Bristol Palin: Abstinence for all teens "not realistic"

GioClark wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Sex can be pretty darn consequence-free, but they don't like that.

This is the part that I really don't agree with. Even if no pregnancy results, there are always significant consequences from sexual intimacy.

I am curious as to which ones do you find most significant.

the 45 minutes of crying afterwards?

Smoking?

The cleanup?

Abstinence does work. Contraception does work. Neither is 100% effective.

Right here, though, you are taking the "liberal" stance. The abstinence stance is that contraception does *not* work reliably, and exposes one to disease, and so should not be taught as an alternative. Gov. Palin backed abstinence *only* education in her 2006 campaign, and she was reflecting the views of a popular educational and social policy in the Republican Party. Given both her family experience and the results of many studies, it's not hard to conclude that that policy is wrong and indeed more harmful than the mixed policy.

Robear wrote:
Abstinence does work. Contraception does work. Neither is 100% effective.

Right here, though, you are taking the "liberal" stance. The abstinence stance is that contraception does *not* work reliably, and exposes one to disease, and so should not be taught as an alternative. Gov. Palin backed abstinence *only* education in her 2006 campaign, and she was reflecting the views of a popular educational and social policy in the Republican Party. Given both her family experience and the results of many studies, it's not hard to conclude that that policy is wrong and indeed more harmful than the mixed policy.

My only problem with your post is that it assumes if ONLY they were taught about using contraception then unplanned pregancy wouldn't happen. That isn't true either. I actually don't think it really matters what education plan you go with, people are going to get knocked up no matter what.

I actually don't think it really matters what education plan you go with, people are going to get knocked up no matter what.

Yes, but the whole point, Ulairi, is that fewer girls get knocked up when they're educated about contraception and can get it. A LOT fewer.

It's harm reduction, not harm elimination.

My only problem with your post is that it assumes if ONLY they were taught about using contraception then unplanned pregancy wouldn't happen. That isn't true either. I actually don't think it really matters what education plan you go with, people are going to get knocked up no matter what.

Actually I don't make that assumption at all. In fact I describe the mixing of contraception and abstinence as better than just abstinence. Gov. Palin seems to disagree.

Malor wrote:
I actually don't think it really matters what education plan you go with, people are going to get knocked up no matter what.

Yes, but the whole point, Ulairi, is that fewer girls get knocked up when they're educated about contraception and can get it. A LOT fewer.

It's harm reduction, not harm elimination.

I had abstinence only education in high school. You know what? What I learned about sex wasn't from sex ed and that was pretty much true with all of my classmates. Between popular media, friends, the internet, most kids have their education about sex long before the education starts. I think some people put too much faith in our education system to teach sex.

Ulairi wrote:
Malor wrote:
I actually don't think it really matters what education plan you go with, people are going to get knocked up no matter what.

Yes, but the whole point, Ulairi, is that fewer girls get knocked up when they're educated about contraception and can get it. A LOT fewer.

It's harm reduction, not harm elimination.

I had abstinence only education in high school. You know what? What I learned about sex wasn't from sex ed and that was pretty much true with all of my classmates. Between popular media, friends, the internet, most kids have their education about sex long before the education starts. I think some people put too much faith in our education system to teach sex.

And, of course, everything you learn from your friends about sex is 100% accurate, right? No possibility that they might have learned incorrectly, from their friends, who learned from their friends, how to put on a condom, thus reducing its efficacy, for example.

Let's face it... the more forms of education people get, from knowledgeable sources, the more likely they are to have an accurate picture, and thus be able to actively choose an appropriate form of activity that will make it less likely they're going to conceive a child without wanting to do so.

BlackSheep wrote:
GioClark wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Sex can be pretty darn consequence-free, but they don't like that.

This is the part that I really don't agree with. Even if no pregnancy results, there are always significant consequences from sexual intimacy.

I am curious as to which ones do you find most significant.

the 45 minutes of crying afterwards?

Smoking?

The cleanup?

The urge to cuddle? *shudder*

Rubb Ed wrote:

Let's face it... the more forms of education people get, from knowledgeable sources, the more likely they are to have an accurate picture, and thus be able to actively choose an appropriate form of activity that will make it less likely they're going to conceive a child without wanting to do so.

