this...
JUNE: "Ward, you were sure hard on the Beaver last night."
Ward: "Well I had to be to get the proper response."

How can anybody take that show and use it as the icon of "conservative stuffiness" in a serious conversation about teen sexual abstinence.

[Nurvingiel]

Ahaha... Well, maybe "Beaver" didn't have the same connotations when the show was made that it does today. I suspect not. OT... but what kind of name for a kid is "Beaver" anyway? Why not just name the kid "Tease-me-endlessly" and get it over with?

Just because "nuclear family" no longer defines the modern family does not mean they don't exist at all.


Erm... yes... the topic... I know it's around here somewhere.

[Snowdog]

I'm afraid it did because I have some momentos from the 40's, like a matchbook from the Beaverhouse Sporting Club.

[Andúril]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

Funny guy, that sword...

Thanks.

[Andúril]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yeah, he has to imagine things ...

Can you even imagine what I could imagine?

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by inked

Let me see, that connection and data work for destroying the claims of abstinence programs, right? But, if I take the same logic and say that delaying sexual activity for 18 months on average reduces the pregnancy rate and abortion rate, I'm screwing with the statistics?

Just wanna be on the same page!

Sure, if you want to post the study. But if you read more closely, what they said was the 18 month delay was MORE likely to end with an episode unprotected sex. Which means that is more risk for pregnancy (who is this Nancy check anyway?) and/or an STD.

I figured that would be the obvious point... Maybe you think an 18 month delay is worth that?

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Then my family never ****ing existed, I guess. You're wrong, Blackheart. You ... are ... wrong. EVERY family wasn't like the Cleavers (I think I've only seen one or two shows in my life, but I know what you're referring to), but SOME were, and IMO, it is very close to the ideal, altho not to reality, esp. now.

Are you going to take it personally, that because I told you the golden society of the 50's was an illusion manufactured by the media, then somehow it invalidated your parents? Have you checked? Are they still where you left them?

You know, maybe I shouldn't have used the Cleavers as an example. They were an individual family, and perhaps you really thought I meant that kind of family never existed...

What is more germane to the issue is that that kind of society did not exist. There were indeed a lot of people with idealic family lives. But it was not the norm. A lot of veterans were having trouble adjusting to civilian life. There were lower class people suffering through poverty and crime. Drug problems existed. Sexual issues existed. Mental problems abounded. Racial injustice resulted in some once being beaten or hanged on almost any given day. Environmental destruction and depletion of resources multiplied and a phenomenal rate, unnoticed, because no one knew what to look for.

Sure it was an age of innocence. But people forget that innocence is just plain ignorance when applied to adults... And the 50's were an age of ignorance, not innocence.

Nurv - Lawrence v. Texas was a case that struck down a rather ridiculous law against sodomy. I think laws like that are impractical, but what I disagreed with was the reasoning why they struck it down. I think Scalia's scathing dissenting opinion was brilliant, and his prophetic guesses are certainly coming true.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is indeed one of the decisions that people who are concerned with minding other people's sexual behavior quote when they note the left leanings of the courts.

I

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

I'm afraid it did because I have some momentos from the 40's, like a matchbook from the Beaverhouse Sporting Club.

I'm fairly certain the show's writers knew about the slang use of "beaver". It's been around for a while.

I'm also fairly certain they were laughing their asses off in some back room somewhere, confident that no one would dare to mention it...

"Ward, have you seen the Beaver?

[Juicybearfut]

i kinda dont see why people think that "absitance only" programs in school are the way to go. If you beleive that idea, most likley it is because your religion tells you too (ok...it may not be the only reason...but im just using this one). Public schools arent allowed to promote any specific religion, so why should they promote a specific belief or a specific religions belief? While your kid may beleive in abstiance, it is not just your kid who goes to school. The school should be prepared for ALL kids with ALL different beliefs, and should therefor teach all different options for these kids.

a fact of life: Some kids are just gonna have sex anyways (in fact, 60% as the article said before they leave school) those 60% NEED to be educated on the different kinds of protection so they can well...protect themselves when they have sex. If 6 out of 10 kids do it in high school (and im sure that number increases in college), its more then enough cause to have birth control options in sexual education

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Are you going to take it personally, that because I told you the golden society of the 50's was an illusion manufactured by the media, then somehow it invalidated your parents?

No, I'm not taking it personally - I'm just showing you, by a first-hand example, and using your style of speech, that you were wrong. And because I showed you you were wrong, you clarified your statement

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is indeed one of the decisions that people who are concerned with minding other people's sexual behavior quote when they note the left leanings of the courts.

Are YOU concerned with other people's sexual behavior? If not, then I hope you're campaigning for the removal of ALL laws concerning sexual behavior, including laws against pedophilia. After all, one should be logically consistent, don't you think?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Andúril

Can you even imagine what I could imagine?

We'll never know, will we since I have zero interest in discussing it with you!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I was also going to ask why you didn't like what you termed "a rather ridiculous law" being struck down. (Given that I don't know the background here.)

I don't think the ends justify the means, Nurvs ...