Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Honesty About Abstinence-Only
Christian Science Monitor ^ | 24 April 2007 | Staff Writer

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abstinance; sexeducation; socialconservatism; socialliberalism
I think the take-home message is this: the government will fail at what parents themselves ought to be doing.
1 posted on 04/24/2007 7:00:59 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

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.


2 posted on 04/24/2007 7:04:35 AM PDT by TheBattman (I've got TWO QUESTIONS for you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

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.


3 posted on 04/24/2007 7:04:38 AM PDT by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

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.


4 posted on 04/24/2007 7:07:28 AM PDT by lonestar67 (Its time to withdraw from the War on Bush-- your side is hopelessly lost in a quagmire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
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.

5 posted on 04/24/2007 7:08:46 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Enoch Powell was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
The "study" cherry-picked the abstinence programs it would use. By selecting their target rather than random choice, the researchers got the result they were seeking. But reporters generally lack both the incentive and the skill to see when they are being played by directional statistics.

A thread on FR yesterday gave the details about the statistical games played in this "study."

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Gun Control, Carolina-Style"

6 posted on 04/24/2007 7:09:29 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Please get involved: www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

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.


7 posted on 04/24/2007 7:20:45 AM PDT by Essie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

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.


8 posted on 04/24/2007 7:21:37 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

9 posted on 04/24/2007 7:24:04 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
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.

10 posted on 04/24/2007 7:26:49 AM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
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.

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.

11 posted on 04/24/2007 7:29:48 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

>>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”).


12 posted on 04/24/2007 7:30:35 AM PDT by alexander_busek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Funny thing is, if this was a liberal program this would just be evidence that $176 million is just not enough and this proves that more needs to be spent.

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?

13 posted on 04/24/2007 7:33:27 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

We’re giving over $200 million to Planned Parenthood. What good does that do?


14 posted on 04/24/2007 7:33:55 AM PDT by Tribune7 (A bleeding heart does nothing but ruin the carpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

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.


15 posted on 04/24/2007 7:33:57 AM PDT by lonestar67 (Its time to withdraw from the War on Bush-- your side is hopelessly lost in a quagmire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

“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.


16 posted on 04/24/2007 7:39:34 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
We’re giving over $200 million to Planned Parenthood. What good does that do?

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.

17 posted on 04/24/2007 3:32:56 PM PDT by TheBattman (I've got TWO QUESTIONS for you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

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


18 posted on 12/03/2009 4:34:28 PM PST by Wakeup Sleeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson