If this goes through, this may have been worth voting him in all by itself.
quote:The 2010 Budget proposes a new Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative to support community-based and faith-based efforts to reduce teen pregnancy using evidence-based and promising models. In addition, a new Strengthening Communities Fund will help build the capacity of non-profit organizations and State, Local and Tribal entities to better serve low-income and disadvantaged populations. This Budget also proposes funding for (1) a new child welfare initiative, and (2) a human services case management system for Federally-declared disasters. This Budget eliminates funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education, the mandatory Title V Abstinence Education program, the Compassion Capital Fund, and Rural Community Facilities.
That funding is replaced with an eye towards comprehensive eduction that includes abstinence as a goal.
Interestingly enough, while Bristol Palin is now the poster girl for abstinence-only sex ed, Meghan McCain supports comprehensive sex ed and wonders why other Republicans don't do the same.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Exactly how much money does a program need to walk in and say, "Don't have sex." and walk out?
Meghan McCain is a sensible young woman. Perhaps she should run for office one day because at least her ideas make some sort of sense.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
YES
YES YES YES YES YES
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I honestly wonder how this flew all these years. Did Republicans really think abstinence-only worked, or was it all just posturing about sticking it to the Democrats?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Did Republicans really think abstinence-only worked, or was it all just posturing about sticking it to the Democrats?
For some, I'm sure, it wasn't about what prevented teen pregnancy but what was right (and that could have been intended to take into account lifelong or eternal consequences, not just pregnancy). I think the government's interest here is limited to preventing too-early pregnancy, though, so I'm cheering that ineffective AO programs will not be funded.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Because for some people, all issues are either-or. If we're not advocating total abstinence, we must therefore be promoting wanton promiscuity.
Also, why is this always focused on teen pregnancy? What happens when uneducated teens get older, marry, and then have unprotected sex when they shouldn't? Not all abortions are from single moms, and early birth control education would help avoid those as well.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I've known a lot of people to get pregnant accidentally, in and out of marriage. The two most recent accidents were in marriage and though they had the babies, I had to wonder if nobody had ever sat them down and explained how this stuff works. The answer, sadly, is often no. I don't know how many people have told me that they weren't trying to get pregnant, they just weren't not trying to get pregnant. The way I figure it is if you're having sex without using some kind of birth control, you're trying to get pregnant.
Abstinence is an ideal, not a birth control method. If has a huge failure rate. If parents want to teach that ideal, that's their prerogative, but the government isn't in the business of promoting ideals.
SO basically, go democrats! Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
My wife and I are fully aware of how birth control works, were trying NOT to get pregnant, and still did. Hello 99.5%, we're the .5% who got pregnant.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sex leads to pregnancy. It is supposed to. It's a predictable consequence of it.
No matter what precautions you take, it can happen - life often finds a way. If you couldn't handle becoming a parent with your sweetheart, then you shouldn't have sex.
-------
I am absolutely supportive of all possible education concerning the function of our bodies and what we know and can do about it. Besides - there's a reason the naive virgin is a sexual trope. If you are too ignorant to know what's happening physically in and to your bodies, it means you are weaker and you are a target. Knowledge is power. If someone knows what's happening and what the choices and likely consequences are, they are in a much better position to stay abstinent in the first place.
The apple's been eaten, people! Eden has fallen! Your children can't stay in the garden anyway - please tell them how to deal with the world they are entering.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
*raises hand* I am another .5% who was taking birth control as directed and still got pregnant. I knew how things worked and I was definitely NOT trying to get pregnant and still did.
I am not an abstinence-only advocate...but I still think we should always emphasize that abstinence is the only way to have 100% disease and pregnancy prevention.
I prefer comprehensive education that covers the reproductive system, how pregnancy occurs, how one gets STD's, what those STD's can do to you, and how best to prevent them with a consistent emphasis that only abstinence prevents them completely. I certainly don't mind covering birth control...but the pill may be really effective against pregnancy but does not prevent STD's. Kids need to know that. They need to know how their bodies work and what the risks of sex are.
In my opinion, the best way to approach this would be through a mandatory health class in middle school. I know the 7th graders at the school where I student taught all get several weeks of human anatomy of the reproductive system, and the counselors have sex ed that is taught toward the end of the year. Sadly, though, 7th grade may be too late. However, many parents I think would object to teaching it in the elementary schools.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
All life is a game of odds. You're willing to take the risk or you aren't.
I do know for a fact that at least 3 of the people I was referring to did not give themselves the 99.5% chance and claimed to "not be trying to get pregnant, just not trying to avoid pregnancy." I'm not even sure what that means.
It would be nice to have a very comprehensive sex education class that talks about how our bodies work. I only really learned about how my body works when I read some books on natural family planning a couple of years ago...I'm not currently using that as a birth control method but I'm so glad I learned it because it went into great detail about when and how a woman gets pregnant and the changes your body undergoes with the cycle of fertility.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nah, haven't ya ever wondered why BibleBelters (who mostly can't keep their pants zipped up when walking past a knothole) are the main proponents?
It's always been about family values. And sugah daddies can save a LOT of money when sweet young thangs* get a kid before they get an education. As for his wifey, well, she doesn't hafta put up with his fumbling incompetence.....and can go shopping with the money he's saved. And their preachers get both: "saving the sinner" from men (other than themselves), and the money they raise by attacking the "sinners" who refuse such "saving" from the pulpit.
* Who'd normally be repulsed by such old&ugly "men" even if they weren't also near-pedophiles.
[ May 07, 2009, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Who wants to bet how long itll take before someone waltz's in and says how this is another nail in the coffin of the USA's morality core?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I am not an abstinence-only advocate...but I still think we should always emphasize that abstinence is the only way to have 100% disease and pregnancy prevention.
Point of order: Although it is better than 99.5%, it is not 100%, because of rape. And, of course, because teenagers are horny little devils who generally cannot use abstinence as directed, any more than they use condoms as directed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Who wants to bet how long itll take before someone waltz's in and says how this is another nail in the coffin of the USA's morality core?
Is it fun to preempt outrage in your opposition by being obnoxiously apathetic?
I don't support abstinence only education, in the interest of full disclosure.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Does anyone know if the budget actually eliminates the Title V program, or just eliminates funding for the program?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: It would be nice to have a very comprehensive sex education class that talks about how our bodies work. I only really learned about how my body works when I read some books on natural family planning a couple of years ago...I'm not currently using that as a birth control method but I'm so glad I learned it because it went into great detail about when and how a woman gets pregnant and the changes your body undergoes with the cycle of fertility.
I always wondered why the Catholic church doesn't teach all students in their schools NFP. They must figure that most of the girls will get married some day, and the church will want them to know it then. If you taught it to young girls, then lots of them would know it before they even started having sex, and they'd be more likely to use it when they were married.
I guess the answer is pretty clear...that teaching girls to have some knowledge of their fertility might encourage them to have sex, thinking they knew how to avoid pregnancy. I suspect that the deeper reason is that the church thinks that sexuality should just be invisible and unexamined until marriage. That women should be ignorant of what the church claims is a really good tool for understanding themselves until they are delivered into the arms of their husbands.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Two weeks ago I met a young woman from a well to-do part of town who had had success with her "Abstinence Only" teen pregnancy program at her local church. She was starting on the quest to make it a viable program. She had tons of energy and hope and youth, and enough intelligence to start by seeking grant funding. She was pretty and a bit hauty...noble in her pursuit to "simply tell the girls that its OK to say no."
Today I met an older woman who was in charge of the regional Teen Pregnancy Crisis Center. She didn't speak to me about funding or about morality or about sex. She spoke about Abstinence as a great part of a complete anti-teen pregnancy program. She spoke about the girls with baby girls and the proven ways to stop the cycle of poverty and pregnancy.
She smiled more.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
The Catholic Church teaches NFP to couples who are planning to get married, in brief, and you can take a more comprehensive course as a married couple.
As to the rest, yeah, a lot of religious institutions seem to want to keep sex invisible, which is bad on so many levels it's hard to separate them.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
My daughter took a class at our church that examined sexuality. We certainly don't try to keep sex invisible.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We have been needing to get here for a long time.
Abstinence-Only sex education is so ineffectual, that when they studied it versus comprehensive sex education, the abstinence-only group of teens had rates of STD transmission and accidental teenage pregnancy exactly as high as the control group that wasn't given any sex education at all.
It does not work. It is throwing money down a hole for the benefit of a bunch of wrongheaded moral initiatives. We have known this for a decade now.
This is the perfect way for it to die: stripped of funding by those who desire better policy informed by science, while the newly abandoned teenaged mom Bristol Palin stows away baby Tripp to act as a last-inning cheerleader for an ideology that, ultimately, failed her.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I am not an abstinence-only advocate...but I still think we should always emphasize that abstinence is the only way to have 100% disease and pregnancy prevention.
Absolutely. Plus the other reasons for abstinence are still very much there: the importance of learning self-control, of learning how to pick and choose instead of letting peer pressure determine your sex life, of knowing that you can resist the pressures of your body when it makes sense to do so.
But abstinence-only sex ed is flat-out ridiculous.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...while the newly abandoned teenaged mom Bristol Palin stows away baby Tripp to act as a last-inning cheerleader for an ideology that, ultimately, failed her.
