Posted on 04/24/2007 7:00:56 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
It wasn't supposed to turn out this way. The abstinence-only sex-education programs on which the federal government has been spending around $176 million a year have been shown to have zero effect. That's right: zero.
"Abstinence-only" classes in public schools, funded by provisions of the 1996 federal welfare reform law, focus on the message of waiting until marriage. They do not teach about contraception or safe sex.
But a national study that tracked 2,000 young people over several years has found no evidence that such classes as currently taught actually increased rates of sexual abstinence. It found that program participants had similar numbers of sexual partners compared with peers who were not in the specialized abstinence programs.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
And there is the truth of the matter. The government continues to usurp the authority and position of parents (and many parents are so willing to give it up) - yet the government proves yet again, that it is not up to the task of being everyone’s nanny.
I didn’t read this whole article so they may have mentioned this but my understanding is that the study they are referring to only looked at a handful of 700 programs nationwide so it really isn’t a good sample.
This is a fairly dishonest early study that does not review comprehensive abstinence programs.
The take home message is ‘sorry, we have to undermine your family values— we’re the government.’
Do standard government sex ed anti abstinence programs delay sexual activity?
To my knowledge, condom oriented programs increase sexual activity while “increasing condom use.” The advocates use the condom use as a justification and “victory.”
The fact that very preliminary abstinence program efforts already show no increase in sexual activity or reduced age for initiation — which is what opponents originally said such programs would do— is quite encouraging.
But the media— surprise— wants to end the programs now and make sure students are properly indoctrinated— I mean educated.
1) Standard Sex Ed classes -- students end up having sex at age 14.9. This is just the way things are.
2) Abstinence Only classes -- students end up having sex at age 14.9. This is a complete failure and funding needs to be completely cut for this totally flawed program.
Somebody's agenda is showing.
A thread on FR yesterday gave the details about the statistical games played in this "study."
Congressman Billybob
An article at the Concerned Women for America site says that this study is flawed.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/12789/MEDIA/education/index.htm
What bothers me most about the anti-abstinece rhetoric is the way they want to shove the normalness of causual sex down our throats. In my life, I’ve known about a lot of causal sex, and the only thing I’ve seen it do is cause a lot of pain.
First, I imagine that the statistics are cherry picked and slanted.
Second, it wouldn’t be surprising if “abstinence only” failed in the public schools, for several reasons.
1) The program would only be persuasive if the teachers were wholeheartedly behind it. But many teachers are probably liberal, and only doing it because the government is forcing them to.
2) The program would only be persuasive if there were good moral REASONS for abstaining. It’s not enough to say that abstinence is the smart thing to do, because students can answer, no, condoms get the same result. Since religion is not allowed in the schools, there’s no real answer to WHY students should abstain.
3) Consider the anti-drug programs in the schools. These have been going for years, and as far as I can see, they don’t do a damned bit of good. All they succeed in doing is getting the students talking about drugs, and taking them if they feel so inclined.
In other words, the problem isn’t abstinence training. The problem is public schools and their lack of convincing values. Or, to use forbidden language, their lack of religious belief and morality, which the courts forbid them every to talk about.
Actually it showed four particular programs tested that were not any of the most accepted and widely used abstinence-based programs did not have a measureable effect. The best programs were not tested.
The government continues to usurp the authority and position of parents (and many parents are so willing to give it up)
Willing? I would say "eager."
And that, to my mind, is the real problem - parents actively seeking the nanny state to do the hard work.
Why not look at it as the Standard Sex Ed class is a complete failure and funding needs to be completely cut. It seems the Abstinece Only class is just as good.
>>The article does not contain a lot of data (which I find highly interesting). But what I think I see is this:
1) Standard Sex Ed classes — students end up having sex at age 14.9. This is just the way things are.
2) Abstinence Only classes — students end up having sex at age 14.9. This is a complete failure and funding needs to be completely cut for this totally flawed program.
Somebody’s agenda is showing.<<
Careful! Your agenda is showing!
I believe that it depends upon how you define “failure.” Do the advocates of government-mandated sex education classes view e.g. an intact maidenhead as a particularly worthy goal? Perhaps not.
Specifically, “failure” for the “standard sex-ed classes” might possibly be defined (by its proponents) as “unwanted pregnancies,” “poor orgasms,” and “venereal disease,” whereas the proponents of “complete abstinence” would probably wish to use a different definition (e.g. “lost virginity”).
It is not really all that surprising that abstinence education has little effect. It is competing against movies, TV shows, music, and internet which kids are exposed several hours to on a daily basis and have a message that promotes sexual activity for young kids. How does a few hours of sex education compete with that?
We’re giving over $200 million to Planned Parenthood. What good does that do?
Great point. They could have easily headlined: early abstinence programs are as effective as previous long term sex ed programs. They chose instead that “zero effect” were if one follows the logic then long term sex ed programs also have zero effect.
Personally, I do tell my daughters and college students about condoms. I make sure they know that in ideal circumstances, they fail one in six times. These ideal circumstances are partners who know each other well, heterosexual relationships, and neither partner is drunk while trying to operate the condom.
Outside of these ideal circumstances, the condoms fail at an even higher rate.
“The abstinence-only sex-education programs on which the federal government has been spending around $176 million a year have been shown to have zero effect.”
Sez you.
It sends a good 'ole fashioned conflicting message to kids. We spend $176 million+ on abstinence programs, but spend $200 Million to murder the babies that are unwanted because of the fools who ignore any and all information given them (abstinence of "safe-sex").
