Abstinence Education - a failure? (1 Viewer)

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

Gipper has been "handled". Let's stay on the topic.

 

[samsmart]

When this was considered the societal standard, things were not perfect but there wasn't nearly the level of problems we have today with STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

Ummm, I think the rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies have always been about even. It's just the rates of reported STDs and unwanted pregnancies that are different. People have been having unprotected sex since we've existed. People have had unwanted pregnancies since we've existed. The only thing that's changed is how we deal with it.

Now, some people aren't going to follow that advise... and if they don't, then yeah they should use "safe sex" practices.

Then let's teach our young people how to have safe sex.

 

[1069]

Ummm, I think the rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies have always been about even. It's just the rates of reported STDs and unwanted pregnancies that are different. People have been having unprotected sex since we've existed. People have had unwanted pregnancies since we've existed. The only thing that's changed is how we deal with it.



Then let's teach our young people how to have safe sex.

We have some new STDs now, but before the WW2 era, when antibiotics were developed, syphilis and gonorrhea could be life-threatening, debilitating, or even fatal, just as some of our scarier STDs- such as HIV- can today.
And they were common.

I think I've told the story before, about how my great-grandfather cheated on my great-grandmother with prostitutes in the 1920s and gave her syphilis.
It caused her youngest son, my great-uncle Ira, to be born blind and profoundly mentally retarded.
And these were members of a supposedly respectable family; in fact, they were pillars of the community, in their day.

This sort of thing has always happened. it was covered up more in previous eras.
For instance, nobody outside my family really knows the truth about what happened. Nobody knew at the time.
Shortly after the birth of Ira, my great grandfather moved out of his home and spent the remainder of his life (eight years) living in a hotel downtown.
But he and my great-grandmother remained married and continued to appear together at social functions, and so few people knew that all was not rosy, and even fewer knew the true story.

 

[Goshin]

Ummm, I think the rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies have always been about even. It's just the rates of reported STDs and unwanted pregnancies that are different. People have been having unprotected sex since we've existed. People have had unwanted pregnancies since we've existed. The only thing that's changed is how we deal with it.

If they were unreported, you'd have a hard time proving that assumption.

Then let's teach our young people how to have safe sex.

Show me where I have ever said otherwise??

 

[Thorgasm]

I do not think there is a moral reason to discourage teens from having sex. However, there are other reasons to do so. Teen brains have not developed enough to often see consequences of their actions. They often react impulsively and based on emotion. This can lead to far poorer choices than adult, who's brains have developed further. This is why comprehensive sex ed., including the emotional/relationship aspect should be addressed.

What you are saying here implies that their brains are not fully physically developed. I have to disagree that this is the reason they don't see the consequences of their actions. They willfully ignore the consequences, are in denial (it won't happen to me), or they live in such a dysfunctional environment that their adult role models don't actually assume the role of role model. Society expects a lot less of teenagers than they ever have in the past as well. Teens need to be taught how to handle their emotions.

If you were going to blame anything physical, blame hormones, IMO.

I would agree for the most part, though, again, the emotional/relationship aspect needs to be discussed so that a teen's developmental level can be addressed.

I agree with this.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

CaptainCourtesy knows what he's talking about, Indie. The brains of teenagers aren’t fully developed and we have the brain scans to prove it.

The part of your brain that’s an inch above your eyeballs is responsible for realizing the consequences of your actions and keeping your emotions in check when they jeopardize your future goals. Neurologists have looked at the brains of teenagers (and adults with long jail sentences) and they’ve seen that this part of the brain isn’t firing on all cylinders until you reach 20-22 (or never, if you're destined to earn yourself a long jail sentence).

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

What you are saying here implies that their brains are not fully physically developed. I have to disagree that this is the reason they don't see the consequences of their actions. They willfully ignore the consequences, are in denial (it won't happen to me), or they live in such a dysfunctional environment that their adult role models don't actually assume the role of role model. Society expects a lot less of teenagers than they ever have in the past as well. Teens need to be taught how to handle their emotions.

If you were going to blame anything physical, blame hormones, IMO.

