Abstinence-only sex education is having an effect

[PopeyeJones]

To be clear, I wasn't trying to forward the position that comprehensive sex education has no effect. I actually believe that comprehensive sex education is important. I'm not a proponent of abstinence only.

I was just adding to the discussion that there are segments of the teen population for whom no amount of sex education will reach. Their view of pregnancy was likely shaped by a number of other socio-economic and/or cultural factors.

The point of that being that there is no magic silver bullet when it comes to combating teenage pregnancy.

Yeah, see the first link about black teens and the pill.

That said, we're in agreement that 1) socio-economic factors absolutely play a role and 2) that there's no silver bullet. We disagree that certain populations in broad swath are beyond reach or effect.

[Gmaniac]

He said "I just think it's the sex equivalent of the D.A.R.E. program," evoking the well known research about the D.A.R.E. program being ineffective.

I don't think he "evoked" such research. Rather, I took his comment as a common sense one: that, in his opinion, the rest of the world (TV, friends, family, upbringing, etc.) is going to shape kids thoughts on the subjects of sex, drugs, etc. much more than any school class on these subjects.

If he wants to say that comprehensive sex ed is ineffective like the D.A.R.E. programming of days past, he is ACCEPTING that the studies on the D.A.R.E. program were accurate in finding its ineffectiveness. If he accepts those, then he must too accept the studies finding that comprehensive sex ed is effective that use a similar methodology.

Seems to me like all of this is you creating a strawman.

[Breed]

Not really. A comprehensive sex education course is allowed to expose the "Baby, I promise I'll pull it out before it happens" excuse as the unsafe practice that it is, and is allowed to talk about and explain why this is an unsafe practice.

Abstinence only ed doesn't cover this, and as such, the "excuse" is allowed to propagate more widely. "I'll pull out, baby" as a problem is never even discussed in the state mandated fantasy world of people never having sex to begin with.

Fair enough. And I should, or I want to, point out that I think teaching abstinence only is not a real wise decision. That said, abstinence is the only 100% full proof method to preventing pregnancy and STDs. That genie's out the bottle far as teen sex goes though and she's not coming back.

[PopeyeJones]

That said, abstinence is the only 100% full proof method to preventing pregnancy and STDs.

For sure. Which is lesson #1 in any comprehensive sex education worth its salt.

[PopeyeJones]

I don't think he "evoked" such research. Rather, I took his comment as a common sense one: that, in his opinion, the rest of the world (TV, friends, family, upbringing, etc.) is going to shape kids thoughts on the subjects of sex, drugs, etc. much more than any school class on these subjects.

Okay. I took his evocation of D.A.R.E. to be a reference to the ineffectiveness of that program (when he said that he thinks sex ed is like D.A.R.E.). I don't know why he'd mention it otherwise (as it would be unrelated to what you took his comment to mean), but I certainly could have misinterpreted his intent.

Seems to me like all of this is you creating a strawman.

If so, it's unintentional. I guess bigfin probably has to fill us in on what his point was in comparing sex ed to D.A.R.E.

[FamineGod]

We disagree that certain populations in broad swath are beyond reach or effect.

Again, I did not mean to indicate this. I don't believe that "certain populations in broad swath are beyond reach or effect".

I don't believe that any population is beyond reach. I do believe that some segments of some certain populations need something in addition to comprehensive sex education taught in schools. Anyone that would view pregnancy the way these teenagers do, won't be reached through comprehensive sex education taught in schools.

Stating that does not mean I think something different should be taught in schools or that those girls are beyond reach. Rather, I'm just pointing out that they, and any other teenage girls who view pregnancy that way, need more than just that.

I will say this, I think churches need to get much more involved in the conversation...differently than arguing over what kind of sex education should be taught in schools (that is a fruitless and needless battle from my perspective). From what I've heard about our previous church's Teen MOPS program, it's a long, hard road reaching these girls...one step forward, 3-4 steps back...and a lot of grace needs to be shown, more than some Christians may be comfortable showing.

