Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope, nope, nope. Study after study has shown that "abstinence-only programs" do not work. Do. Not. Work. They are a waste of money. I could post dozens of references to this fact, but the Wikipedia entry is a good place to start: Abstinence-only sex education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Evidence does not support the use of abstinence only sex education.[1] It has been found to be ineffective in decreasing HIV risk in the developed world,[2] and does not decrease rates of unplanned pregnancy.[1]"
Only "full-disclosure" education does that...
And now that many girls are beginning menstruation at 9 to 10 years of age, apparently due to diet and other environmental factors, it's an increasingly serious public health issue not to present the facts to our kids by middle school.
And the biological side of sexual education needs to be taught in public schools because so many parents are simply not up to the task... either they don't KNOW the facts, or they're emotionally unequipped to deliver the message properly. It's not the school's role to teach morality... that's the parent's role. But it is the school's responsibility to teach our kids at least the minimum acceptable to survive in the present world.
The error in your thinking comes from the inappropriate use of the term "reward," which completely begs the issue.
And by the way, studies also show that for every $1 spent on contraception the state averages $4 in savings in avoided public health costs due to uninsured pregnancies, so even conservatives can feel good about it.
Well, the studies you cite really prove nothing, or if they do prove anything at all, it is that the researcher came to an opinion about certain programs he chose to study. A different researcher, with a different set of biases, would study different things and come to different conclusions. Physics is effective as a science that can predict the future, but sociology is not.
And abstinence works pretty good... But as a law enforcement issue, not an educational process. Our society gets people to abstain, via sanctions of one kind or another, from a whole lot of antisocial behaviors, like rape, murder, Drunk driving, sexual abuse, etc.
The State of Texas is not a "nanny state" that is supposed to engineer a perfect society, it is merely a law enforcement vehicle that discourages antisocial behavior and promotes the survival amd good order of the society. Everyone agrees that rape, embezzlement and perjury should be prohibited, but there is no general agreement on the specifics of what kind of utopia a nanny state should create.
Maybe the Moslem countries have it right... Restrict the opportunities for libidinous teenagers to mingle, pLace heavy sanctions on extramarital sexual contact, and reward abstinence. In our culture, though, we should penalize both sexes equally. Currently, we don't. Two teenagers are caught in flagrante delicto, and the boy is the one who is marked as a registered sex offender, and the girl is considered a victim. We use language like "HE got her pregnant". Perhaps that attitude is a flaw in our society we need to fix before we can fix teenage pregnancies.
One other thing... It is not the parent's job to teach morality. It is the job of the church to teach morality.
If I only knew at 20 what I now know, my life would have been easier. And the same is true for most parents and their teenage children. But you might wonder why it is that parents cannot transmit their hard won insight into the perils of messing around to their children.
Nope, nope, nope. Study after study has shown that "abstinence-only programs" do not work. Do. Not. Work. They are a waste of money. I could post dozens of references to this fact, but the Wikipedia entry is a good place to start: Abstinence-only sex education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Evidence does not support the use of abstinence only sex education.[1] It has been found to be ineffective in decreasing HIV risk in the developed world,[2] and does not decrease rates of unplanned pregnancy.[1]"
Only "full-disclosure" education does that...
And now that many girls are beginning menstruation at 9 to 10 years of age, apparently due to diet and other environmental factors, it's an increasingly serious public health issue not to present the facts to our kids by middle school.
And the biological side of sexual education needs to be taught in public schools because so many parents are simply not up to the task... either they don't KNOW the facts, or they're emotionally unequipped to deliver the message properly. It's not the school's role to teach morality... that's the parent's role. But it is the school's responsibility to teach our kids at least the minimum acceptable to survive in the present world.
The error in your thinking comes from the inappropriate use of the term "reward," which completely begs the issue.
And by the way, studies also show that for every $1 spent on contraception the state averages $4 in savings in avoided public health costs due to uninsured pregnancies, so even conservatives can feel good about it.