Yeah, I didn't get sex ed at school or from the parents. I learned about sex from TV and my friends. Thank all the gods I was in boys school, otherwise there would have been disasters. O.O

I had abstinence only education in high school. You know what? What I learned about sex wasn't from sex ed and that was pretty much true with all of my classmates.

Yes, exactly. You just said the same thing twice; you didn't get complete sex education in school, and you didn't learn sex from sex ed class. Gee, ya think?

If you'd gotten a decent education, you'd have been safer.

Between popular media, friends, the internet, most kids have their education about sex long before the education starts

And they learn it wrong. Remember blue balls?

Between popular media, friends, the internet, most kids have their education about sex long before the education starts. I think some people put too much faith in our education system to teach sex.

Funny, you left out parents. I was taught by my parents at an early age and it continued through my school years. I've done the same with my son, and he's no raving sex maniac. Parents are often a good source of information, although I guess that makes them stereotypically liberal.

It's funny that social conservatives don't want the schools to teach sex ed because they want to "educate" their kids by themselves, but liberals actually have a culture of accurately informing kids at an early age. Hint - if someone fears a topic being taught at school, they won't teach it at home.

Malor wrote:
I had abstinence only education in high school. You know what? What I learned about sex wasn't from sex ed and that was pretty much true with all of my classmates.

Yes, exactly. You just said the same thing twice; you didn't get complete sex education in school, and you didn't learn sex from sex ed class. Gee, ya think?

If you'd gotten a decent education, you'd have been safer.

Between popular media, friends, the internet, most kids have their education about sex long before the education starts

And they learn it wrong. Remember blue balls?

Malor, I'm willing to stack my education against any here.

Robear wrote:
Between popular media, friends, the internet, most kids have their education about sex long before the education starts. I think some people put too much faith in our education system to teach sex.

Funny, you left out parents. I was taught by my parents at an early age and it continued through my school years. I've done the same with my son, and he's no raving sex maniac. Parents are often a good source of information, although I guess that makes them stereotypically liberal.

It's funny that social conservatives don't want the schools to teach sex ed because they want to "educate" their kids by themselves, but liberals actually have a culture of accurately informing kids at an early age. Hint - if someone fears a topic being taught at school, they won't teach it at home.

I think unless the person is a complete moron, they are going to find the information out on their own. I don't know anyone who ever thought "Wait, if I don't wear a condom I can get a girl pregnant or get an STD?!?!?" I didn't want my parents to talk to me about sex, it would have freaked me out enough to actually make me practice abstinence.

Let's face it... the more forms of education people get, from knowledgeable sources, the more likely they are to have an accurate picture, and thus be able to actively choose an appropriate form of activity that will make it less likely they're going to conceive a child without wanting to do so.

I think we're seeing a generational issue here. I knew by the time I was about 8 years old just through TV that if someone was going to have sex they have to wear a condom and that didn't come from a single class or talk with the folks.

Malor, I'm willing to stack my education against any here.

It doesn't matter; in this case, you're extrapolating your anecdote and assuming that it makes data. It doesn't. Abstinence-only sex education causes more teen pregnancies. Whether or not it worked for you is irrelevant. Taken across a broad swath of the population, abstinence training results in substantially more conceived babies and, presumably, abortions.

They learn it wrong.

Malor wrote:
Malor, I'm willing to stack my education against any here.

It doesn't matter; in this case, you're extrapolating your anecdote and assuming that it makes data. It doesn't. Abstinence-only sex education causes more teen pregnancies. Whether or not it worked for you is irrelevant. Taken across a broad swath of the population, abstinence training results in substantially more conceived babies and, presumably, abortions.

They learn it wrong.

can you cite me any source that shows that unwanted pregnancy or stds have increased since the abstinence first education has started. Not every school teaches that, it wasn't a federal mandate that it is all you could teach.

Well, after a quick Wikipedia check, without bothering to try to go back to first sources, I found this PDF from a pro-teaching perspective:

Even after more than a decade and a billion dollars of taxpayer money, there is no study that shows that abstinence-only programs are effective in reducing teen pregnancy. Indeed, a number of evaluations of federally funded programs show exactly the opposite — that they are a colossal waste of money, or worse, that they actually do harm.

