Abstinence only sex ed works says...the Washington Post?!

[foxpaws]

A logical inference is not a guess.

You deduced this with what 'someone said'. The actual list of options doesn't say that -

"Obvious" option?

Again, an abstinence and contraception option is not relevant to determining weather or not abstinence only sex ed is effective.

Besides, traditional sex ed has already been proven a failure.

So, if traditional sex ed is a 'proven' failure why include it? The obvious one to include against abstinence only sex is a combination of both. I still don't see that option when I read that list... I would rather not go on 'inference'.

And once again - you are trusting teens to tell the truth about sex. What was your 'proof' that traditional sex ed wasn't successful in whatever place you found where it was proven a failure? Was that study also dependent on teens to tell the truth - or do you have 'harder' evidence. STDs or pregnancy rates for instance?

 

[foxpaws]

Getting awfully personal, aren't you, fox? Or are you projecting? I guess it's a liberal thing to assume that everybody lies about everything. I mean, we all assume it of you...

Most teens aren't that truthful about sex to people in authority... I assume however you were foss...

 

[kustomizingkid]

I don't care what they are teaching I'm not practicing abstinence!!!!

 

[TheDude]

Did they factor in how many children would lie, considering the nature of the questions? Exactly.

Edit: Fox already brought it up.

 

[ford nut]

Works every single time -

How often is it adhered to? Ask Bristol Palin...

Most teens aren't that truthful about sex to people in authority... I assume however you were foss...

Some Teen girls have a hard time telling themselves the truth about sex, let alone people in authority.
When they figure out they want it, they not always ready for it.
By ready I mean prepared.

I am by no means condoning teen sex.


Some Boys...."of all ages" well they know what they want, they just don't understand the full consequence of getting it....or care, until its too late.

Just ask Levi


Funny thing I just had a long talk to with 15 year old daughter last night about this.

 

[shagdrum]

Why shag - these are teenagers. How much stock do you put into what a pre-teen/ten says about sex. How truthful were you regarding sex as a teenager?

Why would the study not have questionable results?

Again, The mere presence of error does not, in any way, negate that validity of the study.

None of what you say in any way even confronts that fact, let alone disputes it. You simply IGNORE that fact. As usual.

If that fact injected enough error to throw the study, it would show up in the data analysis. There are certain measurements that would show that. You would know that if you knew anything about statistical analysis. But you have shown numerous times that you do not, though you adamantly claim to.

I see you are arguing in good faith again.

 

[shagdrum]

You deduced...

Already misrepresenting...

I inferred. That is not an insignificant difference.

I would rather not go on 'inference'.

Unfortunately, when you are dealing with social sciences (or any science for that matter), you don't have that choice.

And once again - you are trusting teens to tell the truth about sex.

Are you simply ignorant or misrepresenting again?

I am trusting the statistical analysis to determine weather enough error is injected by enough teens not telling the truth (or any other means) to invalidate the study. There are certain measurements to look for that would show that.

 

[shagdrum]

Did they factor in how many children would lie, considering the nature of the questions?

Regardless of the nature of the question, they have means to determine if any factor (including that) injected enough error into the study to invalidate it.

Unless and until you can point to the measurements aimed at determining as proof of an invalidated study (and the fact that a peer reviewed study reached that conclusion demonstrates that it did not, as well as the measurments given in the abstract), this whole point is speculation that does not warrant any conclusion concerning the study. To do so is wildly presumptuous.

If they were to conduct this study and ignore those measurements (and what they say) they would be laughed at in the peer review process. The study would be an embarrassment and hurt their careers (if not end them).

In short, the process has ways to insure against that type of error leading to wrong conclusions. If the people conducting this study were so incompetent as to misapply the process it would have shown up by now. To keep harping on the nature of the question ignores that fact.

 

[fossten]

Most teens aren't that truthful about sex to people in authority... I assume however you were foss...

Ah, Saul Alinsky again. So now I'm your target? Beautiful.

And you cannot debate in good faith, as usual.

But in the snarky spirit that you've started, I will say that one look at your photo nearly turned me celibate.