The "error" in my thinking in terms of the application of the term of "rewarding"? Surely you jest! LMAO. What the hell else would you call a system which pays welfare benefits to irresponsible kids having babies and unable to care for them, themselves? Please spare this didactic condecending lecture...
But I have to ask, do YOU have any kids of your own? If so, what have you taught them as concerns sex education?
If you do not? Then what are your credentials to speak about "our kids" and presume to pontificate on the failure of the parents to know nothing about the subject?
Show these studies you speak of, BTW. There is always "some study" to prove anything that one wants to prove...even that the moon is made of green cheese.
Not trying to be a smarta$$, but please spare the dubious figures. I can parade out just as many that indicate the opposite in "cost/benefit" tables...
As it is, it is late at night and I think I am going to hit the sack with a good plate of grits and fried catfish! Will rejoin tomorow! Y'all all have a good un'!
A different researcher, with a different set of biases, would study different things and come to different conclusions.
Not really... pretty simple methodology, really, and scientifically valid... birth rate of teens getting "abstinence-only" education vs. birth rate of teens getting education about contraception, for instance. I hate to spoil the suspense, but teen pregnancies in "abstinence-only" programs are higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
And abstinence works pretty good... But as a law enforcement issue, not an educational process.
That's beyond the scope of this discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
Maybe the Moslem countries have it right... Restrict the opportunities for libidinous teenagers to mingle, pLace heavy sanctions on extramarital sexual contact, and reward abstinence.
Sorry, I'm interested in discussing reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
In our culture, though, we should penalize both sexes equally. Currently, we don't. Two teenagers are caught in flagrante delicto, and the boy is the one who is marked as a registered sex offender, and the girl is considered a victim. We use language like "HE got her pregnant". Perhaps that attitude is a flaw in our society we need to fix before we can fix teenage pregnancies.
Change the word "penalize" to "treat" and I'd basically agree. But I doubt that change, if made, would "fix" teen pregnancies, because it doesn't get at the cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
One other thing... It is not the parent's job to teach morality. It is the job of the church to teach morality.
Parents DO teach morality, inevitably, whether a church is involved or not.
Not really... pretty simple methodology, really, and scientifically valid... birth rate of teens getting "abstinence-only" education vs. birth rate of teens getting education about contraception, for instance. I hate to spoil the suspense, but teen pregnancies in "abstinence-only" programs are higher.
That's beyond the scope of this discussion
Sorry, I'm interested in discussing reality.
Change the word "penalize" to "treat" and I'd basically agree. But I doubt that change, if made, would "fix" teen pregnancies, because it doesn't get at the cause.
Parents DO teach morality, inevitably, whether a church is involved or not.
I g.uess we have to agree to disagree as to the value or applicability of sociological studies. You believe they mean something and I think jthey have no universal applicability. I wish they did, but I don't see sociology explaining or clarifying any fundamental laws of human social behavior.
For example, you still have the basic unknown of cause and effect. Do abstinence programs cause pregnancies, or are they the effect of a high number of pregnancies in a group. Or, does a Hugh incidence of pregnancies cause a community to go to abstinence programs, whereas they would not do it for a smaller number of pregnancies.
Ultimately, how could a sociologist test a theory that no possible abstinence program, either currently known, or yet to be developed, would be effective? How do you conduct experiments on societies? Actually, you don't.
No, parents are not preachers, nor do they have any training in interpretation of a religious doctrine or the art of applying it to particular cases. Most especially, they are not trained in the art and craft of convincing others to behave in certain ways just by persuasion alone. If I wanted a specific question answered, I go to the religious authority of my choice. They after all, are trained and educated in that field.
I'd say there's a lot of reality in looking at how other cultures and societies solve human problems. Especially if we can't solve our own.
I'd agree that we have to fix the basic cause of a phenomenon such as teen unwed pregnancies. We may not agree on what that cause is, though. In fact, we may not agree on exactly what problem we are solving.
For example, we think the statistics on teenage pregnancies are too high. The problem could actually be faulty data, a misinterpretation of the data, or mathematical errors in the process.