Wow. That's pretty damn crass, man.
That said, I'm delighted at the real possibility abstinence-only 'education' might be getting the boot. It's an embarrassment on a variety of levels.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The apple's been eaten, people! Eden has fallen! Your children can't stay in the garden anyway - please tell them how to deal with the world they are entering.
Hear, hear!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
By their own metrics, Bristol's tale is exactly what abstinence only education is most trying to avoid: babies without daddies. This was bad right down to the shotgun marriage pressures that were based more on political damage control needs than on mommy & daddy's long-term compatibility, making this a textbook example, more than anything, of why Bristol should not be listened to, and Meghan McCain should be the voice of reason.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I'm really glad to see this. I was educated properly in school. I'm glad I knew about STDs and pregnancy because honestly, that's what put fear in me to make the responsible sex decisions that I made in my life. When I was younger, I would rarely refrain from something because adults said "It's bad, don't do it!"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
crosspostin' a friends post
quote:ON THE SUBJECT OF BOGUS AO SEX ED, PRODUCTS OF
In my stats class we're developing a survey - as a whole class - to administer to random students we pin down on campus. We've decided to ask them about healthy behavior, including sexual behavior. It's cool, and I like stats.
One girl mentioned that she thought you could get STIs from toilet seats - and while I was quietly(ish) explaining why this was very wrong another complained that our question asking about safe sex was badly worded "because oral sex is safe."
At which point I started talking louder (the two girls I was talking to were not sitting next to me, so I was talking to them across the room), and the whole conversation became a sex ed lecture
Which led to more questions about basic sex ed from other people ("What's a dental dam?")
The teacher was laughing too hard to stop me, or didn't care, so I kept answering until she decided we'd gone on long enough (maybe 10 minutes, total).
These are mother******* college students. We have seriously failed them.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Wow, and I thought I pretty much had this stuf down, but I'd never heard of a dental dam before. (Wikipedia has enlightened me.)
quote: I'm really glad to see this. I was educated properly in school. I'm glad I knew about STDs and pregnancy because honestly, that's what put fear in me to make the responsible sex decisions that I made in my life. When I was younger, I would rarely refrain from something because adults said "It's bad, don't do it!"
I've never found that lack of information about the possible consequences is the problem. Even in abstinence-only "education," I'm pretty sure they go over the fact that you could get pregnant or get an STD. Putting the fear in kids is only half the battle. Giving them tools to make responsible choices is the other half...and that's knowledge.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If you trust your kids to make the right choices about sex, you should trust them enough to educate them about the choices.
Trying to enforce rules with ignorance only results in people being unable to make correct choices on their own.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:By their own metrics, Bristol's tale is exactly what abstinence only education is most trying to avoid: babies without daddies.
That's not the only thing its trying to avoid, though. More generally, it's trying to prevent students from adopting unhealthy and unethical attitudes about sex. Teen pregnancy is the tip of that iceberg.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"More generally, it's trying to prevent students from adopting unhealthy and unethical attitudes about sex."
Isn't it actually trying to prevent students from adopting sex? Or rather, isn't the point of view that the only healthy, ethical attitude toward sex for teenagers is "don't do it"?
I kind of agree...I think it'd be better if teens weren't doing it (or maybe it's that if I didn't get to do it, no one should).
But it kind of sucks to end up with more pregnant kids in the attempt. If the algebra abstinence-only advocates employ simply weighs STDs and pregnancies against other factors, and they get outweighed, then they should be a little more up front about it. I mean, if there's a way these programs have not been failing, then there seems to be a lack of explanation of what that is.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:By their own metrics, Bristol's tale is exactly what abstinence only education is most trying to avoid: babies without daddies.
That's not the only thing its trying to avoid, though. More generally, it's trying to prevent students from adopting unhealthy and unethical attitudes about sex. Teen pregnancy is the tip of that iceberg.
He didn't say only, he said most. And as far as I can tell, abstinence only education pretty much fails at all of its goals. If there's one it succeeds at, I'd love to hear about it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Isn't it actually trying to prevent students from adopting sex? Or rather, isn't the point of view that the only healthy, ethical attitude toward sex for teenagers is "don't do it"?
Yes - but I think the goal is not just to tell them that, but also to make sure they end up with healthy attitudes about sex that they can carry forward throughout the rest of their life. It's about future adult behavior just as much as current teen behavior.
But beyond even that, I think it's really about influencing the future course of our culture. The reason for taking the "abstinence only" stand seems to be not so much that it is more effective at changing the behavior of individual studets directly (since studies dispute that), but more that there is a hope that by making it the policy in schools we can set abstinence as the cultural norm. I think it's about making a statement, in the hopes that it will change cultural attitudes about sex in the long run, and end up promoting healthier attitudes about sex.
Having said that, I am skeptical of the ability of government programs to influence things like that. It strikes me as similar to the notion of the government thinking it can control what is considered cool simply by declaring certain things cool or uncool. The government usually lacks that power.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am skeptical that abstinence as a cultural norm for adults is necessarily a healthier attitude.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Abstaining until the right time, however one defines it, would be the healthier attitude for adults for the same reasons it is the healthier attitude for teenagers - because many adults lack acommitted long-term relationship, lack preparedness for the potential consequences, etc. Simply turning 18 doesn't change much.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
As usual, kmbboots took the words right out of my mouth.
Anecdotally, the people in my life who have had access to modern sex education are generally much happier, emotionally healthier, and generally more mature than similarly-aged friends who've only gone through abstinence-only education. Less repression, a sense of self-respect that comes from their elders' willingness to let them reach decisions on their own, the simple ability to talk about sexual topics without feeling guilty - these are all good, healthy things.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tresopax, if "abstaining until the right time" means nothing more than making good judgements for yourself about when and when not to have sex then I would agree. If you mean something else, I don't.
"Abstinence as a cultural norm" does not give that impression. And I don't think that abstinence only sex ed prepares teenagers to use their judgement about when and when not to have sex.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Less repression, a sense of self-respect that comes from their elders' willingness to let them reach decisions on their own, the simple ability to talk about sexual topics without feeling guilty - these are all good, healthy things.
You can get those good, healthy things while still holding up abstinence until marriage as a laudable goal, however. I mean, I focus on empowering my daughters with knowledge and with self-esteem - I never want them to think they need a boyfriend to define themselves, or that sex is the only way to demonstrate love for someone. I beleve in education and knowledge - I taught my teen exactly how her body works (we sat down with a college anatomy book). I've covered the fertility cycle, and the risks of sexual activity.
But more than the mechanics or the consequences of sex, I've talked to her about what it means to date and spend time with someone - how to respond if she ever feels pressured to have sex, or how to talk to her boyfriend (when she ever gets one!) about her expectations for their relationship. Sex education is more than just "this is what sex is, this is what can happen, and this is what contraception is." At least, it is to me.
I don't expect schools or government programs to cover all that, obviously different people have different views on the moral or religious aspects of sexuality. So, that makes this a very controversial issue, because everyone has different ideas about what is appropriate. The best role the schools or govt programs can fill is the education one - making sure kids understand how their own reproductive systems work, how one gets pregnant, what the risks of sexual activity are, and how to make informed choices.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
By "abstaining until the right time" I mean until one is prepared for the consequences, including prepared to have a baby if that ends up happening, and until one is in a committed, long-term relationship. For some this might mean "marriage"; for others it might just mean being a responsible adult and having a boyfriend/girlfriend. But it doesn't mean one night stands, or whenever a person wants, or as soon as the law declares a person an adult.
This should be the goal, in my view. The evidence seems to suggest Abstinence-only education does little-to-nothing to advance it though. I'd generally believe more information, more openness is better. And I'd think the best option is probably one best decided upon by the community, not the national goverment - since communities differ greatly in their attitudes.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Wow, and I thought I pretty much had this stuf down, but I'd never heard of a dental dam before. (Wikipedia has enlightened me.)
Wow... Really?
Sometimes I forget what a wide cultural gap there is between the sexual preferences... Where you taught abstinence only? Did they figure no one in your class would indulge in cunnilingus? Are you old like me and were edumacated before the "Safe Sex" revolution?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am skeptical that abstinence as a cultural norm for adults is necessarily a healthier attitude.
Exactly.
In fact, it is my perception that many of the ways in which we repress sexuality or make it something dirty or to be feared, including abstinence-only programs, create long-term problems for healthy sexual behavior WITHIN long-term committed relationships (ie marriage).
We do this in subtle and overt ways, starting as soon as our children our born. Even naming the parts of the body associated with sexuality is something that parents have problems with.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I've certainly heard of dental dams, but what I haven't heard is anyone say they've actually used one. Not that I've done any surveys on the topic.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:In fact, it is my perception that many of the ways in which we repress sexuality or make it something dirty or to be feared, including abstinence-only programs, create long-term problems for healthy sexual behavior WITHIN long-term committed relationships (ie marriage).