[AndromedaPatFan]

And the flaw of all these premises is the notion that kids wouldn't know about condoms unless they take sex education in school.

A lot of assumptions SEEM to be baked into your one-liner there, most of them bogus, such as the idea that hearing about something once is enough to modify one's behavior, or that teaching somebody something they've heard elsewhere doesn't do good but does do harm.

[AndromedaPatFan]

All those links are still correlations. I'm not saying sex ed doesn't do some good somewhere, but I just think it's the sex equivalent of the D.A.R.E. program.

Do you base your opinions on any data, or are you just putting your gut feel up against lots and lots of (admittedly not 100% dispositive) studies?

[tyke1doe]

I didn't make any assumption and I wasn't trying to attack you. It's why I said "if you take this position..." It prolly should have said "if one takes this position" but I've been a grammatical mess my entire life and probably won't be changing any time soon. :)

Fair enough.

I think here we come up against differential usage of the word "knowing" (and in this instance I do think your faith comes into play). For me "knowing" is a term that is reserved for the realm of fact, which is distinct from the realm of belief and "knowing" that ones beliefs are true.

I guess it's where you want to place the emphasis on "knowing." I don't think it's a matter of belief when one says abstinence is the surest way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. If one wants to emphasize that, I can't say they're complicit in spreading STDs or contributing to pregnancy because they don't teach about contraceptives. Again, that may not necessarily be my approach, but I'm not quick to lay blame on those who focus strictly on an abstinence message.

If one is to support abstinence only education -- while factually knowing that it is ineffective -- out of deference to their beliefs about "people being stronger than their glands" then they are -- if they support the teaching of abstinence only education -- putting the health of other people's children at risk in support of their own Utopian world view.

Just substitute sex abstinence-only education and include drugs, alcohol, dieting, crime, etc., and we're likely singing a different tune. One could argue to be against anything that doesn't work as well as one expects, could be to preach a Utopian world view. <shrug>

Yes, and here you fall upon a hypothetical. If everyone miraculously adopts a (and what seems to be your) utopian world view, then abstinence only education perhaps would not have the deleterious effects that it does. Yet, as you say, people have choices, and not adopting the personal utopian world views of some so that abstinence only ed might not be deleterious happens to be one of them.

See by above hypotheticals.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not opposing parents teaching their kids whatever the heck they want (be it that they'll go to hell for having sex before marriage, or be it that they should be sexually adventurous and to safely enjoy their bodies), and I'm not opposing private schools that don't take public funds teaching children whatever they heck they want to either.

Well, I'm not opposed to public schools health classes teaching about contraceptives along with abstinence. But I'll remind you that public tax dollars don't just come from atheists, non-religious and secularists. A large portion of tax dollars that go to public education come from theists, Christians and religious people also. So they have just as much a right to shape the course of public education as you do.

[Captain Howdy]

I'd like to see those studies and (more importantly) how they gathered their data. Ill check back later

Weird. Nothing posted yet. Ill check back later

[AndromedaPatFan]

Weird. Nothing posted yet. Ill check back later

We look forward to you doing it if you find the time.

[PopeyeJones]

Weird. Nothing posted yet. Ill check back later

1) can only speak for myself, but I wasn't even clear on WHICH studies you were talking about and WHO you were talking to.

2) and it doesn't matter, cuz your attitude seems to be don't know/ don't care. Whatever it is you're hoping someone else look up for you, why not just do it?

[BigFin]

Do you base your opinions on any data, or are you just putting your gut feel up against lots and lots of (admittedly not 100% dispositive) studies?

My opinions are based on the realities and sorrows of the human condition.

[LeeGenius]

Rather, it's that we live in a society that doesn't support abstinence overall.

No society has supported abstinence overall. That is why there are "societies".

[Big Pink Monkey]

No society has supported abstinence overall. That is why there are "societies".

Your wife supported abstinence overall last night.