Another study of “Abstinence Only” programs says they don’t work.

Another day, another study showing that abstinence only programs don’t do jack shit:

The main objective of Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs is to teach abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage. The impact results from the four selected programs show no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence. About half of all study youth had remained abstinent at the time of the final follow-up survey, and program and control group youth had similar rates of sexual abstinence. Moreover, the average age at first sexual intercourse and the number of sexual partners were almost identical for program and control youth.

Well, that’s not entirely true. The abstinence only program participants were more likely to know the various STDs, but also were more likely to say that condoms had no impact on preventing them:

Many Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs focus on the risks of STDs, and the evaluation results show some improvements in knowledge of STDs. Program group
youth correctly identified a significantly higher proportion of STDs than control group youth, and program group youth were significantly more likely than control group youth to report (correctly) that birth control pills are never effective at preventing STDs (including HIV, chlamydia and gonorrhea, and herpes and human papillomavirus [HPV]). For both outcomes, My Choice, My Future! is the main source of the differences seen overall.

Program group youth, however, were less likely than control group youth to perceive condoms as effective at preventing STDs. Compared with control group youth, program group youth were less likely to report that condoms are usually effective at preventing HIV, chlamydia and gonorrhea, and herpes and HPV. Furthermore, program group youth were more likely than control group youth to report that condoms are never effective at preventing these STDs. As above, My Choice, My Future! is a main source of these overall impacts.

It’s long past time to abandon abstinence only sex education because it doesn’t work. Teaching kids about their “naughty bits” isn’t going to make them any more likely to use them, but if they do at least they’ll have the knowledge of the possible repercussions and methods of protection.

9 thoughts on “Another study of “Abstinence Only” programs says they don’t work.

  1. The more they know the better, otherwise sooner or later the issues going to come up and they could make unnecessary mistakes – knowing more from any age isn’t going to hurt. If people are taught to fear satisfying a physical need, that need is going to build up to the point where it changes the person’s behavior (and living in physical need is hellish)
    I’ve abstained my whole life but if i’m honest it’s not entirely through choice

  2. All of this stems from the old Puritans equating Pleasure with Sin.

    It has also been argued by some on the political right and within the Catholic Church hierarchy that birth control “causes promiscuity” (like umbrellas cause rain?). 

    Sex Education is taught to all students in Oz but I’m sure there’re some churchie schools that limit what kids are taught like some kids throughout the system not being taught how to write.
    I recalled this Jimmy Swaggart quote

    Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest.

    so Googled and found a sight with lots more ‘funny’ quotes.

    From Joe Schneider, Director: Pro Life Action League, August 1985

    I think contraception is disgusting—people using each other for pleasure.

    From Fr. Paul Marx, Human Life International Symposium on Human Sexuality

    There is nothing loving about sex.

    Having sex without horniness is a greater expression of love.

    Sex is self-satisfying, but not meant for pleasure.

           
    And this fucking fucker – Charles Rice, professor of law Notre Dame Univ.

    Incest is a voluntary act on the woman’s part.

    But I doubt anything beats this classic from The Very Reverend Jerry Falwell:

    I listen to the feminists and all these radical gals—most of them are failures. They’ve blown it. Some of them gave been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom.
    These women just need a man in the house. That’s all they need.
    Most of these feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead the home. And they blew it and they’re mad at all men. Feminists hate men.  They’re sexist. They hate men—that’s their problem.

    Mmm. He and Ann Coulter are on the same side.
    Imagine that. A conservative party with radicals.
    In Oz of course, we have our own clown,  Fred dead above the ANKLES (ankles are 3ft below a cunt) Nile to laugh at.

  3. Having sex without horniness is a greater expression of love.

    What does he use, a splint?  So if a woman refuses to have sex with you she must really love you

  4. The following are Excommunicated forthwith.
    Michael Vaughn
    Ian Bell
    Duncan Fletcher
    And 2,000 Hail Les’ for Kevin Petersen.

    I agree about Kev; he’s the only one with a backbone but then we have to put up with the likes of this kinda philistine.

  5. Ironically, the real New England Puritans had far more fun with sex than today’s “Puritans”.  In the first place, the real Puritans practiced bundling.  In the second place, a study of New England church records showed that about a third of first born children were conceived out of wedlock. Some historians have argued the Puritans only deeply disaproved of pre-marital sex if it resulted in fatherless children who had to be supported by the community. The “Scarlet Letter” was reserved for women who wouldn’t name their child’s father, not for women who merely screwed out of wedlock.  I say we get back to traditional values and fuck out of wedlock.

  6. I say we get back to traditional values and fuck out of wedlock.

    How long has marriage been around, anyways?  Only a couple millennia.  Do lemurs fuck out of wedlock?

  7. What the biologists and anthropologists call “pair bonding” has probably been around for as long as our species has existed, according to them. The rest of us call “pair bonding” marriage.

    But whatever one calls it, it is only one of several reproductive strategies that our species uses. Sometimes, we pair bond.  Sometimes we cheat on our partner. Sometimes, we just fuck out of wedlock. Our species is pretty flexible when it comes to sex.

    If we behaved like lemurs, we’d resemble fundamentalists. Lemurs have no sense of humor, small brains, and cannot grasp science.  They’re perfect for fundamentalism!

  8. What is wrong with society that gits like Rice and Falwell aren’t picking cans out a dumpster to survive?  I’ve known pure white trash who are more productive members of society.  And certainly not terrified of a woman with a backbone—as Falwell so obviously is.

    The gentle, hardworking, good-humored soul whom I was smart enough to marry is more of a man than Falwell will ever be.  Heck, I’m more of a man than Falwell will ever be, come to that.  I’m guessing that I could have my oil changed before Rev. Hothouse Flower finished riffling through the trunk, puzzling over what the jack had to do with the process.

    Sheesh.  His attitude is pure sour grapes because any woman who’s not a complete doormat would spit on him.  And I think that he knows it.  Rather like the old joke:  “What’s the difference between a slut and a bitch?  The slut would sleep with anybody; the bitch would sleep with anybody BUT you.”  Yep, sour grapes fits the bill perfectly.  Pity the doormat known as “Mrs. Falwell”…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.