Keep the population confused and you have power.
they wont tell adults or teens the truth anyways
RELATIONSHIPS
AND RELATED SUBJECT MATTER- WHAT THEY ARENT TELLING YOU!
STUDIES SHOW MEN WHO ARE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE OF/ BEFORE MARRIAGE AND OR COHABIT ARE NOTORIOUS FOR CHEATING
AND OR ALONG WITH MANY OTHER FORMS OF CHEATING
AND BETRAYAL BEFORE AND AFTER MARRIAGE.
MEN WHO DISPLAY AND PRACTICE ABSTINANCE UNTIL MARRIAGE CHARACTERISTICS, ARE OFTEN FOUND TO BE FAR DIFFERENT INTEGRALY, THAN MEN WHO DON’T.
WOMEN WHO RELENT TO A BOYFRIENDS SEXUAL ANTICS OUTSIDE OF/ BEFORE A MARRIAGE AND OR COHABIT WITH BOYFRIEND ARE 6 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO CONTRACT AN STD
CONDOMS ARE NOT A SAFE MEANS OF PROTECTION AGAINST STDS
-MANY STDS ARE CONTRACTED BY SKIN TO SKIN CONTACT OF AN INFECTED AREA WHICH IS OFTEN UNKNOWN. THE SKIN TO SKIN CONTACT STRAINS OF STDS WHICH ALSO ARE THE MOST COMMON KIND MUCH TO PEOPLES SURPRISE AND THEY USUALY HAVE NO SYMPTOMS. THEY CAN EVEN LAY DOREMENT FOR YEARS UNKNOWINGLY, OR BE ACTIVE UNKNOWINGLY. THESE STRAINS ARE VERY COMMON AND CAN EVEN BE SPREAD THROUGH HAND OR OTHER CONTACT ETC…
CHARACTERISTICS IN THE SEXUAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE TYPES OF GUYS –IS A GUY WHO PLAYS THE PSEUDO DATING RELATIONAL GAME, GIVING AN ATMOSPHERE (OFTEN TIMES FOR YEARS WITHOUT THE WOMAN BEING AWARE) INVOLVING LITTLE EVENTS OF SEEMINGLY RELATIONAL MATTERS AFTER ANOTHER FOR THE AVAILIBILITY OF EASY SEX AND MANIPULATIVE CONVEINANCE. WOMEN, WHO FALL INTO THIS LIFESTYLE TRAP, OFTEN HAVE LOW SELF ESTEEM ISSUES AND OR INSECURITY ISSUES. WOMEN IN SUCH SITUATIONS FREQUENTLY COREALTE SEX AS BEING THE SIGN OR DEFINITION OF WHAT COMMITMENT IS, OR IT BEING WHAT LOVE IS, THIS IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH OF WHAT A REAL RELATIONSHIP IS. SADLY SELF WORTH ISSUES IN WOMEN ARE MANY TIMES THE REASON WOMEN WILL RELENT TO A GUY WHO DOES NOT PRACTICE ABSTINANCE UNTIL MARRIAGE.
CHEATING AND OR BETRAYAL IN MANY FORMS / DIVORCES-— STEM FROM PSEUDO DATING SCENARIO/RELATIONSHIPS. ALSO AS A SIDE NOTE WOMEN IN THESE PSEUDO DATING RELATIONSHIPS ARE ONE OF THE HIGHEST GROUPS FOR WOMEN WHO FALL INTO POVERTY. AND WOMEN IN SUCH SITUATIONS OFTEN WINDUP BEARING 70% OF THE WORK LOAD/INCOME IN THE PSEUDO DATING RELATIONSHIP.
BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ARE NOT TRUE CONTRACEPTIVES-THEY ARE ABORTIFACIENTS-
30% TO 50 % OF THE TIME OVULATION STILL TAKES PLACE-— BIRTH CONTROL PILLS HAVE A BACK UP MECHANISM THAT WOMEN ARE COMMONLY UNAWARE OF WHICH BRINGS DEATH TO THE CONCEIVED EMBRYO BY STARVATION .
WOMEN WHO RELENT TO A BOY FRIENDS SEXUAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE FALL INTO THE , 80TO 90% BRACKET FOR DIVORCE BY THE TENTH YEAR IF THE WOMEN MARRIES THAT SAME GUY WITH SEXUAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE CHARACTERISTICS. ASLO WOMEN FALL IN THE HIGHEST CATEGORY FOR BEING CHEATED ON, PUTTING THEM AT EXTREMELY HIGH RISK FOR STDS WHICH ARE OFTEN UNDETECTED BECAUE OFTEN THE MOST COMMON KINDS OF STDs HAVE NO SYMPTOMS, ALSO WOMEN PUT THEMSELVES AT HIGH RISK FOR ABUSIVE SITUATIONS IN MANY MANIPULATIVE FORMS, FROM VERBAL TO EMOTIONAL/MANIPULATIVE/ CONTROLLING AND OTHER SUTTLE FORMS WHEN INVOLVED WITH A GUY WHO SHOWS THE
NON ABSTINANCE UNTIL MARRIAGE CHARACTERISTICS.
THERE ARE MANY STUDIES NOW SHOWING ABORTION ACTUALY LINKED TO BREAST CANCER.
CHECK OUT HELPFUL RESOURCES- PHYSICIANS FOR LIFE.ORG OR
CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA- THE LARGEST WOMENS ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.