[Mongoose]

Yeah...notice how nothing mentioned in that section has anything at all to do with religious coercion as a condition for distribution of aid?  Which was what you were talking about in the first place?

[iamzack]

I guess I can only speak from my own experiences. My old church would help homeless and hungry... but they had to come to services first.

[General Battuta]

(Oh, and here's a fun new study.)

I actually don't mean this offensively, Mongoose, but you should learn to read studies (everyone should, it's a great skill.)

This study found no significant difference in sex rates between those who received abstinence-only and those who received a comprehensive program that encouraged safe sex and delayed sex.

So in spite of the crappy reporting it doesn't actually show any benefit to abstinence-only programs.

[Mongoose]

I guess I can only speak from my own experiences. My old church would help homeless and hungry... but they had to come to services first.

Well, as I said, I'd consider them worthy of derision for doing so.  As I read them, the Corporal Works of Mercy don't start out, "Feed the hungry...after they've sat in church for an hour."

And yes, Battuta, I realize that one study is hardly completely-definitive evidence, and that there are ancillary issues involved, but it does provide an interesting counter-point to those who would say, "This can never work!"  At least if I'm reading the details right, a properly-planned and comprehensive abstinence-only program can potentially produce effective results.  In any case, seeing as how there are enough debates piling up in this thread as-is, I don't feel like we need to throw another one into the mix.

[Turambar]

I think it all comes down to this:

We may not be happier, but things are certainly better when we live lives that are firmly grounded in reality.  

[General Battuta]

Edited my post, check it out.

And edit to this one: I don't mean to say it's Mongoose's fault, the reporting on this study was seriously crap. Highly sensationalized.

Oh my god, seriously, this makes me lol:

Similarly, in this trial the abstinence-only intervention participants did not differ in self-reported consistent condom use compared with the control group.

The study is saying that the abstinence-only intervention failed to increase condom usage rates above the control. That means 'useless'. Their claim that 'abstinence-only doesn't hurt condom use rates' is a bald-faced lie; it causes them to use condoms no more than they would if they'd received no intervention at all.

[Mongoose]

I'm...not really understanding your point here.  There are significant percentage differences listed between the abstinence-only and control group participants in the "Results" section of the linked article.  And even people who were general opponents of abstinence-only education are quoted in the article stating that the study represents a "new tool" and could hold potential if implemented properly.  Did I miss something critical?

(Oh, and the day I enjoy reading scientific studies is the day I lie in a box in the ground.  I utterly abhor the style they're written in, which seems more designed to obfuscate comprehension than anything else. )

[iamzack]

Abstinence-only is damaging for a lot of reasons.

Personal anecdote: I started having sex at 14. I and everyone I knew at the time thought that you had to be 18 to buy condoms, because the abstinence-only ed program at our school wasn't even allowed to mention condoms except to say that they pretty much don't work anyway.

Abstinence-only sex ed is a load of bull****. It's completely sexist and totally insane. Why shouldn't girls have sex? Because then they will be worthless! Girls are only valuable if they are virgins! And you know what else? Since gays can't get married, they'll never have sex, so we don't need to mention them at all! And what about people who don't see the point of marriage, because they aren't religious, or whatever else? No sex! Ever!

Who needs to know how to put on a condom, where to find one, what different sizes mean? Why should girls know about different forms of birth control? They're never having sex, ever, until they're married, and then they will WANT babies!

[General Battuta]

I'm...not really understanding your point here.  There are significant percentage differences listed between the abstinence-only and control group participants in the "Results" section of the linked article.  And even people who were general opponents of abstinence-only education are quoted in the article stating that the study represents a "new tool" and could hold potential if implemented properly.  Did I miss something critical?

Yes - you're comparing to the control instead of the comprehensive intervention program. The abstinence-only programs don't differ significantly from the comprehensive programs in terms of delaying sex. They also don't do anything to promote condom use.

This means they're no better than a comprehensive program at delaying sex and significantly worse at promoting safe sex.

In short, they do nothing a comprehensive program can't, and fail to do many things a comprehensive program can.

(Oh, and the day I enjoy reading scientific studies is the day I lie in a box in the ground.  I utterly abhor the style they're written in, which seems more designed to obfuscate comprehension than anything else. )

That's why practice is necessary. Unfortunately until science reporting gets a lot better the actual studies are the only trustworthy source.

Fortunately this study is quite careful to say that abstinence-only programs should only be used in places where people refuse to accept real sexual health programs. And it also points out that it differs from 'actual' abstinence only programs:

This trial tested a theory-based abstinence-only intervention that would not meet federal criteria for abstinence programs and that is not vulnerable to many criticisms that have been leveled against interventions that meet federal criteria.19-20,36 It was not moralistic and did not criticize the use of condoms. Moreover, it had several characteristics associated with effective sexual risk-reduction interventions. It was theory-based and tailored to the target population based on qualitative data and included skill-building activities. It addressed the context of sexual activity and beliefs about the consequences of sexual involvement derived from the target population.

