American Abstinence Program Fails Miserably

[wh00t]

From the "I didn't see that coming column"... President Bush's abstinence-only programs, which are going to get a whopping $130 million this year, have actually increased sexual activity among teens in Dubya's home state of Texas.

 

Does this come as a surprise to anybody? Do the supporters of this program really believe that it will work to bully teens into not having sex? Is it not elementary psychology that if you tell a kid not to do something, he will be more inclined to do it?

 

I think spending $130 million on this counterproductive garbage initative is absolutely ridiculous. That money is so desperately needed to be invested in safe sex programs so that these kids can actually get some knowledge to protect themselves against STDs. The USA has the highest rate of STDs in any country in the developed world because these kids are purposefully not being taught the basics of safe sex.

 

Another dangerous example of fundamentalist religion masquerading as serious education. What is going on in America?

 

----

 

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President Bush (news - web sites)'s education plan, have had no impact on teenagers' behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study.

 

Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University.

 

"We didn't see any strong indications that these programs were having an impact in the direction desired," said Dr. Buzz Pruitt, who directed the study.

 

The study was delivered to the Texas Department of State Health Services, which commissioned it.

 

The federal government is expected to spend about $130 million to fund programs advocating abstinence in 2005, despite a lack of evidence that they work, Pruitt said.

 

"The jury is still out, but most of what we've discovered shows there's no evidence the large amount of money spent is having an effect," he said.

 

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.

 

Abstinence-only programs, which have sprouted up in schools across the nation, cannot offer information about birth control and must promote the social and health benefits of abstaining from sex.

 

Pruitt said he hoped the study would bring about changes in the content of abstinence-promoting programs.

 

"These programs seem to be much more concerned about politics than kids, and we need to get over that," he said.

 

One program technique has been to try to bolster students' self-esteem, based on the theory that self-confident teenagers would not have sex. Those programs, which sometimes do not even mention sex, have shown no effect, Pruitt said.

 

Other programs that focus on the social norms and expectations appear to be more successful, he said.

Edited February 1, 2005 by wh00t

[Stormig]

I suppose some people wouldn't mind that teens run around bare-foot as long as there come the babies - maybe in their eyes the U.S. needs soldiers.

[lara-chan]

also, the only time abstinence only programs ever talk about contraceptions is when they mention how often contraception fails.

 

it's ridiculous.

[wh00t]

Evem more good things about the abstinence program comes today from the AP!

 

Study: Abstinence Pledgers May Risk STDs

 

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

 

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Teens who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are more likely to take chances with other kinds of sex that increase the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, a study of 12,000 adolescents suggests.

 

The report by Yale and Columbia University researchers could help explain their earlier findings that teens who pledged abstinence are just as likely to have STDs as their peers.

 

The latest study, published in the April issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, found that teens pledging virginity until marriage are more likely to have oral and anal sex than other teens who have not had intercourse. That behavior, however, "puts you at risk," said Hannah Brueckner, assistant professor of sociology at Yale and one of the study's authors.

 

Among virgins, boys who have pledged abstinence were four times more likely to have had anal sex, according to the study. Overall, pledgers were six times more likely to have oral sex than teens who have remained abstinent but not as part of a pledge.

 

The pledging group was also less likely to use condoms during their first sexual experience or get tested for STDs, the researchers found.

 

Data for the study was taken from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. An in-school questionnaire was given to a nationally representative sample of students in grades 7-12 and followed up with a series of in-home interviews roughly one, two, and six years later. It was funded in part by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites).

 

Leslee Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse in Sioux Falls, S.D., called the study "bogus," disputing that those involved had pledged true "abstinence."

 

"Kids who pledge abstinence are taught that any word that has 'sex' in it is considered a sexual activity," Unruh said. "Therefore oral sex is sex, and they are staying away."

 

Millions of teens have signed written pledges or verbally promised to abstain from sex, part of a church-led effort to discourage premarital sex and the spread of disease. President Bush (news - web sites) has boosted funding for abstinence-only education in schools.

 

Critics say that education needs to be coupled with safe-sex education to be effective.

 

"If adolescents only had sex in monogamous, married relationships, by definition there would be no STDs," Brueckner said, echoing President Bush's remarks in last year's State of the Union address. "But the majority of adolescents don't live like that. They do have sex."

