Author Topic: The efficacy of 'abstinence only' (Read 1308 times)

OOZ662 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 16, 2006, 12:16:05 AM »

Well, with the quality of our sexual education classes, I learned about 50x more reading WikiPedia articles for a couple of hours wasting time during Digital Design class.

I am one of the few guys (apparently) who is taking abstinence seriously, and if I did break it, I would use a condom. However, I had no idea how to use one until I looked it up on WikiPedia. The ONLY things that were said (over and over again) in our sex ed classes so far were "don't have sex" in seventh grade, then "use protection" in 8th grade. We heard about AIDS a couple thousand times. I think one girl in a video had crabs. No other STDs were discussed. For the seperated sexually classes (the stuff about your dick and such) we learned nearly nothing about the female body. Apparently the girls didn't learn much about the males either. Nothing about either gender was discussed in the non-seperated classes.

I, for one, am hoping that the requisite Biology and Health classes next year fill in the gaps for the people who aren't WikiNerds. Nobody knows what the hell is going on.

Mini D · « **Reply #16 on:** August 16, 2006, 12:28:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
The American family became deathly ill when Mom went to work and left the kids at home alone.

Or when it became profitable to get a divorce or when children would get in the way of a career. How about when a single mom once again fails to land a husband by getting pregnant and then teaches here 5 daughters that's the way it's done. Hell... let's not even get extreme and go to the creation of the "time out" and ridolyn.

I see alot of parents doing good jobs with their kids and don't mean to imply that a majority of the families out there are trash. That's not the case. What is the case, though, is a growing number of completely disfunctional families and disfunction support structures.

Sandman · « **Reply #17 on:** August 16, 2006, 12:33:57 AM »

MiniD, I don't necessarily disagree, but I wonder if the level of disfunction has increased per capita.

Sandman · « **Reply #18 on:** August 16, 2006, 12:38:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seagoon
Expecting a teen to be scared away from sex by the current horrendous STD statistics alone is just not going to do it any more than the cancer warning on the pack of cigarettes is going to eliminate teen age smoking.

- SEAGOON

Regarding stats:

source

RightF00T · « **Reply #19 on:** August 16, 2006, 01:15:46 AM »

3 Things

1) The American Family didnt just die...its been goin down the toilet ever since WWI..im sure everyone knew that though

2) If I was shown what various STDs(pictures, real-life anecdotes) actually do to your PP...I would have been too damn scared to have unprotected sex.

Thats just me. Enough of the timid PC business about sex. If a kid can see a decapitation on film with parents permission, it should be the same way with something more prevalent and personal.

3) Are those graphs depicting untreated cases, or treated and untreated cases combined because the former would explain the decline(antibiotics).

Shuckins · « **Reply #20 on:** August 16, 2006, 01:27:57 AM »

Wow...looking at Sandy's charts...it's easy to see where the sexual revolution began.

Years ago I read an article about the spread of STDs which stated that the rates of infection were infinitesimal prior to the Second World War compared to what they became after the discovery of penicillin.

There was so much confidence in penicillin's ability to handle almost any infection that people began to grow more promiscuous and careless. One result was a peak in the rate of STD infection during the Second World War.

My dad says he can remember seeing lines of American servicemen in front of cat houses overseas that stretched around the block.

The trend is also visible in Sandman's first chart.

Saintaw · « **Reply #21 on:** August 16, 2006, 03:35:57 AM »

I'M ONLY 13!!! I'M ONLY 13!!!

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 16, 2006, 03:56:01 AM »

I love the whole idea of blaming the school for these kids being stupid little horndogs, and giving the parents a free pass.

Mini D · « **Reply #23 on:** August 16, 2006, 07:30:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
MiniD, I don't necessarily disagree, but I wonder if the level of disfunction has increased per capita.

Yeah, I think it has. As divorce goes up. As game console sales go up. As intramural activities decline. The "that's OK" and "it's not your fault... it's the system" or "you have to look out for #1" consolation that accompanies it goes a long way to help.

The more I hear "the education system needs to protect your children" the more I think the country is completely losing it's mind.

lazs2 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 16, 2006, 07:55:09 AM »

So let me get this straight.... Are they saying that without public school teachers no kid would ever know about birth control methods? They wouldn't know how to put on a condom?

How old were these kids anyway?

I don't blame teachers for pregnant kids but... I do blame em for kids who can't read and write. I blame em for kids being dumber every decade.

lazs

Shuckins · « **Reply #25 on:** August 16, 2006, 08:27:06 AM »

Lasz,

One of the problems with public schools in the U.S. is that they have become the testing grounds for every experiment in social engineering to come down the pike since the start of the 1960s.

