abstinece-only sex education

Sigh - we went through this last time you harked on about the 1960s, when I produced a series of reports that demonstrated that there were more unmarried mothers in the 1950s. Do I really have to do all that stuff up again - your pre-1960s golden age never existed - it didn't happened.

All how we all go in circles - I'm still looking for the earlier earlier thread (about unmarried moms) but this is from a later one on some of the same subject.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The rate of teen childbearing in the United States has fallen steeply since the late 1950s, from an all time high of 96 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 in 1957 to an all time low of 49 in 2000. Birthrates fell steadily throughout the 1960s and 1970s;

​

They were fairly steady in the early 1980s and then rose sharply between 1988 and 1991 before declining throughout the 1990s. In recent years, this downward trend has occurred among teens of all ages and races.

---

​

Boonstra, H. Teen Pregnancy: Trends And Lessons Learned U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under grant FPR00072.

​

quote:

---

Behind the movement of the 1880s lay the agitation around the Contagious Diseases Acts as well as religious revivalism. The campaign for the repeal of these Acts of the 1860s which allowed compulsory examination of women suspected of working as prostitutes in garrison towns and ports, gave women the experience of thinking and speaking about previously tabooed topics. Women in the Ladies National Association inspired by Josephine Butler, were united in indignation against the double standard of sexual morality, men's use of prostitutes and the sexual abuse of children.

---

​

But..but..it was the 1880s! It was better wanna it.. Those women were fighting against something that wasn't a problem until the 1960s.

​

quote:

---

Hopkins advised the Ladies Associations to set up Vigilance Associations in their towns, where they did not already exist, to concern themselves with indecent printed matter and shows, brothel-visiting, and prosecution of sex offenders.

---

​

Sheila Jeffreys, 'Free from all uninvited touch of man': Women's campaigns around sexuality, 1880-1914, Women's Studies International Forum, Volume 5, Issue 6, 1982, Pages 629-645.

​

And yes people saw "traditional" marriage as a wonderful thing..oh wait...

​

quote:

---

Now this may very probably be a survival of the old evil doctrine of the subjection of women and the absolute supremacy of the head of the family over all members of it . In all nations of progressive civilization the history of their progress has consisted in the gradual emancipation of sons, servants, daughters and wives from their former subjection

---

​

Fawcett. Millicent. 1892. On the amendments Required in the Criminal law. Amendment Act 1X85. Women's Printing Society.London.

---

[/quote]http://EvC Forum: Sex Education -->EvC Forum: Sex Education

I was actually quite shocked to find out about this - 1967!!!!!

quote:

---

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

---

Loving v. Virginia - WikipediaEdited by CK, : Typo.

I think the problem is that most people here cannot actually work out what it is you are advocating beyond "follow god".Let's try and get some clarity into the debate.1) You would agree or diagree that in their current state and in the current social context that abstinece only programs have failed?2) Depending on your answer to (1) - what would you suggest is the way forward from the position of sex-education provision?

That leads me to a 3rd area for clarification - what are the moral principles that Faith feels need to be in place?EDIT: I should add the reason for that question. I am assuming
that Faith will mention the importance of marriage. However the important of marriage is a religious or cultural thing isn't it (mainly) ? not a moral one?Edited by CK, : Clarification of importance of question.

Yes that's a better way to put it.Maybe a better way to phrase it is"If the promotion of marriage is an important part of this program*, then what is the moral basis for such a stance?*** Sex-education** Again I'm making the assumption that faith wants a program that has a certain number of moral principles at it's core

If you don't want to advocate anything - I'm not sure what more there is to discuss?That's the end of the thread, no?

Well since we are all in agreement that abstinece-only education is a waste of time - besides going "yah! how great we all are!" there really is nothing to discuss unless someone had a counter viewpoint that they wish to put. As far as I can see, you are the only person doing anything remotely like that, so unless you have a program to advocate to us - I'm at a loss what else there is to do besides post in a circle.

You have to wonder why Syphilis was so rampant in the 16th century (which is why the condom was invented)? What was god punishing those god-loving folks for?

