Teen Abstinence

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Andúril

She should have stayed to watch.

I agree.

I think people should be free to choose what to do themselves. Parents, teachers and such can, and should, present the options, and of course say what they feel.. But children will grow up to be individuals, not copies of their parents. I don't think parents have any right to tell their teenagers what they should do with their bodies.

I believe sexuality is one of the strongest forces in any animal's life. We are here to reproduct, to pass on our genes. In order to do this, sex is the main tool, among many others. In the end, it all comes down to letting the DNA that evolved a long time ago live on. The individual is just a tool to make this happen.

I guess I'm in the wrong thread..XD But what I want to say is that IMO, a human being's sexuality is their own. Young people need to know the options in order to make their own decisions. Information from different sources and respect for the individual's choice is the key.

[inked]

So it's okay to run into the roadway, not brush your teeth, not bathe, and all those other things your parents forced on you as children because of their distorted value system. Sure glad we cleared that up.

And the allegation that there is no third-party affected is so blatantly in error that it needs no refutation.

Abstinence is a valid response to human sexuality. The protestations otherwise are far too like the need for the married and those with child to have their friends experience the same (which has been roundly condemned on other threads in this forum) so that the misery can be shared, eh?

And Freud was in error if you are suggesting that one of the responses to one's sexuality is fraught with neurosis and danger by not engaging in sexual activity. "I fear a neurosis more than an STD"? Wow, talk about guilt-tripping the electively abstinent ... *pardon* I can't laugh this hard, wipe tears, and type at the same time*.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by Varda

Very true, but... that doesn't make anything less true.

Um...a vast majority of his theory is considered complete and utter rubbish anymore. So, it does make it less true, in a sense. Very little of Freud's original ideas are considered valid methods of psychology.

edit: Before you call me on it, I'm a psychology major as well.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

Um...a vast majority of his theory is considered complete and utter rubbish anymore. So, it does make it less true, in a sense. Very little of Freud's original ideas are considered valid methods of psychology...

Yes - I remember being told this... in Psych 100 at Univ of Illinois... almost 24 years ago!

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Yes - I remember being told this... in Psych 100 at Univ of Illinois... almost 24 years ago!

I learned something to the effect of him being a complete chauvinist pig, if it helps...

You know, I think a lot of the problem we're seeing today with teens and sex stems from the very image we've given the act. If it weren't so condemned by society, and taboo, I would imagine that there would be far less of a problem.

[The Gaffer]

Clearly, all of us are capable of interpreting "evidence" to suit our opinions. In such an emotive topic it's almost unimaginable to have an unbiased assessment. So what to do?

In clinical research (where emotions can run as high as a drug company losing a $500m investment on their new wonder drug going down the toilet), what they do is a randomised controlled trial, where people getting the new intervention are compared with an identical group who are treated in exactly the same way except that they get a control intervention.

Even better is where there have already been a bunch of these trials and it's possible to summarise them all as a "systematic review".

I found a systematic review of 26 randomised trials of abstinence and education programmes (DiCenso et al, Interventions to reduce inintended pregnancies among adolescents. British Medical Journal 2002;324:1426)

You can read it for yourself at the BMJ web site.

In short, they found that these prevention strategies didn't delay sex, didn't improve use of birth control and didn't reduce the number of pregnancies.

At the same time, we already know from experience in the Netherlands and elsewhere that making contraception widely available did reduce the number of teenage pregnancies.

Clearly, abstinence is a perfectly valid choice for an individual, and I wouldn't question the benefits, but to base a public health strategy on it is, IMO, dogmatic and irresponsible.

[Insidious Rex]

Hear hear!

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I know we're a bit older than what you're talking about... but have you ever seen a college dance or party? It's like a bloody orgy!

Ah how I miss college...

[inked]

"There is some evidence that prevention programmes may need to begin much earlier than they do. In a recent systematic review of eight trials of day care for disadvantaged children under 5 years of age, long term follow up showed lower pregnancy rates among adolescents.44 We need to investigate the social determinants of unintended pregnancy in adolescents through large longitudinal studies beginning early in life and use the results of the multivariate analyses to guide the design of prevention interventions. We should carefully examine countries with low pregnancy rates among adolescents. For example, the Netherlands has one of the lowest rates in the world (8.1 per 1000 young women aged 15 to 19 years), and Ketting and Visser have published an analysis of associated factors.45 In contrast, the rates are 93 per 1000 in the United States,46 62.6 per 1000 in England and Wales,47 and 42.7 per 1000 in Canada.48 We should examine effective programmes designed to prevent other high risk behaviours in adolescents. For example, Botvin et al found that school based programmes to prevent drug abuse during junior high school (ages 12-14 years) resulted in important and durable reductions in use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana if they taught a combination of social resistance skills and general life skills, were properly implemented, and included at least two years of booster sessions.49"
cited article, conclusions, extract

*********

So the conclusion that from 1970 to 1995 these programs did not achieve statistical success in the US, GB, Canada, et alia would mean that the programs were ineffective in their designs and that potential improvements could convey better information and results. The post #42 would seem to have met these suggestions and reports the results as signigficant.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

So the conclusion that from 1970 to 1995 these programs did not achieve statistical success in the US, GB, Canada, et alia would mean that the programs were ineffective in their designs and that potential improvements could convey better information and results. The post #42 would seem to have met these suggestions and reports the results as signigficant.

i'd have to see more details... the study on post #42 doesn't seem to mention if the students in question had any other forms of sex-ed before or during the period of the heritage program... if they had none... or a very poor sex-ed program, that could explain the results... as could any other programs that might have been in effect over that time period

it sounds like a good program... but no reason not to teach contraception as well

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Draken

Irony not your strong point, I take it?