When the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania examined federally funded abstinence-only programs in that state, it found that “taken as a whole, this initiative was largely ineffective in reducing sexual onset and promoting attitudes and skills consistent with sexual abstinence.” A survey of programs in Texas discovered that the percentage of students reporting having ever engaged in sexual intercourse increased for nearly all ages between 13 and 17. An evaluation of one program in Minnesota found that the number of participants who were sexually active doubled in just one year.

The failure of abstinence-only is one reason that several states have refused to participate in a federal program that provides some $50 million to state governments for very restrictive abstinence-only efforts.

From the next link on Wikipedia:

Conclusion

Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth's willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth exposed to the programs or any evidence of success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among participants.

From the American Psychological Association:

Based on over 15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality education programs for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use, and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delay the onset of sexual intercourse.

[... good-sized snip ...]

“Both comprehensive sex education and abstinence only programs delay the onset of sexual activity. However, only comprehensive sex education is effective in protecting adolescents from pregnancy and sexually transmitted illnesses at first intercourse and during later sexual activity. In contrast, scientifically sound studies of abstinence only programs show an unintended consequence of unprotected sex at first intercourse and during later sexual activity. In this way, abstinence only programs increase the risk of these adolescents for pregnancy and sexually transmitted illnesses, including HIV/AIDS,” said psychologist Maureen Lyon, Ph.D., Chair of the committee that produced the report.

From Scientific American:

Abstinence-Only Programs Fail--August 3, 2007

Programs that encourage only abstinence from sex do not lower the risk of HIV infections in the United States. That’s the conclusion of a review published by University of Oxford researchers in the August 4th issue of the British Medical Journal.

And all that in about five minutes of simply browsing the links on Wikipedia. Abstinence only just doesn't work.

Malor, I'm not arguing in favour of abstinence programs. I don't think they work at all. But, I also don't think comprehensive programs will do any better.

Man, blue balls is real.

But they do do better. Consistently. The greatest harm reduction comes from teaching kids how their bodies work.

You can dig up your own links this time. This stuff is everywhere.

Ulairi wrote:

But, I also don't think comprehensive programs will do any better.

Is there a particular basis on which causes you to think that?

I would be the first to step up and say that comprehensive sex ed programs at school would be infinitely better if they were reinforced outside of the school setting, but they often aren't.

That being said, what would you suggest as a way to educate while combating teen pregnancy? Between squeamish parents and churches that demonize/deify sex, there needs to be someplace adolescents can learn.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

But, I also don't think comprehensive programs will do any better.

Is there a particular basis on which causes you to think that?

I would be the first to step up and say that comprehensive sex ed programs at school would be infinitely better if they were reinforced outside of the school setting, but they often aren't.

That being said, what would you suggest as a way to educate while combating teen pregnancy? Between squeamish parents and churches that demonize/deify sex, there needs to be someplace adolescents can learn.

The adolescents know the information. I don't think education will stop kids from being impulisve and short-sighted. I don't think that will stop adults as well.

Ulairi wrote:

The adolescents know the information. I don't think education will stop kids from being impulisve and short-sighted. I don't think that will stop adults as well.

Of course education won't keep adults or kids from being short-sighted and doing things impulsively, but that doesn't meant the education shouldn't be made available! Again, what kids learn from one another is much more likely to be incorrect than what they would learn from knowledgeable educators. In a situation like this, where a slip-up can lead to pregnancy or an STD, a lack of knowledge could potentially have a great (and negative) effect on the rest of a person's life. If you want to claim that education won't lead to impulsive or short-sighted behavior, why bother teaching kids how to create a budget? They'll just blow the money anyhow. Screw teaching them how to drive, they'll just run a red light anyhow. That line of thinking does not compute, Ulairi. And no, the adolescents don't know the information, or if they do, it may be information that's in a format that they're embarassed to admit they know, and so won't share with their peers.

For example, the whole idea of the rhythm method depends on knowing when the woman is set to ovulate. If the education isn't there to tell the man AND the woman that it's not likely she'll ovulate at the same time each month, the odds of her getting pregnant unintentionally gets magnified.

What about the condom example I used earlier? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to put one on, but how many kids know to pinch the reservoir at the top before putting it on? What if that piece of information doesn't get passed along? The efficacy of the condom goes down, and the odds of pregnancy go UP. What if kids aren't told that condoms have shelf lives, and can be ruined after long exposure to body heat? That whole "keep a condom in your wallet" thing doesn't do a whole hell of a lot of good if it's got holes in it.