Every minute devoted to such trendy trends is a minute subtracted from the time that is devoted to pure academic achievement.

Even worse has been the abandonment of rote memorization, phonics, and other tried-and-true traditional methods of instruction for light-weight, feather-brained, new-age methodologies. Each succeeding generation of students brought up under these new fads finds it increasingly difficult to excel.

If it seems I'm digressing from the main topic, I apologize. I'm not, so bear with me.

The concensus of opinion of many in this thread is that it is the responsibility of the parents to educate their children about sex. I agree totally. Yet many parents have fobbed that task off on the public schools and conveniently washed their hands of any personal responsibility in this matter.

I feel the same way about the education of my children. The main responsibility for educating my children does not lie with the public schools. It lies with me. If I am unsatisfied with the way the schools are educating my sons then I am obligated to find a viable alternative, if one exists.

When my youngest son entered the first grade the wife and I pulled him OUT of the public school in which I worked because we did not like the makeup of the class in which he would be placed. I knew each and every child that would be in that class and their families and many of them were disruptive little dickenses.

So out he came. It peaced off my superintendent, but according to state law, there was nothing he could do about it. We kept my son out for as long as it took for us to home educate him to the point where we thought he was well-grounded in the basics and could function regardless of the distractions around him. Then we sent him back.

Our children are OUR responsibilities...whether we are discussing pure academics or sex education or whatever.

Regards, Shuckins

lazs2 · « **Reply #26 on:** August 16, 2006, 08:33:47 AM »

well... I am just saying... kids at 12 seem to know everything about every kind of shoe or ipod or xbox or drug or whatever... It seems odd that they would be clueless about birth control.

lazs

Mustaine · « **Reply #27 on:** August 16, 2006, 08:59:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
Are you seriously suggesting that teenagers do NOT know how to use a condom?

They don't want to use them. For the guys there's a macho thing about not using a condom. I've been dealing with them for nearly 30 years, and that attitude is very prevalent, in all demographic groups, but especially in those of lower socio-economic status.

"It's like taking a shower with a raincoat on."

bingo

back in my early 20's i actually had a diffucult time performing with a constricting, uncomfortable, numbing, painful to remove thing on my wang.

and yes painful to take off hair

nothing like making sex a unpleasant thing to make you question whether
it's worth the hassle when a girl insists on one.

Seagoon · « **Reply #28 on:** August 16, 2006, 09:49:06 AM »

Hi Sandy,

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Regarding stats:

I noticed that the stats you posted were for the "older" more treatable and less rampant STDs, not the current batch of untreatable STDs which, for instance, at least 1 in 5 college students will graduate with.

Here's an article on the spread of the new crop:
------------------

Little progress in stemming STDs
As major diseases continue to spread, other microbes emerge

By Jacqueline Stenson
Contributing editor
MSNBC
Updated: 5:43 p.m. ET Oct. 12, 2005

Despite all the safe sex messages, there has been little progress in stemming the spread of sexually transmitted diseases in the United States.

STDs like chlamydia and herpes are more common than ever, and doctors are now starting to see a couple of new or previously unrecognized infections.

"The overwhelming concern is that STDs continue to be epidemic and that some of the infections are increasing," says Julius Schachter, editor of the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases and a professor of laboratory medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

There are an estimated 19 million new cases of STDs each year in the United States, up from 15 million nearly a decade ago. Experts don't have exact numbers because not all diseases are reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and many people don't know they're infected.

Among the most shocking estimates are that one in five Americans has genital herpes and more than half of women will contract HPV, or human papillomavirus, which causes genital warts and can lead to cervical cancer. At least a million Americans are living with the deadly AIDS virus.

Rest of the Story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9504789/

Sandman · « **Reply #29 on:** August 16, 2006, 10:23:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Sandy,

I noticed that the stats you posted were for the "older" more treatable and less rampant STDs, not the current batch of untreatable STDs which, for instance, at least 1 in 5 college students will graduate with.

According to the CDC, this document summarizes 2004 national data on trends in notifiable STDs.

I didn't post the Chlamydia chart because it didn't indicate any historic data. They did say that cases increased 5.9% from 2003 to 2004. There was no information on Herpes.

I briefly looked at some of the other stats http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/ and this appears to be the source of MSNBC's information. By the look of things, they don't have as much information on Herpes as the other major STDs.