What the hell else would you call a system which pays welfare benefits to irresponsible kids having babies and unable to care for them, themselves?
Not a reward, certainly. On the whole, teens who get pregnant do not see it as a fun experience, nor do they get pregnant on purpose, which would be a logical response if they thought welfare was a reward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
But I have to ask, do YOU have any kids of your own? If so, what have you taught them as concerns sex education?
Sure, both natural and step. From early ages we made sure they knew about sexuality, pregnancy, contraception, STD's, homosexuality, everything! And we had an open-door policy any time they wanted to discuss anything. It worked brilliantly. No whoopsies whatsoever. None.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Show these studies you speak of, BTW. There is always "some study" to prove anything that one wants to prove...even that the moon is made of green cheese. ...
This is a nonsense argument, based on a cliche. Real science has not only proved the moon is made of rock, but also given quite us a lot of information about what kind of rock it is, and what its geological history has been. Science cannot be twisted to "prove anything," but in fact is designed to systematically confirm valid information and flush out the bad over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
...Not trying to be a smarta$$, but please spare the dubious figures. I can parade out just as many that indicate the opposite in "cost/benefit" tables...
Actually, you can't, because such "opposite" studies don't exist in great numbers. That's why this issue is so clear. The preponderance of evidence shows that abundance-only education is ineffective at reducing either unwanted pregnancy or STDs.
Not a reward, certainly. On the whole, teens who get pregnant do not see it as a fun experience, nor do they get pregnant on purpose, which would be a logical response if they thought welfare was a reward.
i would opine that teens regard getting pregnant as a fun experience, even if they don't know exactly what's happening.
Quote:
This is a nonsense argument, based on a cliche. Real science has not only proved the moon is made of rock, but also given quite us a lot of information about what kind of rock it is, and what its geological history has been. Science cannot be twisted to "prove anything," but in fact is designed to systematically confirm valid information and flush out the bad over time.
no, there is no scientific insight as to the composition of the moon's core. Moreover, the scientific method cannot prove that a theory is right, it can only prove it wrong. If it is not invalidated today, or this year, or this decade, it could potentially be invalidated in the future.
The studies you refer to are only opinions based on somebody's interpretation of selective data for specific cases. They are not experimental demonstrations of fundamental laws. And also, a study is an expression of opinion, and an opinion cannot be falsified, and is thus outside the scope of the scientific method.
Quote:
Actually, you can't, because such "opposite" studies don't exist in great numbers. That's why this issue is so clear. The preponderance of evidence shows that abundance-only education is ineffective at reducing either unwanted pregnancy or STDs.
the numbers don't matter, because it takes only one piece of contrary evidence to falsify a theory. If I had one documented case of objects falling up instead. Of down, I would have falsified the law of gravity. Science is not based on the "preponderance" of evidence, but the unanimity of evidence.
I g.uess we have to agree to disagree as to the value or applicability of sociological studies. You believe they mean something and I think jthey have no universal applicability. I wish they did, but I don't see sociology explaining or clarifying any fundamental laws of human social behavior.
Fundamental laws are about why things happen. But you don't have to understand why something happens to report on what happens. Give kids good sexual education and access to contraception and the pregnancy rate goes down. That's perfectly valid information, information people can act upon, even before there is any understanding of why it is so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
Ultimately, how could a sociologist test a theory that no possible abstinence program, either currently known, or yet to be developed, would be effective? How do you conduct experiments on societies? Actually, you don't.
Again, it's not important to test that theory in order to take action today on what we actually do know, which is that the current abstinence programs do not work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
No, parents are not preachers, nor do they have any training in interpretation of a religious doctrine or the art of applying it to particular cases. ...
Religion is not morality. What I said is that like it or not, kids learn morality - the principles of good and bad, and what's right and wrong - from their parents. And it's quite often more a process of osmosis than a matter of instruction, and it happens whether the parents are religious or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
I'd say there's a lot of reality in looking at how other cultures and societies solve human problems. Especially if we can't solve our own.