It is possible to treat a subject with caution and respect without creating fear or repression. I think for most of us here on the pro-abstinence side, that's the goal. Not to repress people, but to teach them responsibility, including the very difficult skill of giving up something you want now to avoid a potential risk in the future.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:In fact, it is my perception that many of the ways in which we repress sexuality or make it something dirty or to be feared, including abstinence-only programs, create long-term problems for healthy sexual behavior WITHIN long-term committed relationships (ie marriage).
It is possible to treat a subject with caution and respect without creating fear or repression. I think for most of us here on the pro-abstinence side, that's the goal. Not to repress people, but to teach them responsibility, including the very difficult skill of giving up something you want now to avoid a potential risk in the future.
When trying to teach responsibility and prudence is done through withholding information, it is almost by definition neither responsible nor prudent.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It might be prudent here to clarify that "abstinence only" education does indeed involve withholding various information, such as methods of birth control and disease prevention other than abstinence. I'm personally fine with advocating for abstinence as long as the other information is provided as well.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I think for most of us here on the pro-abstinence side
I think we should be clear that there's a difference, potentially a large one, between those who are "pro-abstinence" and those who are "pro-abstinence only education". There's nothing wrong with promoting abstinence. But teaching abstinence only has been shown to do far more harm than good.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I've certainly heard of dental dams, but what I haven't heard is anyone say they've actually used one. Not that I've done any surveys on the topic.
And people are generally reluctant to talk about their sexual practices. At least with people who probably don't share them.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Two weeks ago I met a young woman from a well to-do part of town who had had success with her "Abstinence Only" teen pregnancy program at her local church. She was starting on the quest to make it a viable program. She had tons of energy and hope and youth, and enough intelligence to start by seeking grant funding. She was pretty and a bit hauty...noble in her pursuit to "simply tell the girls that its OK to say no."
Today I met an older woman who was in charge of the regional Teen Pregnancy Crisis Center. She didn't speak to me about funding or about morality or about sex. She spoke about Abstinence as a great part of a complete anti-teen pregnancy program. She spoke about the girls with baby girls and the proven ways to stop the cycle of poverty and pregnancy.
She smiled more.
quote:I think we should be clear that there's a difference, potentially a large one, between those who are "pro-abstinence" and those who are "pro-abstinence only education".
Excellent distinction.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
In every sex-ed class, abstinence is always touted at the only 100% way. Even the ones that tell you what dental dams are.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: It might be prudent here to clarify that "abstinence only" education does indeed involve withholding various information, such as methods of birth control and disease prevention other than abstinence. I'm personally fine with advocating for abstinence as long as the other information is provided as well.
That is an important clarification, thanks.
Although as it happens, I am neither pro-abstinence only education nor pro-abstinence, at least if we're defining the pro-abstinence stand as no sex until marriage.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:In every sex-ed class, abstinence is always touted at the only 100% way. Even the ones that tell you what dental dams are.
Considering that is factually correct, that's a good thing.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:It might be prudent here to clarify that "abstinence only" education does indeed involve withholding various information, such as methods of birth control and disease prevention other than abstinence. I'm personally fine with advocating for abstinence as long as the other information is provided as well.
For the record, I'm in favor of abstinence as a practice, and get annoyed when people treat it as synonymous with "repression". But I'm definitely against "abstinence-only education". As a general rule, I don't think promoting ignorance is usually the best route to promoting responsible decision-making.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:It might be prudent here to clarify that "abstinence only" education does indeed involve withholding various information, such as methods of birth control and disease prevention other than abstinence. I'm personally fine with advocating for abstinence as long as the other information is provided as well.
For the record, I'm in favor of abstinence as a practice, and get annoyed when people treat it as synonymous with "repression". But I'm definitely against "abstinence-only education". As a general rule, I don't think promoting ignorance is usually the best route to promoting responsible decision-making.
Cool - I sort of expected you were making a point in favor of abstinence, not AOE, but wasn't entirely sure.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
There are two types of people who can teach children Sex Education.
There is the teacher armed with the facts.
There is the seducer armed with the lies.
Abstinence Only removes some of those facts from the teacher, making everything the teach says untrustworthy. That leaves the Seducer who has all the facts--they may be lies, but they are in abundance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I've certainly heard of dental dams, but what I haven't heard is anyone say they've actually used one. Not that I've done any surveys on the topic.
I tried, once. They're ridiculous.
Which makes for a strange issue: there's no effective condom-like tool for oral sex, so it doesn't mean much to do 'just oral' for safety reasons.
Though a LOT of kids from more conservative regions of the US do it in an attempt to preserve their 'virginity'
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samp:
quote:Though a LOT of kids from more conservative regions of the US do it in an attempt to preserve their 'virginity'
I read in Dan Savage's "Savage Love" column a month or two ago that some Christian teens are engaging in anal sex in order to preserve their "virginity."
I also saw excerpts from a movie, "The Fat Girl" where a woman (the movie takes place in France I believe) is pressed by her boyfriend do that so she can still say she is a virgin when she gets married, and that all the girls are doing it these days.
I know it's selection bias, but I wonder how much that really goes on in today's society.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Haha it actually happens a lot, I guess. It's so retarded. A number of my friends from high school confessed that they were pretty much doing everything but vaginal sex because their church didn't want them having sex before marriage, yet the amount of communication to these teens about sexual practice was so minimal and stilted that it just stopped at "god is displeased with the sin of sex outside of marriage, and we will all be very disappointed in anyone who is not a virgin when they marry" so being teens they got involved in a ridiculous amount of oral sex and, yes, some anal.
in fact, from an ABC report on studies of sexual behavior in teens:
quote:One recent graduate of a New England college said one of her classmates was a "hard-core" Catholic who was rumored to have engaged in risky behavior.
"She only had anal sex with her boyfriend until they were married because that technically kept her a virgin," said the 25-year-old who wanted to remain anonymous.
Indeed, another well-publicized 2005 study using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health found that teenagers who take "virginity pledges" were more likely to engage in oral or anal sex than nonpledging teens and less likely to use condoms once they became sexually active.
quote:In every sex-ed class, abstinence is always touted at the only 100% way. Even the ones that tell you what dental dams are.
Considering that is factually correct, that's a good thing.
See, I think you have to factor in human error. In the same way that condoms sometimes fail when not used correctly (I bet two is even safer than one!) abstinence does too. And, according to statistics I've seen, about fifty percent of people who try to use abstinence fail at it. This doesn't, in my mind, make it a good method for birth control or STD prevention.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If a doctor tells you "Do X to be healthy", and then you decide not to do X, then it is wrong to come back to the doctor and say "Doing X failed at making me healthy".
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I know it's selection bias, but I wonder how much that really goes on in today's society. [/QB]
I had a boyfriend my sophomore year in college who he and his high school girlfriend had had exclusively anal sex to preserve her virginity. And that would have been 19+ years ago. They had both grown up in Oklahoma, which is where we went to school. I grew up in Minnesota, and when he told me I looked at him like he had two heads, for the idea that that "didn't count." If it was happening then, I have no doubt it's happening more now.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
There is good reason why medical studies with "intent to treat" analysis are considered more rigorous and reliable than those without for the terms of general population recommendations, and -- in corollary -- why the reverse is considered shoddy analysis in that context.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:In every sex-ed class, abstinence is always touted at the only 100% way. Even the ones that tell you what dental dams are.
Considering that is factually correct, that's a good thing.
See, I think you have to factor in human error. In the same way that condoms sometimes fail when not used correctly (I bet two is even safer than one!) abstinence does too. And, according to statistics I've seen, about fifty percent of people who try to use abstinence fail at it. This doesn't, in my mind, make it a good method for birth control or STD prevention.
Yeap. Though I'm driving it into the ground, I always remember to refer to the controlled study.
In terms of keeping kids safe from accidental pregnancy and STD's, Abstinence Only education was worse than doing nothing and not educating kids at all about sex.
Posted by lolcats (Member # 12060) on :
They only kids who take abstinence-only sex ed seriously are the ones who are already getting that opinion drilled into them by their parents. Otherwise... not working, advocates something that's unnatural and takes away from real education on safe sex.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I dunno, even the ones getting that stuff drilled into them by their parents tend to be at risk. The majority of kids who make a virginity pledge, for instance, will still have sex before marriage but are less likely than other kids to use contraception.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am very much in favor of education about everything our bodies are doing.
However, abstinence IS a 100% solution. If you have sex anyway and call it abstinence, that's not actually abstinence.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Sure. But when kids say "We're going to be abstinent" and are sure, in their minds, they're going to be abstinent, and don't buy condoms, because they're abstinent, and don't go on the pill, because they're abstinent, and then take it too far one night and have sex, their plan to avoid pregnancy/STDs through abstinence has failed, same as if they'd planned to avoid it through condom use and didn't learn how to put one on properly.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by lolcats: They only kids who take abstinence-only sex ed seriously are the ones who are already getting that opinion drilled into them by their parents.
Or those of us who socially had no chance of ever having sex in their teen years. Much less depressing to claim it's a choice.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I said that I fully support and agree with teaching everything, including biology and birth control of all kinds.
However, you can't say that abstinence isn't 100% effective because sometimes people aren't abstinent. What isn't 100% effective is something like an abstinent pledge - actual abstinence still works just dandy.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
The point that some are trying to make is that there is a difference between abstaining from sex and using the abstinence method of birth control.
