Author Topic: The efficacy of 'abstinence only' (Read 1324 times)

lukster · « **Reply #30 on:** August 16, 2006, 10:39:17 AM »

From the article you linked Seagoon:

"There are an estimated 19 million new cases of STDs each year in the United States, up from 15 million nearly a decade ago."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9504789/

Everyone likes graphs so here's an expertly drawn one to represent the data.

Sandman · « **Reply #31 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:07:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
From the article you linked Seagoon:

"There are an estimated 19 million new cases of STDs each year in the United States, up from 15 million nearly a decade ago."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9504789/

Everyone likes graphs so here's an expertly drawn one to represent the data.

Unless the increase in population is factored out, the graph isn't worth much.

Shuckins · « **Reply #32 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:19:45 AM »

Graph this.

The first year that I taught at the small public school where I was to work for 23 years, there were 32 girls enrolled, grades 7-12.

Eight of them already had children. One seventh grader had a child that was already a year old. Four more girls were pregnant before the year was out.

These kids were extremely savvy about sex. They knew how to keep from getting pregnant, but apparently could not be bothered to use protection. Besides, one child equalled at least one government check each month... at least at that particular point in history.

Regards, Shuckins

lukster · « **Reply #33 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:20:36 AM »

Granted. Well, all I have to go by is projected population stats. From here: http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1130/p251130a.pdf it is estimated there was an increase in overall population from 1995 to 2005 of 1.69%. Of course that may not accurately respresent the group experiencing the rise in STDs but it's probably close.

1.69% of 19 million is roughly 320,000. The increase in STDs was 6 million. The increase in population was notan insignificant factor.

ooops

Sandman · « **Reply #34 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:26:02 AM »

If we accept the estimate. It doesn't appear to me that the CDC has sufficient data to support MSNBC's estimate.

Whoa... my eyes glazed over that number... the projection is that the population increased in the U.S. by just 320,000 from 1995 to 2005?

According to this, the population increased over 32 Million between 1990 and 2000.

Seagoon · « **Reply #35 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:33:14 AM »

Great graph Lukster.

Sincerely appreciated it.

Anyway Sandy, my only point originally was that you can tell teens that if they choose to be sexually active then they can expect that at least 1 in 5 of them will end up with an STD, and then even point out that those odds are actually worse than the 1 in 6 chance you have playing Russian Roulette and yet it will probably not impact their decision.

In counseling I've found that if the kid has no real ethical/religious convictions regarding pre-marital sex, that they either dismiss the possibility of an STD entirely or blindly assume that they will be one of the other 4 individuals who dodges the bullet. Of course none of this addresses the long term emotional damage done to young females in particular. As one female counselor down here pointed out to a distraught girl she was counseling, "Honey, when are you going to realize there's no such thing as a contraceptive to protect your heart?" Fathers used to understand that and worked hard to protect their daughters from the scads of young cads who come sniffing around. A few still do, I wish there were more.

Sandman · « **Reply #36 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:36:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seagoon
Great graph Lukster. Sincerely appreciated it.

Anyway Sandy, my only point originally was that you can tell teens that if they choose to be sexually active then they can expect that at least 1 in 5 of them will end up with an STD, and then even point out that those odds are actually worse than the 1 in 6 chance you have playing Russian Roulette and yet it will probably not impact their decision.

I agree completely. Ya know... when I was in the Navy and we stopped at Mombasa Kenya back in 1988 we were told that there was a 50% chance of catching HIV and yet there were still guys playing those odds.

lukster · « **Reply #37 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:38:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
If we accept the estimate. It doesn't appear to me that the CDC has sufficient data to support MSNBC's estimate.

Whoa... my eyes glazed over that number... the projection is that the population increased in the U.S. by just 320,000 from 1995 to 2005?

According to this, the population increased over 32 Million between 1990 and 2000.

The 320,000 is 1.69% of the 19 million with STDs, not the entire population.

Sandman · « **Reply #38 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:43:38 AM »

So... is a 1.69% increase considered horrendous?

Or am I misreading the numbers?

Chairboy · « **Reply #39 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:46:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
So... is a 1.69% increase considered horrendous?

It is if you've got an agenda.

lukster · « **Reply #40 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:50:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
So... is a 1.69% increase considered horrendous?

Or am I misreading the numbers?

I may have misled you in my earlier post, I left out the word "not". The population increase no more accounts for the increase in STDs than this school's hint that preaching abstinence is to be blamed for the rise in pregnancies.

lukster · « **Reply #41 on:** August 16, 2006, 11:52:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
It is if you've got an agenda.

Only one I'm accusing of an agenda is the school adminsitrator and it's not what I think you think. The school is feeling pressure and they're trying to pass the buck.

Sandman · « **Reply #42 on:** August 16, 2006, 12:10:58 PM »

Now I'm completely confused about the 1.69% figure.

According to your link the change in population from 1995 to 2005 is estimated at over 23 million.

lukster · « **Reply #43 on:** August 16, 2006, 12:17:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Now I'm completely confused about the 1.69% figure.

According to your link the change in population from 1995 to 2005 is estimated at over 23 million.

You're just messin' with me right?

Here's the chart I used. I just added the percentages from 1995-2000 and 2000-2005 using the middle series.

lukster · « **Reply #44 on:** August 16, 2006, 12:19:54 PM »

I did it too quicky, I see my error. Those are annual changes. I'll redo the numbers.

Ok, the number I have is an 8.45% increase in population from 1995-2005. The increase in STDs during that period was approx 30%. Therefore the increase in population does not account for the increase in STDs.