Well, yes, I realized you were "making a funny" (and it was very funny! Good timing, and nice and terse coming out of left field.) It's just that I hate false perceptions, and one false perception going around is that only young gorgeous people that are not married can reeeeely enjoy sex while a married couple can't.

So full points for you for humor but I will also try to clear up a very common misconception

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

I think people should be free to choose what to do themselves. Parents, teachers and such can, and should, present the options, and of course say what they feel.. But children will grow up to be individuals, not copies of their parents. I don't think parents have any right to tell their teenagers what they should do with their bodies.

I think so, too, as long as those teens are supporting themselves. These teens that whine about how their parents give them curfews, etc., and don't allow their boyfriends/girlfriends to spend the night just steam me up! Go support yourself and get your own place if you want to have no curfews and want to have your boyfriend/girlfriend over! Sheesh! They complain about being treated like a kid, then get upset if their mom and dad don't provide shelter, food, and spending money for them! Sounds like they're a kid to me - ADULTS provide for themselves. What I see all too often is a teen being sexually active, then having a baby, and GUESS WHO ends up babysitting? Yup, grandma and grandpa!

We are here to reproduct, to pass on our genes.

How boring *yawn* I'M not here to do that.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

...So full points for you for humor but I will also try to clear up a very common misconception

Now I'M confused... are we talking about conception, misconception or contraception???

[inked]

Valandil,
The conception that a mis-conception is a contra-ception is fraught with conceptual difficulties for you, I see. Rian seems to be stating that it is a mis-conception that conception is the sole conception validating married sexual activity and that only un-married persons have the proper conception, see?

I posted a note about a TIME article on this in the marriage thread a couple of weeks ago BTW, which might shed light on these misconceptions.

[Valandil]

"In-con-CEIV-able!!!"

[inked]

REALLY?

See http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?p=446984#post446984 number 139!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Val

Now I'M confused... are we talking about conception, misconception or contraception???

Originally Posted by inky

Valandil,
The conception that a mis-conception is a contra-ception is fraught with conceptual difficulties for you, I see. Rian seems to be stating that it is a mis-conception that conception is the sole conception validating married sexual activity and that only un-married persons have the proper conception, see?

Originally Posted by Val

"In-con-CEIV-able!!!"

You goofballs!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

"In-con-CEIV-able!!!"

You keep on using that word, but I do not think you know what it means.



I guess the thing that steams me up about abstinance-only education is I don't like youth being lied to and/or deceived. Even if all the information presented in the class is factual (it isn't always), abstinence-only still leads people to believe that there are only two choices. In reality, there are more, and it's up to educators to present all the possibilities.

Young people will find out about sex and all the ways to go about it. Do you want it to be from parents or in a sex ed class, or do you want it to be at a random party? With abstinence-only, it's more likely to be at the random party, since the abstinence approach doesn't work for everybody.

[inked]

Nurv,

Does the everybody's doing it lie get you steamed up too? I mean it clearly doesn't apply to 50% of the addressed population.

I guess I'm asking if you are an equal-opportunity steamer ?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Nurv,

Does the everybody's doing it lie get you steamed up too? I mean it clearly doesn't apply to 50% of the addressed population.

I guess I'm asking if you are an equal-opportunity steamer ?

Everybody's doing it...

Yes, that also really gives me the irrits. (And I'm not just saying that to reinforce my point, it really does annoy me.)

When I was 12 I had a great sex ed class. Plus, my parents had a quality (IMO) The Talk with me.

In the sex ed class, they dispelled the annoying "everybody's doing it" myth as well as telling us about how the human body works (wrt sex ed), telling us about all contraceptive options, and passed out free condoms. None of us were sexually active at the time so we made condom water balloons out of them, but we still got the message. This was reinforced later with a similar class in secondary school.

EDIT: Just to note, surveys aren't 100% accurate, and therefore not The Truth, but they are one of the best ways we have at the moment to find out what people are up to and what they think about different issues. (I just had a class on human dimensions in wildlife management survey design. )

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

EDIT: Just to note, surveys aren't 100% accurate, and therefore not The Truth, but they are one of the best ways we have at the moment to find out what people are up to and what they think about different issues. (I just had a class on human dimensions in wildlife management survey design. )

exactly, they are the best we have... but whether anonymous or not, people tend to answer in the way they believe they should answer (there have been studies done of this effect too )... if a certain practice is condemned as "wrong", people will have a reluctance to admit to it, even if they practice it