This just in from the No **** Dept.Follow

Unfortunately this just points blame at viriginity pledges. It'd be like linking outdoor sports to unprotected sex.

The problem isn't the pledges. The problem is safe sex education. You should be able to pledge virginity and learn about safe sex at the same time. Whether you agree virginity until marriage is good or bad, that part should be up to the person.

The problem isn't the pledges. The problem is safe sex education. You should be able to pledge virginity and learn about safe sex at the same time. Whether you agree virginity until marriage is good or bad, that part should be up to the person.

Sure, so long as we all agree they're a ludicrous fucking joke that exist only to please people other than those who make them.

Fixed.

Yes it would, and yes it has. And the results show overwhelmingly that a comprehensive sex education produces far fewer unplanned pregnancies and STD transmission that abstinence only. That's been discussed here before.

Er? Want to provide a link or a cite? Because I don't recall anything showing "far fewer unplanned pregnancies and STD transmission" for traditional sex education versus abstinence-only. Most reports and studies tout that they found no difference in the rates. Which, from an economic perspective is a perfectly reasonable reason not to fund them, but only if the alternative costs us nothing. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that at some level, we're paying for whatever form of sex education is being taught in our schools. If it costs no more for abstinence-only than a traditional or comprehensive (which I personally think is best) sex education, and the results are similar, then why bash only one of them? It would seem that any state should be free to choose which program they wanted to employ based on their own feelings on the subject (and perhaps those of their population?).


Let me be *really* clear here. I've stated many times that I think a comprehensive sex education is best (one which teaches that abstinence is a good idea, but also about condoms and birth control methods if you choose not to and isn't dogmatic either way). But if there's no measurable difference in terms of results, then why should I care if some state wants to employ something different? And if it's a choice between some federal funding for one type of program or another and I'm going to foot that bill either way, why have some dogmatic opposition to one or the other?


The reason I tend to argue this issue isn't because I'm a fan of abstinence-only, but that I see most people opposing it, not because it's "worse" but simply because it's associated with something they don't like (like say Religious Conservatives for example). In many cases, the issue ceases to be about doing what's right in terms of sex education, but pushing "our side" of a larger socio-political agenda which pits those who like religion against those who hate it.


And hey! I just like to stir up the pot a bit... ;)

Anyone getting involved with Gbaji in this thread should read this thread and the bottom part of this thread. If you still think it's worth your time after that, go for it

I lol'd.

Thank you, because I'm not going into this again unless there is something new to add.

<3

Nexa

In highschool the most sexually active girls were the uglier ones. They all had highschool dropout boyfriends.

You know the type. 20-25 year old dropout, hangs out with highschool girls, knocks 'em up.

A friend of mine when we were in 6th grade didn't show up for classes when we moved on to junior high in 7th grade. She came back after the first semester and was HUGE. She had gotten pregnant over the summer with her "boyfriend" who was 22. She bragged about him in 6th grade all the time, but all of us students just figured she was lying to try to be cool. She was relatively homely and unpopular in school.

Sure. But you missed the part where the rates of teen pregnancy and STDs were unchanged. Isn't that the relevant statistic here? The rate at which condoms are worn isn't a end to itself. It's a means to the end of reducing the rates of pregnancy and STD transmission.

How about we measure the things that actually matter instead of measuring something else and then speculating about how this affects those things? Just a thought... (didn't say this in my last post?)



Again. Prove this. Show me the statistics showing that those who participated in abstinence-only education had *higher* rates of teen pregnancy and/or STD transmission than those who participated in a classic or comprehensive sex-ed program.

It's funny because I keep asking for this data and everyone kinda jumps around this issue. Isn't the whole point of sex-ed to address those two things? Again. Why don't we just measure those things?

Too obvious perhaps? Not easy enough to manipulate the data? Just find the numbers please. Until and unless you do, then you can't say that one program is better or worse than another. Not objectively, anyway.



We're talking about education in the US btw, so lets stick on topic please?

Edited, Dec 30th 2008 2:03pm by gbaji

My friend's dad actually got her a pretty pimp sapphire set in some diamonds. Unfortunately I admired it enough to ask her about it.

I was under the impression that you then had it enlarged as a **** ring for your significant other.

That's not how it works?

Yes Joph. I got that in the first post, thanks! ;)


Three points:

1. Virginity Pledges (and I agree that they're pretty meaningless) aren't by any measure the entirety of abstinence included or abstinence only education (they can be present in either an abstinence-only or comprehensive sex education program). I agree that it's somewhat meaningless when taken as a part of a class curriculum, but it is important to remember that they are only one *part* of said curriculum.

2. The "apples to apples" approach of this study, while certainly relevant in the context of determining whether a pledge is of any real value, doesn't really address the more relevant issue of abstinence education as a whole (which is how this is typically interpreted). This study basically just shows that students with similar attitudes towards sex tended to have similar rates of sexual activity. I think that falls into the "no duh!" category. And, as I pointed out earlier, by focusing this study on just those matching groups, it tends to lend the false impression that programs which include virginity pledges are ineffective overall.

3. None of this addresses the core issue of whether said programs (including broader focus or inclusion of abstinence education) has a positive or negative effect on teen pregnancy and STD infection. A far more relevant study of the data would be to see if students with those similar attitudes towards sex (tending towards abstinence whether a pledge was taken or not) have better results in terms of those things than students who have different attitudes. That would seem to give us an idea as to whether inclusion of abstinence education would lead to said positive results.


I know I keep harping on this, but to me, the point is to figure out what education methods do the most to decrease rates of pregnancy and STDs. I just find the over focus on single aspects of one part of one type of education, and manipulation of data to ignore the relevant parts (like students who for some reason or another had more cavalier attitudes towards sex) as disingenuous. While I'm sure those analysis have some value on their own, the way they are presented to the public tends (predictably) to result in specific and unsupported assumptions.