Fine, study away. I look forward to your report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
I'd agree that we have to fix the basic cause of a phenomenon such as teen unwed pregnancies. We may not agree on what that cause is, though. In fact, we may not agree on exactly what problem we are solving.
I'd say the issue is reducing unwanted teen pregnancies, and STD's. Others would say the issue is eliminating teen sexuality. Personally I think the first is a reasonable goal, and the second is hopelessly naive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
For example, we think the statistics on teenage pregnancies are too high. The problem could actually be faulty data, a misinterpretation of the data, or mathematical errors in the process.
Could be, but the preponderance of the evidence is that the high pregnancy rate is actually due to teenagers having babies.
i would opine that teens regard getting pregnant as a fun experience, even if they don't know exactly what's happening.
Interesting opinion. Based on what? Ever talk to any pregnant teenagers? I have. The ones I've talked to described their experiences in such terms as: terrifying, upsetting, nauseating, freaky, embarrassing, shameful, inconvenient, and horrible. I'm not saying there aren't any who find it fun, just that I've never talked to any. So I have a very different opinion than you do. But I'm clear my opinion is based on a statistically insignificant sample size, and wasn't scientifically obtained, so it is merely anecdotal evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
no, there is no scientific insight as to the composition of the moon's core.
I seriously doubt there is a moon scientist alive who would agree with that statement. There are insights aplenty, from a wide variety of observations. No proof, of course, but a great deal of recorded data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
Moreover, the scientific method cannot prove that a theory is right, it can only prove it wrong. If it is not invalidated today, or this year, or this decade, it could potentially be invalidated in the future.
A scientific theory is not what most lay people think it is. The word "theory" means something quite different in science than it does in murder novels. In science a theory is not a speculation, it is an agreed on conclusion. What Miss Marple works on should more accurately described as hypotheses, not theories. Hypotheses can be considered right or wrong or right or wrong multiple times on the way to developing the eventual community consensus known as a theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
The studies you refer to are only opinions based on somebody's interpretation of selective data for specific cases. They are not experimental demonstrations of fundamental laws.
They're not meant to be demonstrations of fundamental laws. They're exactly what they're meant to be... recording of data and examining it for significant patterns. The reports on those studies express opinions, which are then published for other scientists to review. But the data are objective, not subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
And also, a study is an expression of opinion, and an opinion cannot be falsified, and is thus outside the scope of the scientific method.
Actually, a study is a record of observations or data recorded, and if properly done can be duplicated and confirmed by another person, regardless of the opinion they hold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
the numbers don't matter, because it takes only one piece of contrary evidence to falsify a theory. If I had one documented case of objects falling up instead. Of down, I would have falsified the law of gravity. ...
...Science is not based on the "preponderance" of evidence, but the unanimity of evidence.
That's another lay misconception. As a matter of fact, statistical analysis of the often imperfect data is one of the key tools for testing and confirming the validity of reported results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savanite
Your studies, by the way, are not evidence.
Of course they are, and as you know, they're even introduced as evidence at hearings and during trials. Studies can have all kinds of practical use in the real world, even if there is no "unified field theory" about why the results are what they are.
Well, you and I have some differences and there is some confusion as well.
First of all, we can agree that sexual behavior is pleasurable, which is why teenagers do it. It is also necessary for pregnancy. Thus, the process of becoming pregnant is pleasurable. I'd agree that the long term consequences are not...
My view is that the criminal justice system is the proper institution to try to dissuade pleasurable, antisocial behavior. An effective abstinence program would have a coercive element, just as any other anti-crime program has a coercive element.
There are many other criminal behaviors of teenagers that the law addresses and prohibits, some more successfully than others. I would doubt that classroom lectures can curb criminality, but social coercion via one form or another definitely does generate pro social behavior in a society and limits the antisocial.
In my opinion, sociology is not a legitimate science, and it's conclusions have no value, especially compared to physics. It's no more credible than astrology, alchemy or creation science. But that is a topic for another thread.
Last edited by savanite; 06-10-2012 at 06:58 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
