>> Too bad teaching one's daughters not to be whores doesn't seem like an >> option. > >Heh, you're funny! Liberals don't think the parents should do >anything when it comes to teaching their kids about sex. Abstinence >as an educational program was laughed at.
Of course it was, anything that does not work should be laughed at. The cumulative results and data has been quite clear, girls attending abstinence only classes were significantly more likely to get pregnant, while the girlfriends of boys attending these classes were much more likely to get pregnant, even if they did not attend such classes themselves. Here's a fairly typical recent study: Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy Pamela K. Kohler, R.N., M.P.H.a,c, Lisa E. Manhart, Ph.D.b,c, and William E.. Lafferty, M.D.a,* Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 344 â351 (http://www.planetwire.org/files.fcgi/7689_Ab_Only_Ed_Kohler_.pdf) Abstract Purpose: The role that sex education plays in the initiation of sexual activity and risk of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD) is controversial in the United States. Despite several systematic reviews, few epidemiologic evaluations of the effectiveness of these programs on a population level have been conducted. Methods: Among never-married heterosexual adolescents, aged 15â19 years, who participated in Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth and reported on formal sex education received before their ï¬rst sexual intercourse (n = 1719), we compared the sexual health risks of adolescents who received abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education to those of adolescents who received no formal sex education. Weighted multivariate logistic regression generated population-based estimates. Results: Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education were signiï¬cantly less likely to report teen pregnancy (R2 adj = .4, 95% CI = .22â .69, p < .001) than those who received no formal sex education, whereas there was no signiï¬cant effect of abstinence-only education (R2adj = .7, 95% CI = .38 â1.45, p < .38). Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse (R2adj = .8, 95% CI = .51â1.31, p < .40), but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal inter- course (R2adj = .7, 95% CI = .49 â1.02, p < .06). Neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex education signiï¬cantly reduced the likelihood of reported STD diagnoses (Radj = 1.7, 95% CI = .57â34.76, p < .36 and R2adj = 1.8, 95% CI = .67â5.00, p < .24 respectively). Conclusions: Teaching about contraception was not associated with increased risk of adolescent sexual activity or STD. Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education had a lower risk of pregnancy than adolescents who received abstinence-only or no sex education. -- Here's another relevant review: http://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2007&issue=10000&article=00008&type=abstract Abstinence and abstinence-only education Ott, Mary A; Santelli, John S Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology: Adolescent and pediatric gynecology October 2007 - Volume 19 - Issue 5 - p 446-452 Purpose of review: To review recent literature on medical accuracy, program effectiveness, and ethical concerns related to abstinence-only policies for adolescent sexuality education. Recent findings: The federal government invests over 175 million dollars annually in 'abstinence-only-until-marriage' programs. These programs are required to withhold information on contraception and condom use, except for information on failure rates. Abstinence-only curricula have been found to contain scientifically inaccurate information, distorting data on topics such as condom efficacy, and promote gender stereotypes. An independent evaluation of the federal program, several systematic reviews, and cohort data from population-based surveys find little evidence of efficacy and evidence of possible harm. In contrast, comprehensive sexuality education programs have been found to help teens delay initiation of intercourse and reduce sexual risk behaviors. Abstinence-only polices violate the human rights of adolescents because they withhold potentially life-saving information on HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Summary: Federal support of abstinence-only as an approach to adolescent sexuality education is of much concern due to medical inaccuracies, lack of effectiveness, and the withholding and distorting of health information. -- I have information for about another 40 articles (not policy papers, and the article must have been published in a peer reviewed journal - not a pay for publish, and published in the last 15 years). Eventually I hope to turn these into datapoints for a comprehensive meta-analysis. While a few studies (< 5) do support the effectiveness of abstinence education, in my opinion they are so methodologically flawed as to be fundimentally worthless. So the conclusion can be easily drawn that abstinence only education is worthless, and there is a possibility that it may be harmful. So in reference to your original statement, given the overwhelming evidence against abstinence education do you want to revise your diatribe? Or do you prefer faith based science to real research? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:292683 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