Each time you choose not to have sex, the odds of that non-sexual encounter getting you pregnant is 0. That is the result of abstaining from sex.
The results of the abstinence method of birth control, however, are not nearly so good.
It's interesting to talk about typical use vs. perfect use when it comes to the different forms of birth control. The abstinence method has the widest gap, although I submit that even with perfect use, the chance that a woman might be raped will bring the odds down below 100%. That isn't an error on the part of the woman.
Of course, the real problem is just what people are saying...one night, go to far, and that's it. You weren't using the pill, you didn't bring a condom, because you weren't going to have sex. But you did. Now what?
Now we get into some of the "it can't happen to me" myths that are so common for teens and young adults. Somebody else might succumb to a moment of weakness, but it would never happen to me.
Maybe not. But most people do not end up abstaining from sex until marriage and the ones who were so sure that it wouldn't happen to them are far less likely to have protection the first time.
So I don't buy that the abstinence method of birth control is 100% effective at anything because I don't think it's fair to rule out basic human nature from the equation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The point that some are trying to make is that there is a difference between abstaining from sex and using the abstinence method of birth control.
I have to admit this baffles me.
What is the difference between 'abstaining from sex' and 'the abstinence method of birth control'? Aren't those synonyms?
quote:So I don't buy that the abstinence method of birth control is 100% effective at anything because I don't think it's fair to rule out basic human nature from the equation.
It sounds to me like you're saying you don't buy that the 'abstinence method' of birth control works because...once a couple stops using the abstinence method, it stops working.
Can't the same thing be said for condoms, the pill, etc.?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Clearly, you didn't read my whole post. I don't see the point in repeating myself.
No need to get snippy. It was an honest question. I don't see the difference between the 'abstinence method of birth control' and 'abstaining from sex'. It sounds to me like a pretty artificial distinction.
Also, your rejection that the 'abstinence method' is 100% effective because of human nature falls flat as well. Unless you're going to factor human nature into condoms, the pill, etc., which it does not appear you're doing.
Edit: Well, this looks out of place now.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Sorry about the snippyness. I actually deleted it right before you reply because I decided I could possibly clarify a bit.
Let me try it this way: I don't think you can compare abstinence to other methods of birth control very easily because other methods of birth control assume you're going to have sex. Abstinence assumes you're not.
So I was trying to distinguish between the effectiveness of the act of not having sex and the effectiveness of planning not to have sex. (This is what I was calling abstaining from sex vs the abstinence method of birth control.)
If you want, I can talk the same way about condoms, birth control pills, etc. I actually think condoms are a terrible method of birth control because it doesn't feel as good and human nature would dictate that people will stop using them for that reason. Unfortunately, they are the only thing at the moment that can protect in any way from STD's, so I think people should use them, I just recognize that they aren't very effective due to human error and lack of willingness to use.
But in the post you were referencing, I wasn't talking about other methods of birth control, I was just talking about abstinence. If you want to get into them all, I can go down the list. I've done quite a bit of research on the topic and have to say that there really aren't any great options out there, certainly no perfect ones.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Abstinence assumes you're not.
Abstinence doesn't assume that you are not having sex. Abstinence is actually not having sex. If you are having sex, then you are not abstinent.
Unless there is rape, there is a mutual decision to have sex in there. Generally, people who truly intend on staying abstinent don't take off their clothes with each other. The decision point isn't that last second - it's way before, when both people take their pants off.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I think it makes sense to think of abstinence as being difficult to use in the same way that remembering to take the pill at the same time every day is difficult for some. For me, I found condoms difficult to use in that they just weren't very convenient. In the heat of the moment, I simply didn't care to use one. For that reason, I don't rely on them.
In the same way, teens need education on other forms because sometimes in the moment abstinence is not appealing despite intentions and then consequences happen. I would encourage my daughter not to have sex until she was in a relationship that she was willing to raise a child in because that is always a possibility with any method of birth control. But I recognize that teens are not always the best judge of when to have sex so teaching them safe ways to have sex only seems prudent.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I don't think you can compare abstinence to other methods of birth control very easily because other methods of birth control assume you're going to have sex. Abstinence assumes you're not.
I think they all equally assume that you might have unsafe sex, and that therefore, you need to make a choice that prevents that outcome.
It's easy for people who intend to use the abstinence method to screw up. It's also easy, like you said, for people who intend to use other methods to screw up as well (not bringing a condom, missing a few days of pills), which puts them in the exact same position as the absintence people — wanting to have sex, but finding that their only safe choice is to NOT have it. At which point, there's the chance that they'll decide, in the moment, to have sex anyway.
The distinction you're making is illusory.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:I don't think you can compare abstinence to other methods of birth control very easily because other methods of birth control assume you're going to have sex. Abstinence assumes you're not.
I think they all equally assume that you might have unsafe sex, and that therefore, you need to make a choice that prevents that outcome.
The distinction you're making is illusory.
Probably, but it seemed important at the time. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:So I don't buy that the abstinence method of birth control is 100% effective at anything because I don't think it's fair to rule out basic human nature from the equation.
It sounds to me like you're saying you don't buy that the 'abstinence method' of birth control works because...once a couple stops using the abstinence method, it stops working.
Can't the same thing be said for condoms, the pill, etc.?
I think it could be consistent here because for most contraceptive methods, AFAIK, they usually track two numbers "perfect use" and "typical use." (typical use includes the possibility that a couple stops using contraception because its too hard to use, how effective it is when not properly used, etc).
For example:
quote:This review provides an update of previous estimates of first-year probabilities of contraceptive failure for all methods of contraception available in the United States. Estimates are provided of probabilities of failure during typical use (which includes both incorrect and inconsistent use) and during perfect use (correct and consistent use). The difference between these two probabilities reveals the consequences of imperfect use; it depends both on how unforgiving of imperfect use a method is and on how hard it is to use that method perfectly. These revisions reflect new research on contraceptive failure both during perfect use and during typical use.
So while you can theoretically say that abstinence is just short of 100% effective in the perfect use case, measuring the typical use rate would give a much lower percentage due to incorrect and inconsistent use.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What is the difference between 'abstaining from sex' and 'the abstinence method of birth control'? Aren't those synonyms?
It is the difference between the particular and the general. You could reframe it as the difference between a single choice at one given time and place to abstain from sex of any sort whatsoever and a plan to always abstain from sex of any sort under all circumstances and contexts.
General plans are made up of multiple small events. The odds of a general plan working out as anticipated are harder to anticipate and control than similar single choices, and so there is a higher rate of failure for general plans.
Say, for example, my general plan for the next 5 years is: I will never use any motorized vehicle for any travel, relying on my feet and my bicycle alone. I probably have a pretty good shot at holding to it on the first day, and the second, and actually for any given single day. But there will probably be single days every so often when:
1. I am sick and need to go to the doctor, or 2. I am invited to a wedding in France that I really really want ot go to, or 3. My husband is hospitalized on a trip to Quebec, or 4. I have a perfect job offer, only I have to interview in New York, etc.
It's going to be really, really tempting -- and maybe even impossible to resist -- some of those days. And if all it takes during those 5 years is one time I make an exception, then I might be in trouble.
So abstaining from car travel one time or one day is one assured way of not being a passenger in an accident. A general plan of abstaining from car travel for 5 years is a lot harder to predict the results of, given that I may not always follow the general plan (and given how much I cannot anticipate in my future life and decision-making options). It may work, it may not. But the odds are not the same.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Abstaining from sex isn't the same thing as not using a vehicle for transportation - we don't live in an age or a society that makes the second possible. It is definitely possible to go without sex, especially if you don't get into romantic situations with people who will expect you to. If you do choose to get into romantic situations where you can be pretty sure sex will being a constant request or possibility, then you've kind of decided on abandoning abstinence.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It sounds to me like you're saying you don't buy that the 'abstinence method' of birth control works because...once a couple stops using the abstinence method, it stops working.
Can't the same thing be said for condoms, the pill, etc.?
A plan to use a condom every time one has sex may have less of a failure rate (as a plan, ie.e., as reliance in calculating now how this will work in practice later under unexpected and complicated circumstances) than a plan to always abstain.
The trouble is, when we talk to young adults about sex, we don't talk to them right there every time there might be a temptation to have sex. We aren't standing over them on their dates or at their parties, individually, with a pointer and a chalkboard. We talk to them once, twice, or even thirty times, but we talk to them in terms of making general plans. And general plans may have different failure rates and overall outcomes than single decisions (plans are dicier, vaguer, less reliable and predictable than single decisions), so we should use the appropriate analysis.
Intention to treat analysis remains a relevant topic.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Abstaining from sex isn't the same thing as not using a vehicle for transportation ... [etc etc]
I'm not saying they are. I am comparing decision trees, not content.
I'm also pretty sure we are on such different wavelengths about analysis that we will talk past each other for years to come, and I'm on my way out the door.
So I wish you well, but I'll leave my response to your comments at that and drop it.
