Author Topic: The efficacy of 'abstinence only'  (Read 1267 times)

Offline Sixpence

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5265
      • http://www.onpoi.net/ah/index.php
The efficacy of 'abstinence only'
« Reply #45 on: August 16, 2006, 12:25:29 PM »
I guess I could mention that both parents work now and work longer hours. Not to mention weaker unions and less pay. But I guess our economy would not keep up with China otherwise.

Remember when we were in grade school, when we were told that in the future we would work less hours and shorter work weeks? What a pipe dream that was huh?
"My grandaddy always told me, "There are three things that'll put a good man down: Losin' a good woman, eatin' bad possum, or eatin' good possum."" - Holden McGroin

(and I still say he wasn't trying to spell possum!)

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
The efficacy of 'abstinence only'
« Reply #46 on: August 16, 2006, 01:06:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lukster

The increase in STDs during that period was approx 30%.


Source?
sand

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
The efficacy of 'abstinence only'
« Reply #47 on: August 16, 2006, 01:23:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
Source?


Well, slightly less than 30%. Source? Didn't you see my chart? ;)

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
The efficacy of 'abstinence only'
« Reply #48 on: August 16, 2006, 01:49:13 PM »
Seriously though. The current number of 19 million can be found at the site ASHA. I don't know where article got the 15 million number from. However, I did find an interesting presentation from the 2006 state of STD conference at the CDC site. It's a power point presentation so I captured one slide: http://cdc.confex.com/cdc/std2006/techprogram/P12071.HTM


Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
The efficacy of 'abstinence only'
« Reply #49 on: August 16, 2006, 01:53:09 PM »
Thanks, btw, having that huge slide of STDs up on my screen here at work really helped establish my image here.  Many thanks.

:D
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
The efficacy of 'abstinence only'
« Reply #50 on: August 16, 2006, 01:56:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
Thanks, btw, having that huge slide of STDs up on my screen here at work really helped establish my image here.  Many thanks.

:D


Glad to help keep you abstinent. ;)

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
The efficacy of 'abstinence only'
« Reply #51 on: August 16, 2006, 03:15:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lukster
Seriously though. The current number of 19 million can be found at the site ASHA. I don't know where article got the 15 million number from. However, I did find an interesting presentation from the 2006 state of STD conference at the CDC site. It's a power point presentation so I captured one slide: http://cdc.confex.com/cdc/std2006/techprogram/P12071.HTM
 


I follow... a 13+% population increase but a 30% increase in STD rate.
sand

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
The efficacy of 'abstinence only'
« Reply #52 on: August 16, 2006, 03:28:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman
I follow... a 13+% population increase but a 30% increase in STD rate.


Actually, the slide I copied from the CDC Conference covered a period of only five years so cut the population increase in half and reduce the 30% by 3-4 points.

Bottom line seems to be that whatever we're doing to prevent this isn't working.

Offline Hap

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3908
The efficacy of 'abstinence only'
« Reply #53 on: August 16, 2006, 03:40:53 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Chairboy,

Yup, prior to the invention of the condom every teenage girl became pregnant out of wedlock. You know, those were the embarrassing chapters they left out of "Little House on the Prairie" and "Anne of Green Gables" where the girls get pregnant at school. ;)

Seriously, clearly it is not absolutely inevitable that our children have to have sex in high-school and that all we can do is hand them a condom. The very fact that this was not the norm in the USA prior to the 1960s should prove that. The problem with abstinence messages in modern society though, is that the social and religious pressure that made abstinence a reality in the past, no longer exists. In fact, we have a culture that does exactly the opposite and presses kids towards sex as soon as possible and stygmatizes chastity. How on earth do we expect a "just say no" message to resonate when the society is screaming "JUST DO IT!" and they have no moral and ethical reason for saying no. 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


:aok

hap

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20386
The efficacy of 'abstinence only'
« Reply #54 on: August 16, 2006, 03:45:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Chairboy,

Yup, prior to the invention of the condom every teenage girl became pregnant out of wedlock. You know, those were the embarrassing chapters they left out of "Little House on the Prairie" and "Anne of Green Gables" where the girls get pregnant at school. ;)

Seriously, clearly it is not absolutely inevitable that our children have to have sex in high-school and that all we can do is hand them a condom. The very fact that this was not the norm in the USA prior to the 1960s should prove that. The problem with abstinence messages in modern society though, is that the social and religious pressure that made abstinence a reality in the past, no longer exists. In fact, we have a culture that does exactly the opposite and presses kids towards sex as soon as possible and stygmatizes chastity. How on earth do we expect a "just say no" message to resonate when the society is screaming "JUST DO IT!" and they have no moral and ethical reason for saying no. 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


My parents grew up in small town, family first, God-fearing, conservative South Dakota.