He's saying he knows how to fornicate. Why he feels the need to tell you that is beyond me.You can use MSM chat and the like if you two want to have that sort of conversation.

quote:

---

The reality is that there were TWO, count 'em, TWO, "venereal diseases" or STDs, known to humanity at large before the 60s -- or really the 70s and 80s which were when the fruit of the 60s seeds started to sprout. TWO. Syphilis and gonorrhea.

---

Where do you get this idea from? What's your source?(hint: I already know but would like you to confirm it).Here a challenge for the rest of you - do a google for the idea that there were only two STDs per-1960s and see what sort of sites you get back.I bet the more psychic amongst you can already guess!Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by CK, : Challenge for others

No your point was that

quote:

---

. And now we've got NEW ONES that are going to take at least as much work IF it is even possible to control them by purely medical and chemical means.

---

I was going to show you that actually we don't have many new ones and in terms of infections we has 100s of them running around pre-1960s but since you have already said you will not read the link - what's the point?But your problem is two-fold -1) The public were not clearly aware of them therefore it didn't exist.2) I don't want to read your links!I honestly* don't understand why you have never been banned, you have never had the slightest interest in any form of real debate.It's not a productive use of my time to get into a long whinefest with you but I didn't want people to think I just didn't respond to you.* actually I do - what appears to be a 24hr posting addiction must be responsible for a fair percentage of the overall monthly stats. You are a sausage factory - it makes no difference that most of your answers are 1) I don't want to read this 2) I don't want to listen to this 3) I only want to be able to debate this if I can make up words and concepts - you still help generate good numbers.Edited by CK, : Changed title from "Faith - total waste of space".

Ok from reading the research into this area, it seems to me that the following is what happens.First - does Abstinece-only education stop teenagers having sex?Well - yes seems to be the answer.. but only in the short-term it's a delaying tactic*.So that's a good thing right?Well yes and no - when they do have sex, because they have little or no education about protection, they are more likely to have unprotected sex and this means that the rates of STDs are either the same as other teenagers or actually higher (depending on the study you quote).The other problem is teenagers on those programs are more likely to engange in underprotected anal sex - because this is not seen as "real sex" and therefore they are still virgins.* even that claim is doubtful - a survey of schools in Texas found that:

quote:

---

The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.

​

Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education.

---

MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

quote:

---

Although federal AOE funding language requires teaching that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological effects, there are no scientific data suggesting that consensual sex between adolescents is harmful.

---

quote:

---

In contrast to the positive impact in delaying sexual intercourse seen with some comprehensive sexuality programs, Kirby found no scientific evidence that abstinence-only programs demonstrate efficacy in delaying initiation of sexual intercourse.

---

quote:

---

Add Health data suggest that many teens who intend to be abstinent fail to do so, and that when abstainers do initiate intercourse, many fail to protect themselves by using contraception [49] and [50]. Bearman and colleagues have examined the virginity pledge movement; they estimate that over 2.5 million adolescents have taken public “virginity pledges.” They found that pledgers were more likely to delay initiation of intercourse, 18 months on average for adolescents aged 12-18 years. However, those pledgers who failed at abstinence were less likely to use contraception after they did initiate sexual intercourse. At six-year follow-up, the prevalence of STIs (chlamydia, gonorrhea, trichomoniasis, and human papillomavirus [HPV]) was similar among those taking the abstinence pledge and non-pledgers [50].

---

quote:

---

Abstinence-only sex education classes are unlikely to meet the health needs of GLBTQ youth, as they largely ignore issues surrounding homosexuality (except when discussing transmission of HIV/AIDS), and often stigmatize homosexuality as deviant and unnatural behavior [70]. Homophobia contributes to health problems such as suicide, feelings of isolation and loneliness, HIV infection, substance abuse, and violence among GLBTQ youth [71] and [72].

---

I know we normally frown upon simple cut and pastes but many readers will be unable to access this material - this is intended to give them an idea of what the thrust of the work is. Others who have access, please attempt to correct any bias I may have demonstrated.

quote:

---

Are you guys aware that when AIDS was getting known that it was the Gay Community that absolutely refused to let Public Health investigate, test and identify the disease in individiauls, because they didn't want it identified as a gay disease? Thus it was allowed to spread among those who had most to lose from it.

---

I don't know much of the history of this but I thought it was pretty quickly established that drug-users were at risk (1981 onwards)? as were other hetrosexual groups?Do you have a source or a link for this claim?