---
Added: All such frustrating interactions should be so easily nipped in the bud. Carry on without me, please.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yeah, there's no point in talking with you if you don't want to discuss it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Many things have been posted since I started writing this, but here is my attempt to answer Rakeesh's earlier question:
When calculating "actual use" failure rate of birth control pills it includes women who forget to take it that morning. That's the difference between "ideal use" and actual use. If the failure rate of birth control pills as a method of pregnancy prevention includes people who don't actually take them, then the failure rate of abstinence as a method includes those who don't actually abstain.
It's an important thing to figure in when deciding on a from of birth control. I know that the pill would never work for me because there's no way I'd remember to take it at the same time every day. I'd be one of the people that creates the gap between the ideal and actual rates. Other people know that they are very organized and precise with medicines and that their risk will be closer to the ideal rate. If you're using abstinance as your method of birth control it's important to remember that it's only 100% effective if you use it properly 100% of the time. There are people who are confident in their decision, have strong reasons for it, and plan to avoid situations that they might be tempted to act otherwise. They will probably be at or close to the ideal rate for using abstinence as a method of birth control. There are other people who don't have strong reasons for abstinence other than "don't want to get pregnant" or "my parents would kill me if they found out" who will flirt with the line, who will get naked together without intending to "go all the way" and might slip up and cross the line someday. Or even engage in "not quite sex" activities that have a slight, but not zero, chance of pregnancy. Those people probabably shouldn't be relying on abstinence as a method of birth control.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I am not an abstinence-only advocate...but I still think we should always emphasize that abstinence is the only way to have 100% disease and pregnancy prevention.
There is no way to completely prevent disease or pregnancy. Some less severe STD's can still be acquired through unsanitary living conditions, or even contact with those who have STD's without a prior knowledge. And, while it's morbid, you can always be raped, so, unless you can convince your attacker to use a condom, there's a chance you might get pregnant.
I think these are extremes and, God willing, unlikely, but I don't like how many pushers of abstinence preach that it's the only way to completely prevent something. There's no way to completely prevent anything. Just by going abstinent, this doesn't guarantee you a safe, healthy life.
I feel you need to show both sides of the story in order to be comprehensive.
I'm morally opposed to the govt. taking a viewpoint on what's moral as far as sex goes. I believe our right to these decisions should be protected, and we should be educated accordingly. I only promote sex at an age and maturity level when you're ready to accept all of the implications that come along with it, including pregnancy. However, we live in a democracy, and people have their rights protected, both the right to make "good" decisions, as well as "bad" ones.
I also don't like "faith-based" education, as that Bill states "faith-based" initiatives. I believe many churches have heavily influenced the moral code of America, often for better, but she shouldn't have religious proponents in any Bills.
But, I do think we need to show both sides of the story. We should have an (comprehensive) abstinence-only plan, and also comprehensive sex education, to allow the children a chance to decide for themselves, along with their beliefs.
I dont' think it should be taught at too young of an age. I think we need to get rid of this stigma we have about sex, but I also don't want to go into details with children that are too young to understand it. I know children are finding out earlier and earlier these days, often with misinformation. But, I'm old school.
I didn't even know what sex was until I was twelve. I had heard of sex, and I knew it was physical contact involving the genitaelia [sic?} but I had no idea what it actually consisted of until then. I have a suspicion many young kids today are the same. This should be taken into consideration.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:I don't think you can compare abstinence to other methods of birth control very easily because other methods of birth control assume you're going to have sex. Abstinence assumes you're not.
I think they all equally assume that you might have unsafe sex, and that therefore, you need to make a choice that prevents that outcome.
It's easy for people who intend to use the abstinence method to screw up. It's also easy, like you said, for people who intend to use other methods to screw up as well (not bringing a condom, missing a few days of pills), which puts them in the exact same position as the absintence people — wanting to have sex, but finding that their only safe choice is to NOT have it. At which point, there's the chance that they'll decide, in the moment, to have sex anyway.
The distinction you're making is illusory.
No, I don't think so. Planning to have sex can help train a mindset that anticipates and controls circumstances leading up to it in ways that planning to be abstinent does not.
Perhaps I should put it this way: planning to "just" make out in your underwear is something that is far more likely to occur to people who aren't planning to have sex, and it's that sort of thing that leads to the crisis moment of "I know I shouldn't but I don't care any more."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Some less severe STD's can still be acquired through unsanitary living conditions
Do you have some evidence for this? It goes against everything I've heard, and it sounds like an excuse for someone to give to their signifigant other when the tests come back positive for gonorhea.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vyrus: I didn't even know what sex was until I was twelve. I had heard of sex, and I knew it was physical contact involving the genitaelia [sic?} but I had no idea what it actually consisted of until then. I have a suspicion many young kids today are the same. This should be taken into consideration.
I think this is a big problem. And the reason I think that is because I know girls who were having sex before they knew that that's what they were doing. They knew that they weren't supposed to have sex, but their (considerably older) boyfriends used euphamisms for what they were doing and the girls didn't connect the dots. So I think sex ed needs to be at a young enough age that kids know what it is before there's any possibility that they'll have the choice to engage in it.
We read our son a book about "How babies are made" with anatomically correct paper cut-out illustrations when I was pregnant with his younger brother. He was 1 1/2 years old. I don't think that's too young. We will wait until he's a bit older to get into the "it's also a fun activity that feels really good" aspect of it, however.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
dkw -- I agree completely. I especially don't think any age is too young if the kids are asking questions. I have a general ask-tell policy when it comes to just about anything. If they're old enough to ask, they're old enough to hear the REAL answer. I also use the correct names for all body parts.
Even if they don't ask, though, I'll have a sex talk with bot of my kids well before adolescence. I don't want them to get caught off guard.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: planning to "just" make out in your underwear is something that is far more likely to occur to people who aren't planning to have sex
Correction: to some people who aren't planning to have sex. To others, that is already WAY over the line.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"Correction: to some people who aren't planning to have sex. To others, that is already WAY over the line."
I did use the word 'likely' in there.
But yes, it's people who don't exclude sex-like activities from the menu who seem to have the problem of suddenly changing their minds.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A plan to use a condom every time one has sex may have less of a failure rate (as a plan, ie.e., as reliance in calculating now how this will work in practice later under unexpected and complicated circumstances) than a plan to always abstain.
I can dig that, and even agree now that the appropriate qualifiers and whatnot are being used.
It's just that I think (not addressing this to you specifically, CT, just to the discussion in general) that accuracy is pretty important. That's why I objected to Christine's remarks initially. Abstinence is effective. 100% effective. It never fails. What fails is the people involved, and we should as a society certainly take that into account and plan for it, and have a system in place to cope with that certain failure.
So, in service of accuracy, we should say that. That's the best way to have any sex-education policy taken seriously by the people it's taught to, to be accurate. Instead of saying, "Abstinence as a plan is bad or ineffective," it seems to me a more accurate thing to say is, "Abstinence only as a plan is frequently very tough, too tough for most people. So in the quite-likely event that you kids don't adhere to the 100% effective plan, here's some other plans too."
I realize that's pretty much what other folks have been saying-I'm just finishing up the brief disagreement with Christine is all.
--
Katharina,
quote:Abstaining from sex isn't the same thing as not using a vehicle for transportation - we don't live in an age or a society that makes the second possible. It is definitely possible to go without sex, especially if you don't get into romantic situations with people who will expect you to. If you do choose to get into romantic situations where you can be pretty sure sex will being a constant request or possibility, then you've kind of decided on abandoning abstinence.
Of course it's possible. Look at the Amish. They live in our age, and though they don't live in our society they've certainly made and maintained one that makes abstaining from motor vehicles perfectly possible.
The discussion isn't about what's possible, I thought. After all, it's possible that every kid in PE in junior high will become an olympian athlete. But we don't put in the Olympic size swimming pools and treat everyone like Michael Phelps either.
quote:Yeah, there's no point in talking with you if you don't want to discuss it.
That's...not quite what CT said.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I did use the word 'likely' in there.
But yes, it's people who don't exclude sex-like activities from the menu who seem to have the problem of suddenly changing their minds.
As someone who grew up (and who is raising her kids) with the idea that you absolutely do not spend time secluded with a member of the opposite sex to whom you are not related, the idea of getting half-naked with one and expecting it to go no further than your original plan strikes me as incredibly foolish. So no, not "likely" -- for some of us.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Abstinence is effective. 100% effective. It never fails.
On the contrary: it failed once, around 2000 years ago.
But that kid turned out really, really well...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:On the contrary: it failed once, around 2000 years ago.
For a given defintion of 'failure', yeah;)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
We read our son a book about "How babies are made" with anatomically correct paper cut-out illustrations when I was pregnant with his younger brother. He was 1 1/2 years old. I don't think that's too young. We will wait until he's a bit older to get into the "it's also a fun activity that feels really good" aspect of it, however.
The one by Schepp and Andry? A classic. I remember when my mother handed it to me. Had my mother read it to me when I was 1 1/2, it would have saved me an embarrassing* argument with one of my classmates.
*Because I had to admit I was wrong. I hate that. In fact, the entire incident is remembered less because of the interesting new information and more because of my chagrin at losing an argument on the facts.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The trouble is, when we talk to young adults about sex, we don't talk to them right there every time there might be a temptation to have sex. We aren't standing over them on their dates or at their parties, individually, with a pointer and a chalkboard. We talk to them once, twice, or even thirty times, but we talk to them in terms of making general plans. And general plans may have different failure rates and overall outcomes than single decisions (plans are dicier, vaguer, less reliable and predictable than single decisions), so we should use the appropriate analysis.