 

[04SCTLS]

Going outside the box of the above study there's this interesting article in today's Slate that I excerpted a paragraph from.


No Brakes!

Risk and the adolescent brain.

By Alan E. Kazdin and Carlo Rotella
Posted Thursday, Feb. 4, 2010, at 10:02 AM ET

http://www.slate.com/id/2243435/

3. Pledges not to engage in risky behavior
One common intervention especially beloved by moral crusaders and supported by government funds asks teenagers to formally promise not to engage in behaviors that place them at risk. The focus has been on sexual activity. As far as we can tell, it doesn't work, and occasionally it makes things worse. A recent study by Janet Rosenbaum of Johns Hopkins University evaluated the effect of pledging abstinence (the "virginity pledge") versus not pledging among teenagers and then followed them for five years to evaluate the impact on sexual activity. Five years after the pledge, the results indicated that pledgers and nonpledgers did not differ in amount of premarital sex, sexually transmitted diseases, anal or oral sex, age of first sex, or number of sexual partners. Pledgers had used birth control and condoms less often than nonpledgers in the past year or at last sex. In short, the intervention was effective only in decreasing precautions taken during sex. As an ancillary but not irrelevant finding, five years after taking the virginity pledge 82 percent of the pledgers denied having ever pledged.

 

[fossten]

I would agree that asking teenagers to promise anything doesn't work. It has to be a voluntary decision, and it's intensely personal. However, that has nothing to do with honesty in answering questions in a survey.

 

[shagdrum]

Going outside the box of the above study there's this interesting article in today's Slate that I excerpted a paragraph from.

The question is was weather the findings were mere coincidence or a substantive correlation. The abstract of the study I cited gave measurements that verified that it was a significant correlation that very likely didn't come about by chance (95% confidence interval). What about the study in the slate article?

 

[04SCTLS]

What about the study in the slate article?

I don't know. It was something I just casually read.
I didn't follow up on it.
You seem more concerned about arguing the technicalities
and methodology of your one study while I'm bringing up the bigger picture
of weather abstinence works.
I say that yes it may work for some people some times, more successfully when presented as a simple matter of self interest.
However people change over time in their opinions and opportunities presented to them so we shouldn't put too much faith(! ) in pledges and abstinence as an overall successful strategy.

 

[shagdrum]

I don't know. It was something I just casually read.
I didn't follow up on it.
You seem more concerned about arguing the technicalities
and methodology of your one study while I'm bringing up the bigger picture
of weather abstinence works.
I say that yes it may work for some people some times, more successfully when presented as a simple matter of self interest.
However people change over time in their opinions and opportunities presented to them so we shouldn't put too much faith(! ) in pledges and abstinence as an overall successful strategy.

Technicalities and methodology are very important in insuring the correct conclusions are (and are not) drawn from statistical studies. It is very easy to misinterpret stats. Journalists do it more often then not.

Much conventional wisdom today is based in flawed interpretation of statistics often perpetuated unknowingly by journalists and intentionally by elites insidiously pushing an agenda. For instance, people assume a much higher rate of marriages ending in divorce in this country then there truly are. This is reinforced by a common misinterpretation of statistics.

As to sex ed, that has already been proven a failure. Abstinence may not be perfect, but is it still a viable alternative? Is it better then traditional sex ed? Injecting sex ed into schools in the 1960's was unquestionably a mistake and now we are left with a problem of how to deal with that failure because it is rather hard to go back to the way it was, especially after this long, even though that was a much better system.

 

[04SCTLS]

Injecting sex ed into schools in the 1960's was unquestionably a mistake and now we are left with a problem of how to deal with that failure because it is rather hard to go back to the way it was, especially after this long, even though that was a much better system.

Unquestionably?

We talked about this before and if nothing else sex ed in school prompts parent child discussions about sex which I would hardly call a mistake.
I believe the figure was 70% of parents support sex ed for this reason.

And what was this better system(of what? no ed before sex ed?) before sex ed in the 60's

 

[shagdrum]

Unquestionably?

We talked about this before and if nothing else sex ed in school prompts parent child discussions about sex which I would hardly call a mistake.