My mom's graduating class was 13 kids.  Of those 13, split 7 boys and 6 girls, 3 of the girls got pregnant.  This was mid 1950s.  (Mom wasn't one of the pregnant ones)

I don't think things are any different today.  Hormones are a dangerous thing :)

As for the 'disintigration' of the family.  It's all about how mom and dad do the job.  My wife and I both work, and since we had kids, 22 years ago, we've worked opposite shifts to keep them out of day care and to make sure one of us was always available.  It's our job to do the parenting in our opinion.  If you put the effort in, the kids will listen and talk to you..  They'll still test the waters, as we all did as kids.  That's also part of being a teenager.  And you can't protect them from everything as much as I wish we could.

It's still all about personal responsibility.  It's not the school's job to raise my kids.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
The efficacy of 'abstinence only'
« Reply #55 on: August 16, 2006, 04:07:38 PM »
Results of the U. Penn. study of abstinence based programs...

Teaching abstinence reduces teen sex
Study: Condom use not affected

 
Sharon Kirkey, CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, August 15, 2006

TORONTO - Abstinence-only programs can reduce sexual activity among young teens and effectively delay their "sexual debut" without discouraging future condom use, according to a new study of the controversial HIV prevention strategy.

A study of 662 African-American Grade 6 and 7 students from inner-city middle schools in Philadelphia found those taught an abstinence-only approach to sex were less likely to have had sexual intercourse at 24 months' follow-up compared to those put through a "safer sex" intervention that emphasized condom use but made no mention of abstinence.

And while Bill Clinton, the former U.S. president, told delegates to the International AIDS Conference in Toronto yesterday that abstinence programs delay sexual activity but make teens less likely to use condoms when they do start having sex, the study found the opposite to be true.

"It did not reduce intentions to use condoms, it did not reduce beliefs about the efficacy of condoms, it did not decrease consistent condom use and it did not decrease condom use at last sexual [encounter]," lead author John Jemmott, of the University of Pennsylvania, said.

The youngsters in the study ranged in age from 10 to 15; half were girls. Twenty-three per cent said they had had sexual intercourse at least once before the study began.

"There aren't any studies that show that children are less likely to use condoms as a result of an abstinence intervention. I've looked in the literature, there are no studies that show that," Mr. Jemmott said in an interview.

"But you have to be concerned about it, because many abstinence-only until marriage programs give misinformation about condoms and present the failure rates in a way that would discourage people from using them."

At the massive AIDS meeting being held here this week, abstinence-only programs are about as popular as Alcoholics Anonymous at a brewery. Planned Parenthood has called the approach "one of the religious right's greatest challenge to the nation's sexual health." In the United States, federally funded abstinence programs have been found to push distorted and inaccurate information about sexual health, homosexuality and abortion.

But Mr. Jemmott said not all abstinence interventions can be lumped together "and thrown away," and there is no logical reason that an abstinence intervention cannot be effective.

The abstinence intervention in his study promoted abstinence from vaginal, anal and oral sex until a later time in life when youth would be able to handle the consequences of a sexual relationship.

Researchers removed all mention of condoms, other than telling facilitators not to say anything negative about them. The team involved a researcher from the University of Waterloo.

The youth were followed for two years. Through role-playing, videos and video clips and group discussions, "We changed the intention to have sex," Mr. Jemmott said. It also delayed the sexual debut of youth who were virgins when the study began.

"We caused them to have more positive attitudes towards abstinence and the negative consequences of engaging in sexual activity at an early age, including less likely to achieve one's career goals."
© National Post 2006
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Clifra Jones

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1210
The efficacy of 'abstinence only'
« Reply #56 on: August 16, 2006, 04:11:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Unfortunately, we're dealing with more and more single parent families.  Kids are being left alone more now than ever.


Many thanks to LBJs "War on Paverty"