This is why parents need to keep an eye on their kids, especially if they know their son or daughter is particularly impuslive. It's why trips without chaperones are generally frowned upon, etc. It's why parents should have a general idea of what their kids are doing and what temptations might be arising - moreso for younger kids with less self control - even if their child is one who has openly decided to abstain.
But still, telling teenagers that abstinence is not 100% effective would be extremely misleading if all you meant by that is that abstinence doesn't work if you don't do it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
rivka:
"So no, not 'likely' -- for some of us."
I feel misunderstood. I never expected my comparison between two broad groups to apply equally to each individual or sub group within those groups.
Just as if I said "United States citizens are less likely to be bilingual than Japanese citizens" I wouldn't expect that comparison to hold for every demographic within the U.S.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You're talking about plans and decisions, not sociological data.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:On the contrary: it failed once, around 2000 years ago.
For a given defintion of 'failure', yeah;)
... Callisto, Laozi, Danae, Bhuddha ...
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:A plan to use a condom every time one has sex may have less of a failure rate (as a plan, ie.e., as reliance in calculating now how this will work in practice later under unexpected and complicated circumstances) than a plan to always abstain.
I can dig that, and even agree now that the appropriate qualifiers and whatnot are being used.
It's just that I think (not addressing this to you specifically, CT, just to the discussion in general) that accuracy is pretty important. That's why I objected to Christine's remarks initially. Abstinence is effective. 100% effective. It never fails. What fails is the people involved, and we should as a society certainly take that into account and plan for it, and have a system in place to cope with that certain failure.
So, in service of accuracy, we should say that. That's the best way to have any sex-education policy taken seriously by the people it's taught to, to be accurate. Instead of saying, "Abstinence as a plan is bad or ineffective," it seems to me a more accurate thing to say is, "Abstinence only as a plan is frequently very tough, too tough for most people. So in the quite-likely event that you kids don't adhere to the 100% effective plan, here's some other plans too."
That is basically what I thought I was saying. I guess my wording wasn't 100% effective.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:The trouble is, when we talk to young adults about sex, we don't talk to them right there every time there might be a temptation to have sex. We aren't standing over them on their dates or at their parties, individually, with a pointer and a chalkboard. We talk to them once, twice, or even thirty times, but we talk to them in terms of making general plans. And general plans may have different failure rates and overall outcomes than single decisions (plans are dicier, vaguer, less reliable and predictable than single decisions), so we should use the appropriate analysis.
This is why parents need to keep an eye on their kids, especially if they know their son or daughter is particularly impuslive. It's why trips without chaperones are generally frowned upon, etc. It's why parents should have a general idea of what their kids are doing and what temptations might be arising - moreso for younger kids with less self control - even if their child is one who has openly decided to abstain.
But still, telling teenagers that abstinence is not 100% effective would be extremely misleading if all you meant by that is that abstinence doesn't work if you don't do it.
And then they go to college...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Christine, that is what I thought you were saying, too.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I see a whole problem with this debate is three things:
1) Doom Sayers from both sides drumming up conscripts for the battle--"They are teaching our 3rd Graders all about Sex, as in how to, when, where, and that its safe and fun and moral." vs "They want to teach our kids NO and treat Hell as both an STD and a Contraceptive. They want our kids kept ignorant on the subject to fit their own morality."
Yet what I hear here is both sides in agreement. Teaching Abstinence Only is not going to work. Teaching Abstinence Never is not going to work.
2 and 3 are the two different ways people look at a situation. One is a clinical, engineering approach of "How do we fix this thing." The other is a moralistic approach, "Why does this happen."
The How people define the problems--teen pregnancy and STD transmittal--and have solutions ranging from the spread of important information to the spread of contraceptives. They seek concrete results.
The Why people define the problem--premarital and non-monogamous sex. Their answer was a moral one. Don't have sex.
Abstinence solves both the How and Why problems, but is hard to enforce. It can be taken to the Middle-Easter Extremes of never allowing an unmarried woman to travel any where without an escort of one of her family. That still has failures of the system--even when they add honor killings into the system.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Staying abstinent does not require killing anyone.
No method of control is easy to enforce. All of them require the internal motivation of the people having sex - short of forced IUDs, vasectomies, or depo prevera shots, "enforcement" isn't an option for any of them.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I just looked at some statistics and discovered a few interesting things. First I looked a state by state statistics for teenage pregnancies, births and abortions. Contrary to what I've heard, Utah, where Mormonism is the dominant culture, falls far below the national average in all of these. In Utah there are 53 pregnancies for girls/women between the ages of 15 and 19. The national average is 84. Its also has the lowest rate of STDs in the nation. Even if every 15-17 year who gets an abortion in Nevada is actually from Utah, Utah barely makes the national average. Claims that abstinence fails 50% of the time are pretty ridiculous, at least within among Mormons. I suspect if you looked at Orthodox Jews and other religious groups that place a very strong emphasis on abstaining from sex before marriage you would see similar things.
But it is worth noting that Mormons and Jews don't abstain from sex before marriage solely or even primarily as a means of birth control or to avoid STDs. We do it out of strong moral convictions. The idea that people who don't have those convictions are likely to be able to adhere to a code of abstinence because of some things said in a school class is very fanciful. As I see it, that is the big reason for making a distinction between being "pro abstinence" and "pro abstinence-only-education." Schools should absolutely teach complete scientifically correct information about human sexuality include methods to reduce the chances of pregnancy and the spread of STDs.
Interestingly, ten regions with the highest teen pregnancy rates (in order) are DC, Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, Florida, California and Georgia. There are a lot of things going on in that list including poverty, race, and religion but it is worth noting that the list includes both religiously conservative states and largely secular liberals states like California. I would be interested in seeing a breakdown of teen pregnancy rates in those areas based on socio-economic, religious and racial groups. I think it would shed some light on the issue. There is a strong tendency for states in the Bible belt to have teenage pregnancy rates that are above the national average. The only exceptions were Kentucky and Missouri which are sort of on the fringe of the bible belt anyway. I wonder if the emphasis on grace over works in the Bible Belt weakens the moral case for abstinence.
I'm also curious about the Nevada stats. They may be skewed by the states liberal abortion policy (i.e. people from neighboring states may be coming to Nevada for abortions) and the abortion rate in Nevada is higher than the national average, but Nevada ranks in the top ten for live births to teen age mothers as well so that isn't the only thing going on.
Anecdotally, I have a couple of close friends whose 19 - 20 year old children have gotten pregnant before marriage. They have all been very secular, open about sexuality and encouraged birth control. It seems that teens and young adults have at least as much trouble with consistent correct use of birth control as they do with abstinence.
I also know a couple Mormon women who got pregnant before they were married who admitted that they didn't use birth control despite getting into a pattern of frequent sexual activity because that would have made it seem like they planned to do something they believed was wrong. If they weren't using birth control, they could tell themselves that they had just lost control which seemed somehow less wrong than planning it.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Just for clarity, what I meant with the 50% thing was that 50% eventually have sex, not 50% eventually get pregnant.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think you might find that something like 99.5% of people eventually have sex. Perhaps you meant "sex before marriage"?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I can dig that, and even agree now that the appropriate qualifiers and whatnot are being used.
*nods
Yeah, for sure. I recognize and hail heartily a fellow stickler for precision and accuracy.
---
Edited to add: J, sometimes I forget to tell you how delightful it is to bounce ideas back and forth with you. I feel at a decided loss when you aren't around, and I'm glad we've had more of a chance lately here and there to get together.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I think you might find that something like 99.5% of people eventually have sex. Perhaps you meant "sex before marriage"?
Yes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... Contrary to what I've heard, Utah, where Mormonism is the dominant culture, falls far below the national average in all of these. In Utah there are 53 pregnancies for girls/women between the ages of 15 and 19. The national average is 84 ...
For comparison for Canadian readers:
quote: For Canada, which had the lowest rates for all years, the birth/abortion rate for women under age 20 declined from 38.3 per 1,000 in 1990 to 26.6 in 2003. It is notable that in 1990 Canada’s birth/abortion rate was considerably lower than that of England and Wales and dramatically lower than that of the U.S. and that after over a decade of declines in all three countries, Canada’s rate in 2003 remains less than half the rate in either the U.S. or England and Wales.
Maybe population density is a factor Cram more people together in a tight space, and more babies pop out ...
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vyrus: Some less severe STD's can still be acquired through unsanitary living conditions
I'm guessing you might be referring to infestations with pubic lice or pubic scabies, both of which are usually categorized under STDs***. Or maybe the transmission of what was previously thought of a "genital herpes" orally? (I know in some places, the genetic typing has switched -- the type that used to be thought of as a genital STD is now the more common form found in the mouth, and vice versa.)
Pubic lice and scabies can be transmitted through clothing, non-sexual contact, etc. But the mucus-membrane-associated infections we often are thinking of under the umbrella of STDs (such as gonorrhea) aren't so much transmitted by non-sexual contact. The obvious exceptions being HIV and Hepatitis B through other blood-blood or some permutation of blood and mucus membrane contacts, of course.