What about masturbation? We all make jokes about it, but kids in abstinence-only programs may not be taught about that as a way to prevent pregnancy (by means of letting off steam), and I know for a fact that kids and teens will not discuss it with one another. Amongst one another, there isn't a single teenage boy or girl out there who'll admit to spending some quality time with themselves. Yet, we all know for ourselves, if not others, that the odds of that truly being the case is pretty damn close to zero, if not zero itself.

Finally, when a kid goes through abstinence-only education, they take away the idea that all the stuff they learned only applies if vaginal sex occurs. Oral sex? Fine. Anal sex? Whee! What kid is going to tell another kid about the problems that come up as a result of engaging in those types of sex? What abstinence-only program is going to cover the transmittal of STDs and such if they won't even discuss alternate means of getting them?

Promoting abstinence as a means of preventing pregnancy is absolutely important, as long as other means of doing so are also covered. The more education kids get about how their bodies work, how pregnancy can occur, how diseases can be transmitted, and how to practice safer sex, the better off they are in the long run.

Rubb Ed wrote:

Promoting abstinence as a means of preventing pregnancy is absolutely important, as long as other means of doing so are also covered. The more education kids get about how their bodies work, how pregnancy can occur, how diseases can be transmitted, and how to practice safer sex, the better off they are in the long run.

As a fairly conservative person, I agree with all this and am fully in favor of teaching about contraceptive use in school, because I agree that some teens will always have sex. However, I'm not a fan of those schools that go farther by handing out free condoms, nor do I care for the defeatist attitude that "for 90% of teens, sex is inevitable, normal, and ok". I think that students can pick up on that attitude if their teacher holds it, especially if the teacher talks about personal experiences in that area (pregnancy scares, STDs, one-night stands, etc.). Knowing that your teacher thinks abstinence is unlikely, or that they themselves didn't practice it, makes any abstinence recommendations seem hollow and ineffective.

I've actually known a few people (not teachers, thankfully) who believed that abstinence should actually be discouraged, and that students (at least, the ones over 16) should be encouraged to have sex. Those people felt that teens would be missing out on some of life's great experiences if they abstained, and that not having sex by one's 20's would stunt one's emotional and personal growth. Of course, these opinions always came from people who enjoyed casual sex, had lots of sex partners, and who generally weren't in a position to be teaching sexual responsibility, so hopefully that's not a stance that will gain traction any time soon.

The adolescents know the information. I don't think education will stop kids from being impulisve and short-sighted. I don't think that will stop adults as well.

It doesn't really matter much what you think, Ulairi, the facts of the matter directly contradict you. Good sex education decreases teen pregnancy and STD transmission more than any other approach we've found, including no education and particularly abstinence-only education.

You can cling to your opinion all you like, and it's just, flat, absolutely, wrong. You're saying that you really think the sky is pink, or that things fall up when you drop them.

Whether or not you think it 'won't keep kids from being impulsive and short sighted' or not, the education does decrease teen pregnancies.

Malor wrote:
The adolescents know the information. I don't think education will stop kids from being impulisve and short-sighted. I don't think that will stop adults as well.

It doesn't really matter much what you think, Ulairi, the facts of the matter directly contradict you. Good sex education decreases teen pregnancy and STD transmission more than any other approach we've found, including no education and particularly abstinence-only education.

You can cling to your opinion all you like, and it's just, flat, absolutely, wrong. You're saying that you really think the sky is pink, or that things fall up when you drop them.

Whether or not you think it 'won't keep kids from being impulsive and short sighted' or not, the education does decrease teen pregnancies.

Funny thing, I googled that this afternoon and I found data supporting both sides. Who should I believe?

Ulairi wrote:
Malor wrote:
The adolescents know the information. I don't think education will stop kids from being impulisve and short-sighted. I don't think that will stop adults as well.

It doesn't really matter much what you think, Ulairi, the facts of the matter directly contradict you. Good sex education decreases teen pregnancy and STD transmission more than any other approach we've found, including no education and particularly abstinence-only education.