How do you know parents weren't doing that before sex ed was injected in the classroom? The fact is that sex ed was sold as a way to decrease teenage sex, illegitimacy and STD. So, by that standard, weather or not any (or all) of those decreased, sex ed is a failure. In fact, all those things went up.

And what was this better system(of what? no ed before sex ed?) before sex ed in the 60's

A system had evolved slowly, over the course of generations throughout civil society to take care of the problem. Whatever system of social incentives/ pressures kept the problem at certain levels was supplanted and lost when the social construction of sex ed was injected into the school system. Once that system was lost, especially after this long of a time, you can't really go back to it. That is why you don't supplant socially evolved systems with untested social constructions based in the postulations of elites.

 

[04SCTLS]

There's many links when you Google
"70% of parents support sex ed"


http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=o...port+sex+ed&start=10&sa=N&fp=43d9ad6dbbbea7ef

Your opinion that school sex ed is at best worthless and more likely harmful
is in the small minority.
So even if you're right the general public doesn't care and feels otherwise.

 

[shagdrum]

There's many links when you Google
"70% of parents support sex ed"

Your opinion that school sex ed is at best worthless and more likely harmful
is in the small minority.
So even if you're right the general public doesn't care and feels otherwise.

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, "If many believe so, it is so."

I hope you are not making that argument...

My opinion is based on empirical fact and research, not on ignorance and ambivalence. There is a big difference.

However, sex ed is what we are stuck with today. The old system is lost and would likely take generations to get back. So the question becomes; how do we improve what we have. Sex ed doesn't improve anything, so what could improve that?

Social experimentation made things worse and now all we are left with is social experimentation. It serves as a great example as to why social experimentation on a national level is presumptuous and exceedingly foolish.

 

[04SCTLS]

My opinion is based on empirical fact and research, not on ignorance and ambivalence. There is a big difference.

Well at least you say yours is an opinion as there's no one who ate all the brains here.
Do you have any real world experience (of this other than being a minor student) or are your opinions based solely on what you have read.
In my own case we didn't have sex ed in school when I went to St Mikes all boys school, girls wouldn't give me the time of day when I was an awkward teenager and though married I don't have any children to contend with.

 

[fossten]

I'm bringing up the bigger picture
of weather abstinence works.
I say that yes it may work for some people some times, more successfully when presented as a simple matter of self interest.

Really? When do women accidentally get pregnant?

 

[04SCTLS]

Really? When do women accidentally get pregnant?

We're talking about weather or how well abstinence education works in keeping young people from having sex.

Of course abstaining from sex works 100% of the time.
The challenge is to actually abstain.

 

[shagdrum]

Do you have any real world experience (of this other than being a minor student) or are your opinions based solely on what you have read.

Considering the subject, what "real world experience" can a person have that is anything more then anecdotal?

Isolated examples, in and of themselves, are hardly indicative of national social trends.

If you must know, I was subject to "sex ed" in school.

 

[04SCTLS]

If you must know, I was subject to "sex ed" in school.

Oh the horror, the Horror! of the mistress of subjection , being forced :hump: :hump: :hump: , heartbreaking

Sorry I couldn't help the hyperbole

At least you have some personal experience of the topic beyond studiousness to speak from that helps to form your opinion.

Now IMO curious kids can find stuff on the internet which overshadows and makes superfluous school sex ed.

 

[fossten]

Oh the horror, the Horror! of the mistress of subjection , being forced :hump: :hump: :hump: , heartbreaking

Sorry I couldn't help the hyperbole

At least you have some personal experience of the topic beyond studiousness to speak from that helps to form your opinion.

Now IMO curious kids can find stuff on the internet which overshadows and makes superfluous school sex ed.

Interesting. I considered using my own anecdotal evidence in this discussion, but I thought better of it due to the overwhelming probability that it would be met with immaturity and derision.

I see that my instincts were solid.

 

[shagdrum]

At least you have some personal experience of the topic beyond studiousness to speak from that helps to form your opinion.

Do you think that personal experience should be of primary importance when forming an opinion about a national issue? That it should trump empirical fact?