---
Added:***e.g., this factsheet from the Minnesota Department of Public Health:
- Sexual contact - Close physical contact - Infested towels, bedding and clothing
Transmission from toilet seats is unlikely.
[ May 11, 2009, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Whoever came up with 'crabs from toilet seats' should've copyrighted the idea. It seems to exist in practice almost exclusively as an option to the question, "Well, you either had sex with someone else or you got it from a toilet seat. Which is it?!"
I wonder, though, if it is possible (however unlikely) to catch crabs from a toilet seat, wouldn't it also be possible to catch it from other activities? Such as sharing a poorly kept bed, or bathing in an unsanitary fashion, or something?
quote:Edited to add: J, sometimes I forget to tell you how delightful it is to bounce ideas back and forth with you. I feel at a decided loss when you aren't around, and I'm glad we've had more of a chance lately here and there to get together.
Hmmm. Not sure if this is to me - some people call me Jay - or Juxtapose. I rather think it's to Juxtapose, since I don't think I've really exchanged ideas with you on this topic. If J is me, I'm very flattered. If it's Juxtapose, then Juxtapose should be very flattered:)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Maybe population density is a factor Cram more people together in a tight space, and more babies pop out ...
Actually, thats just an artifact of the dataset. That paper picked three Anglo-Saxon dominant countries since they thought the similar cultures would be good comparisons for each other.
Page 20 shows an interesting breakdown by live births and abortions by country (albeit in 1996). Canada is decidedly middle of the pack, if not doing worse than average.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Hmmm. Not sure if this is to me - some people call me Jay - or Juxtapose. I rather think it's to Juxtapose, since I don't think I've really exchanged ideas with you on this topic. If J is me, I'm very flattered. If it's Juxtapose, then Juxtapose should be very flattered:)
Oh, you, although of course Juxtapose is a fine fellow in his own right.
I always read your posts as J4, although I believe that was a former shade of self. Old dogs and new tricks, and all. We have known each other too long!
---
Added:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...since I don't think I've really exchanged ideas with you on this topic.
No, I don't think so. Other areas, though, and I have learned much from you along the way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, I don't think so. Other areas, though, and I have learned much from you along the way.
Well, I must be a very savvy businessman since I'm sure I've gained a lot more from that exchange:) You're very kind as usual, CT-made my night. So as not to get even more effusive, I'll just say thanks and leave it at that:)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But it is worth noting that Mormons and Jews don't abstain from sex before marriage solely or even primarily as a means of birth control or to avoid STDs. We do it out of strong moral convictions.
That brings up an important point: Before teching abstinance is going to be too effective, character needs to be taught first. At a minimum, it relies on the capacity for self-control. I'm sure a strong sense of moral convictions also helps.
Unfortunately, I think it's pretty questionable whether schools are doing a good job of teaching character, and at the family level it's going to vary a lot. Thus the effectiveness of teaching the importance of abstinance is probably going to vary a lot from student to student too.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... Contrary to what I've heard, Utah, where Mormonism is the dominant culture, falls far below the national average in all of these. In Utah there are 53 pregnancies for girls/women between the ages of 15 and 19. The national average is 84 ...
For comparison for Canadian readers:
quote: For Canada, which had the lowest rates for all years, the birth/abortion rate for women under age 20 declined from 38.3 per 1,000 in 1990 to 26.6 in 2003. It is notable that in 1990 Canada’s birth/abortion rate was considerably lower than that of England and Wales and dramatically lower than that of the U.S. and that after over a decade of declines in all three countries, Canada’s rate in 2003 remains less than half the rate in either the U.S. or England and Wales.
It should be noted that the statistics I quoted were teen pregnancies and the statistics Mucus quotes are for live births. They are not the same. In the US in 2000, there were 48 live births per 1000, in Utah it was 39.
I wonder if the difference between Canada and the US reflects differences in racial make up and poverty just like the differences in average age at first marriage. The areas in the US with the highest teen pregnancy rates have high poverty rates and a large fraction of black and hispanic residents. I really would like to see a racial and socio-economic breakdown. I think it would say a lot.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:But it is worth noting that Mormons and Jews don't abstain from sex before marriage solely or even primarily as a means of birth control or to avoid STDs. We do it out of strong moral convictions.
That brings up an important point: Before teching abstinance is going to be too effective, character needs to be taught first. At a minimum, it relies on the capacity for self-control. I'm sure a strong sense of moral convictions also helps.
I just don't see this issue as being so black and white. According to everything I've ever read on the subject. Teens are least likely to engage in sex and other risky behaviors when they have a supportive, loving environment at home, when they have dreams and goals, and when they are self-confident. Self-esteem is a huge part of being able to say no when the pressure is on.
The things that keep teens from having sex aren't things that can be taught in a classroom, even if it was the business of schools. It's not something that can be taught through dinner conversation, though having family dinners together is a part of a healthy home environment that helps.
And let's not forget that there are two different aspects to sex education: immediate and long-term. Keeping teens from engaging in risky sexual activity is the immediate goal, but long-term, we want our children to grow into adults who can make good choices. As teens leave home and start dating seriously (because a lot of people don't even date much or at all in high school), will they be able to choose when, where, and how to become sexually active while minimizing risks?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Abstinence solves both the How and Why problems, but is hard to enforce. It can be taken to the Middle-Easter Extremes of never allowing an unmarried woman to travel any where without an escort of one of her family. That still has failures of the system--even when they add honor killings into the system.
What occurs to me is that no one can offer much or really any proof that an ignorance of the choice surrounding sex is actually beneficial to society or to individuals. Even if 100% of unmarried people we abstinent from sex, you would have to be able to show, at least for me to believe it was an efficacious practice, that it had a net benefit on individuals and on the harmonious life of society. There's no evidence to suggest that this is case, just results- the pre-marriage birth rate would be zero. Would that be better? Would the advantage in that fact outweigh any unforeseen loss? Would such a system actually be manageable?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: For comparison for Canadian readers:
quote: For Canada, which had the lowest rates for all years, the birth/abortion rate for women under age 20 declined from 38.3 per 1,000 in 1990 to 26.6 in 2003. It is notable that in 1990 Canada’s birth/abortion rate was considerably lower than that of England and Wales and dramatically lower than that of the U.S. and that after over a decade of declines in all three countries, Canada’s rate in 2003 remains less than half the rate in either the U.S. or England and Wales.
It should be noted that the statistics I quoted were teen pregnancies and the statistics Mucus quotes are for live births. They are not the same. In the US in 2000, there were 48 live births per 1000, in Utah it was 39.
Actually, they're for live births + abortions . The paper actually says why they removed miscarriages. The reason is that the Statscan directly tracks all of reported abortions, live births, and miscarriages while the UK data is totally missing it and the paper also specifically notes that "since no national data is collected in the U.S. on numbers of miscarriages, the Guttmacher Institute uses an estimate of miscarriages based on a percentage of live births (20%) and abortions (10%) to calculate a teen pregnancy rate."
So they have to omit the miscarriages to make a apples to apples comparison between all three countries.
In fact, if it was live births only as you said, that would be found on page 158 and would give only 17.0 live births per 1000 in Canada in 2000.
quote: I wonder if the difference between Canada and the US reflects differences in racial make up and poverty just like the differences in average age at first marriage. The areas in the US with the highest teen pregnancy rates have high poverty rates and a large fraction of black and hispanic residents. I really would like to see a racial and socio-economic breakdown. I think it would say a lot.
I don't know if the difference for first marriages was actually due to race and poverty. That was just a guess of mine, I think. But it sounds reasonable as a factor.
There's culture too though. I remember a Statcan paper that broke down the fertility by religion and by race. There was a substantial correlation between more intense religiosity and fertility in Canada as well as a breakdown by race and by immigrants which was more mixed. I suspect that abstinence-only education plays a role too.
That reminds me, I'll link to the appropriate sections later. I kinda forgot on the weekend.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: For comparison for Canadian readers:
quote: For Canada, which had the lowest rates for all years, the birth/abortion rate for women under age 20 declined from 38.3 per 1,000 in 1990 to 26.6 in 2003. It is notable that in 1990 Canada’s birth/abortion rate was considerably lower than that of England and Wales and dramatically lower than that of the U.S. and that after over a decade of declines in all three countries, Canada’s rate in 2003 remains less than half the rate in either the U.S. or England and Wales.
It should be noted that the statistics I quoted were teen pregnancies and the statistics Mucus quotes are for live births. They are not the same. In the US in 2000, there were 48 live births per 1000, in Utah it was 39.
Actually, they're for live births + abortions . The paper actually says why they removed miscarriages.
I'm sorry I was looking at the UNESCO report which only includes live births. The other report you link to at beststat.org is a little odd. I simply can't figure out how they come up with the 26.6 number. There are several places in the report where they list total pregnancies, live births and abortions. Based on those tables the combined births/abortions rate for women 15 to 19 is 31.5/1000.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think the majority of the time people who get pregnant by mistake in western countries are aware, one way or another, that they are putting themselves at risk of pregnancy by having unprotected sex. Sex Ed is pretty good where I live, but people still get pregnant.