You can cling to your opinion all you like, and it's just, flat, absolutely, wrong. You're saying that you really think the sky is pink, or that things fall up when you drop them.

Whether or not you think it 'won't keep kids from being impulsive and short sighted' or not, the education does decrease teen pregnancies.

Funny thing, I googled that this afternoon and I found data supporting both sides. Who should I believe?

It depends on the sourcing.

I am more apt to believe studies produced by the American Medical Association than I am from, say, the American Family Association.

edit: oops, wrong thread.

Ulairi wrote:
Malor wrote:
Malor, I'm willing to stack my education against any here.

It doesn't matter; in this case, you're extrapolating your anecdote and assuming that it makes data. It doesn't. Abstinence-only sex education causes more teen pregnancies. Whether or not it worked for you is irrelevant. Taken across a broad swath of the population, abstinence training results in substantially more conceived babies and, presumably, abortions.

They learn it wrong.

can you cite me any source that shows that unwanted pregnancy or stds have increased since the abstinence first education has started. Not every school teaches that, it wasn't a federal mandate that it is all you could teach.

CDC's National Vital Statistics Reports: Births--Final Data for 2006 wrote:

The birth rate for teenagers 15–19 years increased 3 percent in 2006, interrupting the 14-year period of continuous decline from 1991 through 2005. Only the rate for the youngest adolescents declined in 2006, to 0.6 per 1,000 aged 10–14 years. Rates for teenagers 15–17 and 18–19 years rose 3 to 4 percent each. These increases follow declines of 45 and 26 percent, respectively, in the rates between 1991 and 2005.

Full report here.

When spending on abstinence-only sex education was at or near its peak, teen pregnancies actually increased.

And, just so you know, federal funding for abstinence-only education started in 1998. So teen pregancy rates had been declining for seven years BEFORE those programs were started, which makes you wonder just what non-problem the program was designed to solve.

Teenage STD rates increased somewhat in recent years, though they are much, much lower than what they were in the 1970s. The gonorrhea infection rate began its decline in the late 70s and has pretty much been falling since then. Syphilis infection rates began dropping in 1991, long before abstinence-only was the rage. The one area the study highlights as a concern is that many teenages do not get tested for or are completely unaware of the STD infection status. The longitudinal study cited below showed that abstinence-only educated teens were far less likely to get tested.

A comparative review of Title V, Section 510 programs "provide[d] no evidence that abstinence programs implemented in upper elementary and middle schools are effective in reducing the rate of teen sexual activity."

The review basically said that it was wash between the pregnancy and STD rates of abstinence-only programs vs. control programs. Larger longitudinal studies also show that abstinence-only sex ed and virginity pledges are ineffective. While teenagers that were given abstinence-only educations were shown to delay vaginal incourse by about 18 months, they also had much higher rates of anal and oral sex, were far less likely to use condom, and had nearly identical STD infection rates as non-abstinence-only educated teens.

So, at best, you could say that the nearly billion dollars of taxpayer money we've spent on what is essentially religious-based sex ed provided similiar results as existing sex ed programs, except that they cost an extra billion dollars and put the kids they're supposed to protect in a slightly higher risk category.

Another way to look at it is that we spent a billion dollars over the past decade to increase the amount of anal and oral sex teenagers perform on each other.

OG_slinger wrote:

Another way to look at it is that we spent a billion dollars over the past decade to increase the amount of anal and oral sex teenagers perform on each other.

Absolutely stellar. One of the better U.S. investments (versus the war on drugs, say).

On a less snide note, this is a very helpful synopsis of relevant research.

Yeah, that was an excellent post, OG.

Another way to look at it is that we spent a billion dollars over the past decade to increase the amount of anal and oral sex teenagers perform on each other.

I again do not think that the abstinence programs are good. I just don't think that it really matters what we do. I tend to support a full education and information, I just don't think we should pin hopes that we'll really be able to change how people behave.

Ulairi wrote:
Another way to look at it is that we spent a billion dollars over the past decade to increase the amount of anal and oral sex teenagers perform on each other.

I again do not think that the abstinence programs are good. I just don't think that it really matters what we do. I tend to support a full education and information, I just don't think we should pin hopes that we'll really be able to change how people behave.

Maybe not everybody, or even a large majority, but if full sex education can cut down on even 25% ...sh*t that's 25%!