[Mongoose]

Yes - you're comparing to the control instead of the comprehensive intervention program. The abstinence-only programs don't differ significantly from the comprehensive programs in terms of delaying sex. They also don't do anything to promote condom use.

But...isn't that kind of the point?  These programs, by their very nature, cannot actively promote condom use; as you yourself noted, that would be considered unacceptable in the environments where such programs would be implemented.  The fact that they are just as effective as programs which take the more comprehensive approach, and also manage to not lower the rates of condom use among those who do have sex, is noteworthy in and of itself.

And iamzack, just for once, could you can the ridiculous hyperbole?  The specific virginity of women and sexual orientation have literally nothing to do with this particular topic.  Do you know how immensely frustrating it is to try to have a reasonable discussion and then have someone chime in with a post-load of sensationalistic statements?

You know what?  **** this.  I didn't want to discuss this particular subject in the least.  The only reason I threw that ****ing link at the end of my post was in response to iamzack's little "religious-freaks" flamebait...and hey, look, it evolved into its own full-blown argument, because that's apparently how things have to work in this godforsaken hellhole of a folder.

Seriously, **** General Discussion.  This is ridiculous.

[General Battuta]

Heh, I know the feeling. Though I do think iamzack makes some fair points. Not teaching those vital skills is a problem. And virginity is considered far more valuable in women than in men - men are encouraged to lose it as rapidly as possible.

And yes, as long as you understand that this study only shows that these programs should be used where more effective problems absolutely cannot be used, then yes, that's good. But any place like that...really needs fixing.

The reporting on the study was criminally awful, though.

[Nuclear1]

I'm just really getting tired of blanket statements.

That's the only reason I went off on the religious charities tangent in the first place...I honestly don't care about religion one way or the other, as long they just stay out of other people's business.

[iamzack]

Well they really can't, can they. Most of them revolve around getting new converts.

[Scotty]

Yeah, just like anything else.  Ever wonder why companies have commercials?

[iamzack]

Yeah, but companies are trying to sell something real. A product which exists without a doubt.

Religion is trying to sell something they can't prove to exist. And they don't just want money (though they generally want plenty of money), they want to curtail your freedom with silly rules they pulled from some incredibly ancient culture.

[karajorma]

(Oh, and here's a fun new study.)

Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.

Bear in mind that they only studied the effects two years later. Pretty much most studies I've read state that Abstinence Only programs have a good short-term effect but long term they don't work and actually have a detrimental effect on teenage pregnancies because the children now having sex have no other education about the issue other than "Don't do it"

[Nemesis6]

How much of abstinence-only education is actually religiously-grounded? When they don't work in the long run, wouldn't it make sense to teach or encourage masturbation? That's where I've seen some nasty ideology pop up - Apparently, spilling your seed is not allowed. I can't see any secular, rational person teaching abstinence only. Am I off base when I get the distinct feeling that abstinence only is, generally, a religious idea?

[Scotty]

Yeah, but companies are trying to sell something real. A product which exists without a doubt.

Religion is trying to sell something they can't prove to exist. And they don't just want money (though they generally want plenty of money), they want to curtail your freedom with silly rules they pulled from some incredibly ancient culture.

Ignoring the first bit for a moment:  Explain to me why an insurance company is any different from what you just described.

[Mongoose]

How much of abstinence-only education is actually religiously-grounded? When they don't work in the long run, wouldn't it make sense to teach or encourage masturbation? That's where I've seen some nasty ideology pop up - Apparently, spilling your seed is not allowed. I can't see any secular, rational person teaching abstinence only. Am I off base when I get the distinct feeling that abstinence only is, generally, a religious idea?

The save-sex-for-marriage-only is generally religiously-motivated, but you honestly can't see a legitimate motivation for a somewhat-different course?  How about teaching kids to save intercourse until they're in a healthy, committed relationship where both parties are mature enough to handle both the action and the consequences?  At least in my mind, that's a far more sensible approach than, "Go **** like rabbits, but make sure your dick's wrapped up first!"

And the exact tenets of my own faith aside, I've always been confused about the masturbation issue myself.  I mean...the entire problem of teens having sex centers around raging hormones, right?  Well, then just take matters into your own hands (so to speak), blow off some steam, get your endorphin rush, and completely avoid any of the potential issues that intercourse presents.  After all, who knows what turns you on better than you yourself?

[karajorma]

Pretty much any sensibly taught sex ed course teaches the value of abstinence. The problem comes when that's ALL the course teaches. As I've pointed out in the past, sex ed is about more than stopping kids ****ing. It's meant to teach you stuff you need even in married life.