Abstinence only teaching less effective at preventing sex than comprehensive

[midnight Target]

Here are the reported stats in the abstract of the article. 

Well you surely wasted a lot of time there. I was refering to the chart posted by Chairboy right above my post. But thanks anyway.

[Mini D]

You do realize, though, that the article linked at the start of this thread says one thing: it doesn't matter what you try to teach kids in regards to sex ed. None of it seems to make a difference.

[lazs2]

probly true mini but...

I did say "got pregnant"  I really did mean "80% of the births were illigitimate"  and that was not an overall figure.. it was for the teens.. overall it is 34%

There is a lot of factors involved.. a lot of data from different spots to look at but..  the illigitimacy rate in 1950 was about 2% overall..  this is 17 times less than our modern rates...  the only sex education taught in 1950 was abstinence.

In 1950..   there was no real effective birth control.. the ones available were messy and difficult to get and use.

Today.. there are a myriad of almost 100% effective methods that require little or no effort to get and use.

Abortion was illegal in 1950..  no one knows how many illegal abortions were performed but.. real figures show that less than 200 women died from illegal abortions a year.   medical practice was not as good and the abortions were done by anything from self to some hack to the family doctor.. estimates from this say that about 100,000 to whatever were done in the 50's 

Today it is 1.2 million and easy to get.

The birth rate for 15-19 year olds is about the same but..  they were married in the 50's and had very little in the way of good birth control and no legal abortion.

The divorce rate was a little over 11% in 1950.. it is getting near 60% now.

I culled all this from a lot of sites.   it all points to a trend.

The 1950's kids were more moral and smarter about sex and it's responsibility..   How can you not think otherwise?

There was nothing but abstinence teaching.   now...

Today, they are taught every aspect of sex and given the 99.9% effective birth control on demand. yet... they can't keep from having a baby out of wedlock..  they are either too stupid or not taught well enough to  realize that today is no better than 1950 in one respect..  having a baby at 15 out of wedlock is a sure path to a life of poverty for the vast majority of people.  The stats show it.

So..  how have things improved with sex education?

Birth rate is the same.. even with 1.2 million abortions and free and effective birth control and step by step instructions..

The illigetimate rate is now 17 times higher overall and probly as much as 30 or 40 times higher for the teens... 

even if they marry...  they are 5 times more likely to not be able to make it work.   the divorce rate is 5 times higher.

The only way they could get sex education to work to 1950 abstinence only levels is if they sterilized about  3/4 of the kids taking it.

lazs

[midnight Target]

Illegitimate is a meaningless word and is based solely on the religious connotation of marriage. You have no idea how many of those births are to couples in a committed relationship outside of the standard definition of marriage.

So throw out your "illegitimate" numbers and you are left with a teen birth rate that is at least 44% lower now (2003) than 30 years ago (1972).

[midnight Target]

You do realize, though, that the article linked at the start of this thread says one thing: it doesn't matter what you try to teach kids in regards to sex ed. None of it seems to make a difference.

I realize.

[myelo]

The rest of the reported ‘results’ is gobblygook and un-interpretable.  No one should be interpreting the abstinence-only ed not reducing the likelihood of vaginal intercourse with an OR of .8 and a p value of .4 as ‘significant’ or compelling. 

uhhh, that's the point.

They looked at the odds of intercourse in teens that had abstinence only sex education and compared it to the odds of intercourse in teens that had no sex education. The odds ratio, after adjusting  for other significant predictors of engaging in vaginal intercourse, was 0.8 with a 95% confidence interval of .51–1.31. Since an OR of 1 means intercourse was just as likely in each group and the p value was calculated at 0.4 (not significant), you conclude there's no difference between the groups (more accurately, you can't reject the null hypothesis that there is a difference).

To use your words, there was no significant or compelling difference between abstinence only education and no education.

[myelo]

I thought the article was funny scatcat. I particularly like the way they turn on and off the statistical insignificance switch. Quite a few people seem to be so chalked full of rhetoric they didn't seem to notice.

They aren't changing the significance threshold level of the p values, they are the calculating p values for the various tests and reporting the results. Now that computers allow easy computation of exact p values, it's better to report the actual value rather than as a range (e.g., p > .05 or p < .05).

[Mini D]

The survey may be doing that, but did you read the article at all? In particular, the points I qouted? You wouldn't guess the "no real variances were seen regarding type of sex-education" from the title of this thread or that article.

[lazs2]

mt.. I really hope you are not trying to tell me that the 80% of 15-19 year olds (being careful here) who get pregnant....

Want to have illegitimate children?    that somehow this will work out for them?   it is a proven fact that this is the road to financial ruin.. it destroys your chances.

Out of wedlock births do indeed mean something today.. they scream "I am an idiotic loser".    The stats show it..  sure.. some hippies and lesbians do ok with what you would call "meaningless" out of wedlock births but they are not 15-19 year olds.

even those who somehow make out ok.. they have a vastly more difficult row to hoe.

I also hope you are not telling me that an almost 60% divorce rate is success... or that abortion on demand and almost 100% effective and free birth control has worked in light of these children having babies numbers...

Not to mention the 1 in every four little girls with STD's.. that is pretty disgusting and an indictment on "sex education".

Seems that even the studies can't show much of any positive results even in todays brain dead school system.

lazs

[midnight Target]

Lazs the birth rate for teens is DOWN 44% in 30 years. I'm not sure if sex education had anything to do with that, but neither are you!

[SkyRock]

sooo.. would you say that more or less little girls are getting pregnant now than 40 or 50 years ago before sex education in the socialist schools?

How bout them nasty STD's huh?   bad deal there..  one in four is the latest study.   

lazs

Look at the average per capita, and you might be surprised.  Also, there is an inherent increase in risk with population growth of most diseases.  Just saying!

[LEDPIG]

  What is this sex, everyone speaks of ????????????







































 

[myelo]

The survey may be doing that, but did you read the article at all? In particular, the points I qouted?

Yes I read the article by Kohler published in J Adolesc Health. Did you?

I didn't see you quote anything from that article although to be honest with all of Lazs2's backpedaling posts I may have missed it. If you could point it out that would be great.

[Toad]

Lazs the birth rate for teens is DOWN 44% in 30 years. I'm not sure if sex education had anything to do with that, but neither are you!

What are the stats on teen abortion rates over the same period? Might as well look at that too.

[Scatcat]

Well you surely wasted a lot of time there. I was refering to the chart posted by Chairboy right above my post. But thanks anyway.

No time at all, five minutes with google search for the article.