Married or unmarried, they just lack the mental connection.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit: Hmmm, the Unesco report includes both at least on the page that I referenced but its a bit hard to read. You need to add up the dark and light coloured bars to get the total.
I'm not sure which table you're getting 31.5 from. But as I said, I suspect the discrepancy might be in that in the first section where they cover only Canada they use total pregnancy data from Statscan which directly tracks miscarriages+live births+abortions. However, in the second section where they make the comparison between countries they use only live births+abortions because the other countries lack this data (and in the case of the US, use estimates).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I suspect that abstinence-only education plays a role too.
That would be harder to substantiate. Utah, North Dakota and New Hampshire have abstinence only education and yet the lowest rates of teen pregnancy in the US. Texas, Nevada and Alabama have abstinence only education and some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy. California has some of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country and does not abstinence only education. Vermont has low teen pregnancy rates and no abstinence only program. Overall, the correlation between per capita abstinence only education funding and teen pregnancy is 0.1 which isn't remotely statistically significant.
So if abstinence only education plays a role, it is a very minor role that is swamped out in all the other factors.
Mind you, I'm against abstinence only education. I think sex ed like all other education should be complete and scientifically accurate. But in support of scientific accuracy its my obligation to point out that the evidence does not suggest that abstinence only education either reduces or increases teen pregnancy rates.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Possibly.
(For the earlier note) This is the report with an interesting discussion on religiosity and race as impacting the fertility rate. While we're discussing teenage pregnancy instead in this thread, I thought it would still be interesting.
quote: Differences between countries in levels of sexual activity are too small to account for the wide variation in teenage pregnancy rates. ... Less contraceptive use and less use of hormonal methods are the primary reasons U.S. teenagers have the highest rates of pregnancy, childbearing and abortion. ...
On economics:
quote:At all socioeconomic levels, however, U.S. youth have lower levels of contraceptive use and higher levels of childbearing than their peers in the other study countries. For example, the level of births among U.S. teenagers in the highest income subgroup is 14% higher than the level among similarly advantaged teenagers in Great Britain and higher than the overall levels in Sweden and France. Differences are greatest among disadvantaged youth ...
On abstinence:
quote: •Comprehensive sexuality education, not abstinence promotion, is emphasized in countries with lower teenage pregnancy levels. In Sweden, France, Great Britain and, usually, Canada, the focus of sexuality education is not abstinence promotion but the provision of comprehensive information about prevention of HIV and other STDs; pregnancy prevention; contraceptives and, often, where to get them; and respect and responsibility within relationships. Sexuality education is mandatory in state or public schools in England and Wales, France and Sweden and is taught in most Canadian schools, although the amount of time given to sexuality education, its content and the extent of teacher training vary among these countries and within them as well. In Sweden, the country with the lowest teenage birthrate, sexuality education has been mandated in schools for almost half a century, which reflects, and promotes, the topic’s acceptance as a legitimate and important subject for young people.
Sorry for the spacing, but its due to copying from the pdf.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I suspect that abstinence-only education plays a role too.
That would be harder to substantiate. Utah, North Dakota and New Hampshire have abstinence only education and yet the lowest rates of teen pregnancy in the US. Texas, Nevada and Alabama have abstinence only education and some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy. California has some of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country and does not abstinence only education. Vermont has low teen pregnancy rates and no abstinence only program. Overall, the correlation between per capita abstinence only education funding and teen pregnancy is 0.1 which isn't remotely statistically significant.
So if abstinence only education plays a role, it is a very minor role that is swamped out in all the other factors.
Mind you, I'm against abstinence only education. I think sex ed like all other education should be complete and scientifically accurate. But in support of scientific accuracy its my obligation to point out that the evidence does not suggest that abstinence only education either reduces or increases teen pregnancy rates.
I don't think you're using these statistics properly. There are studies that look directly at the effects of abstinence-only programs. They may have come up already in this thread...when I get a chance, I'll look them up. But in any case, you can't just look at the rates by state because there are too many other factors that play into those numbers.
In any case, the entire issue of teen sex and pregnancy does not boil down to how we teach the subject. I think that removing the abstinence-only agenda is a good step, but in the big scheme of things, it's a small one. Education does not do nearly as much to protect teens from engaging in risky behaviors as a loving, stable home life. And even a loving, stable home life doesn't guarantee anything.
I'm not sure how religion plays into it. There are a lot of bold assumptions going around this thread about the role it plays but I have a few problems with it:
1. No one has shown me numbers. (That's the big one.) 2. How are we judging the effectiveness of the moral stance in question? Are we trying to prevent pregnancy, sex, STD's, or something else?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: Hmmm, the Unesco report includes both at least on the page that I referenced but its a bit hard to read. You need to add up the dark and light coloured bars to get the total.
Yes, I noticed this. The first 2/3 of the UNICEF report is only births but data on abortions is include both birth's and abortions. However, the combined birth/abortion rate for Canada in the UNICEF report is 44.4, signifcantly higher than the number you quoted but that data is a decade old now.
quote:I'm not sure which table you're getting 31.5 from. But as I said, I suspect the discrepancy might be in that in the first section where they cover only Canada they use total pregnancy data from Statscan which directly tracks miscarriages+live births+abortions. However, in the second section where they make the comparison between countries they use only live births+abortions because the other countries lack this data (and in the case of the US, use estimates).
I got the data from Table 1 and Figure 2. It is the sum of the live births and abortions and slightly lower than the total pregnancies (32.1) because of miscarriages. The 26.4 number doesn't show up until the final paragraph and there is no explanation for why it differs from the data presented in the earlier tables which have already separated out the miscarriages. It could be that this number is the birthrate for all women under 20 where as the other data is for women 15-19. That rate would be lower because the denominator will increase faster than the numerator for women under 15, although there is no indication what the lower age limit is for "women under 20" and the report does not clarify this.
Its really just academic at this point since any way you look at the data, Canada has a much lower teen pregnancy rate than the US.
I just noticed that the Guttmacher report does in fact break things down by racial group (non-Hispanic White, black and Hispanic) for all states. As anticipated, the teen pregnancy rates for black and hispanic women are significantly higher but the pregnancy rates for white teenagers are still nearly twice the rate in Canada so racial characteristic are not the only factor contributing to the differences between the US and Canada.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I noticed that racial breakdown. I tried to extrapolate what the pregnancy rates in the US would be if it had a racial composition like Canada but I was foiled since the Guttmacher report only explicitly separates out white, black, and Hispanic which means I had no real idea what number to use for the substantial Chinese and South Asian populations.
I suspect I could find an Asian American source given more time.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I've been perusing the table Guttmacher has give state by state racial breakdown. There isn't a clear cut answer. Although the states with high percentage of blacks and hispanics tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates, in most cases the teen pregnancy rates in those states are also above the national average for the white non-Hispanic teenagers. So there seem to be regional differences that cut across all racial groups.
The one clear exception to this is the District of Columbia. A racial breakdown of prenancy and abortion statistics aren't available in D.C. Only birth statistics are presented. The birth rate to white teenage mother's in D.C. is 2 while the birthrates to Black and Hispanic mothers are over 80. I suspect this is a socio-economic issue rather than strictly a racial issue since whites who live in D.C. are mostly upper middle class professionals but there is substantial poverty among the black and hispanic population.
It's also interesting that the birthrate to Hispanic teenagers in Florida is half the Hispanic teenage birthrate in the rest of the country. I suspect this reflects cultural and economic differences between the largely Cuban Hispanic population in Florida and Hispanics in other parts of the country.
There are clearly a lot of complex regional, economic and racial things going on.
I do find it very interesting that there is such a big difference in birth and marriage between the US and Canada. I'd always assumed that the US and Canada were much more similar culturally. In my experiences visiting western Canada and associating with Canadian, its been hard to observe any significant difference but these stats are showing that there are in fact much more profound differences than are readily apparent.
Oh and I don't think adding Asians to the mix is going to resolve the issue since areas of the US with high Asian populations (California and Washington) don't look any more like Canada than the rest of the country.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit: I think it would definitely help to explain a portion of the difference between the two countries. Perhaps not a big portion, but its definitely a factor.
California doesn't really mean all that much since as large as the Asian population is there, the Hispanic population swamps it and even in Washington its still larger. Plus in the following paper, the Asian demographics in California have heavy proportions of Filipinos (with a higher teenage pregnancy rate) almost equalling the Chinese population, something that Canada doesn't have.
We can see that the national API (Asian and Pacific Islanders) pregnancy rate is almost half that of the white population.
Figure 2 is especially interesting since it addresses the subject more directly than the Canadian paper.
Chinese-Americans have the lowest percentage of births to teens at 0.8% compared to 6% for Asians as a whole, 12% for whites, and 16% for Hispanics.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
O I agree that differences in ethnic make up are a factor, they just don't seem to be the major factor. Canada is about 11.5% people of Asian ancestry. Even if there were no teenage births among Asian Canadians it wouldn't explain the factor of two difference between teenage pregnancies in Canada and teenage pregnancies among white non-Hispanics in the US.
The abortion ratio is also higher in Canada, but even when you include that you get teen birth/abortion rates that are much much lower in Canada than in the US.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)