 

Last year, the same research team found that 88 percent of teens who pledge abstinence end up having sex before marriage, compared with 99 percent of teens who do not make a pledge.

[Anileve]

maybe in their eyes the U.S. needs soldiers.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I think that's a brilliant thought, in fact I never thought of it that way, but heck that make perfect sense from a Republican point of view. No wonder they hover over the suburban low-income families for recruitment purposes. More unwanted babies are born, better chances of them joining the military as an opportunity to validate their existence. I know it's a bit hasty of me, but hey you've brought up a fascinating point.

[Armen]

I think that's a brilliant thought, in fact I never thought of it that way, but heck that make perfect sense from a Republican point of view. No wonder they hover over the suburban low-income families for recruitment purposes. More unwanted babies are born, better chances of them joining the military as an opportunity to validate their existence. I know it's a bit hasty of me, but hey you've brought up a fascinating point.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

As if the Democrats or the liberals are different. Some of the worst and nasty military campaigns were executed by the Democrats.

[Stormig]

As if the Democrats or the liberals are different. Some of the worst and nasty military campaigns were executed by the Democrats.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I didn't know that the Democrats and Republicans were united in their calls for abstinence. Learn a new thing everyday.

[Stormig]

I think that's a brilliant thought, in fact I never thought of it that way, but heck that make perfect sense from a Republican point of view. No wonder they hover over the suburban low-income families for recruitment purposes. More unwanted babies are born, better chances of them joining the military as an opportunity to validate their existence. I know it's a bit hasty of me, but hey you've brought up a fascinating point.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I'm quite serious in my assumption. Aren't they all the same everywhere - they all speak fluent shyte, too.

[Armen]

I didn't know that the Democrats and Republicans were united in their calls for abstinence. Learn a new thing everyday.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

In the context of the reason for supporting abstinence introduced by yourself (fresh conscripts) democrats appear to be in a much more hypocritical position. They pretend to be sceptical of the army while Republicans are in power but they make a good use of it to achieve their selfish goals once they are in power.

 

Stick around, maybe eventually you will learn something.

[wh00t]

I'm quite serious in my assumption. Aren't they all the same everywhere - they all speak fluent shyte, too.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Your assertion is valid and I've seen it be brought up in the past. It's win-win: lower-income, rural regions where much of their base is concentrated and where access to more founded information is limited would be more affected by this sort of legislation. More babies, more soldiers, more Republican voters... it's cynical, yes...

[Nakharar]

As if the Democrats or the liberals are different. Some of the worst and nasty military campaigns were executed by the Democrats.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

And there are still some who can't see through the cosmetic differences. The US political system is a corporatist one instead of a representative system. Why some are surprised about this I don't know. Maybe the Democrats are more slick and jaded in their conduct. People forget which administration dropped the nukes on Japan and obliterated Vietnam.

[Nakharar]

Another example I can think of is Israel. It was the Mapai (Labour) Party known for its benign socialist rhetoric who was an accomplice of Britain and France in the Suez War in 1956. Not to forget the "preemptive strike" of 1967 where under the benign and intellectual Levi Eshkol, Israel invaded the Sinai, West Bank/Gaza and the Golan Heights.

[Stormig]

Stick around, maybe eventually you will learn something.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Hopefully not from yourself.

 

People, I am talking about the abstinence program. Democrats or Republicans re: foreign policy, I haven't been in recognition of most of the time and I doubt it makes that much of a difference in the greater scheme of things. I'm young enough to only remember Kossovo and the Gulf War to a certain extent. Whatever.

[Nakharar]

I forgot to add the greatest hypocrite of them all:

 

As Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State had already pointed out 30 years earlier, the operative meaning of the Monroe Doctrine is that "the United States considers its own interests. The integrity of other American nations is an incident, not an end." Wilson, the great apostle of self-determination, agreed that the argument was "unanswerable," though it would be "impolitic" to present it publicly.

 

Wilson also acted on this thinking by, among other things, invading Haiti and the Dominican Republic, where his warriors murdered and destroyed, demolished the political system, left US corporations firmly in control, and set the stage for brutal and corrupt dictatorships.