They're brains aren't fully physically developed. They don't see the consequences of their actions because the prefrontal cortex... the reasoning and planning part of the brain has NOT fully developed and doesn't until their early 20's. Here is an excerpt from one of the articles I use to discuss this issue:

Areas involved in planning and decision-making, including the prefrontal cortex -- the cognitive or reasoning area of the brain important for controlling impulses and emotions -- appear not to have yet reached adult dimension during the early twenties. The brain's reward center, the ventral striatum, also is more active during adolescence than in adulthood, and the adolescent brain still is strengthening connections between its reasoning- and emotion-related regions.
Society for Neuroscience | The Adolescent Brain

I agree, also, that the hormonal/limbic system also has some part in adolescent behavior and emotion.

 

[samsmart]

They're brains aren't fully physically developed. They don't see the consequences of their actions because the prefrontal cortex... the reasoning and planning part of the brain has NOT fully developed and doesn't until their early 20's. Here is an excerpt from one of the articles I use to discuss this issue:

I agree, also, that the hormonal/limbic system also has some part in adolescent behavior and emotion.

I have a question for you, CC. Is it that people's brains aren't full developed until their early 20's? Or is it that people don't acquire enough experience and be able to process it to make connections until their early 20's?

The reason why I ask this is because my grandfather had a saying: "You learn by doing." As people get older, they come across a larger number and a wider variety of events. Because they then get older and come to realizations, they start to spot patterns in the causation of events.

So it's not that teens are willfully ignoring the consequences of their actions - it's more that teens haven't performed enough actions to experience the consequences themselves. So it isn't until a person's early twenties where a person has performed enough independent actions that they are able to understand what the consequences are.

So some things can only be learned by experienced. By that, I mean no matter what a person reads or gets told about from others, the best way for someone to learn something is for them to experience it themselves. And it is only during the early 20's that that occurs.

Or am I grossly oversimplifying things?

 

[Thorgasm]

I have a question for you, CC. Is it that people's brains aren't full developed until their early 20's? Or is it that people don't acquire enough experience and be able to process it to make connections until their early 20's?

The reason why I ask this is because my grandfather had a saying: "You learn by doing." As people get older, they come across a larger number and a wider variety of events. Because they then get older and come to realizations, they start to spot patterns in the causation of events.

So it's not that teens are willfully ignoring the consequences of their actions - it's more that teens haven't performed enough actions to experience the consequences themselves. So it isn't until a person's early twenties where a person has performed enough independent actions that they are able to understand what the consequences are.

So some things can only be learned by experienced. By that, I mean no matter what a person reads or gets told about from others, the best way for someone to learn something is for them to experience it themselves. And it is only during the early 20's that that occurs.

Or am I grossly oversimplifying things?

This is what is complicated about neuroscience. You can take a picture and see that something is not developed. But is that lack of development due to physical limitations or because that part of the brain hasn't been "worked out"? I would argue that previous generations "worked out" that part of the brain by expecting and teaching them that there are consequences for their actions. Brain scans can't go back to previous generations and prove that this may not have a environmental/societal component.

 

[samsmart]

This is what is complicated about neuroscience. You can take a picture and see that something is not developed. But is that lack of development due to physical limitations or because that part of the brain hasn't been "worked out"? I would argue that previous generations "worked out" that part of the brain by expecting and teaching them that there are consequences for their actions. Brain scans can't go back to previous generations and prove that this may not have a environmental/societal component.

I would also say that earlier generations didn't see as many things as such a big deal as we do now. Also, I think we expect too much of those who are younger. It's like up until the day before you're 18 you're supposed to be a naive peaceful innocent child, and the day of your 18th birthday you should automatically be able to handle everything in this world could possibly throw at you without phasing. I think we need to get real and understand that the development of a person is extremely gradual, not instant, and change our expectations of people.

 

[Goshin]

I would also say that earlier generations didn't see as many things as such a big deal as we do now. Also, I think we expect too much of those who are younger. It's like up until the day before you're 18 you're supposed to be a naive peaceful innocent child, and the day of your 18th birthday you should automatically be able to handle everything in this world could possibly throw at you without phasing. I think we need to get real and understand that the development of a person is extremely gradual, not instant, and change our expectations of people.

I'd say this is an intresting viewpoint worth considering.

Based on my studies of historical societies, it was often the case that teenagers began assuming some adult responsibilities and privileges as young as 13 or 14... but they remained to some degree under the guidance and direction of their elders until they were in their 20's (or even older in some cases).

In some historical societies, a teenager could be apprenticed at age 12-14 for seven years, to learn a trade. The teen would be working daily and might even live with his master, but would be under his master's direction.

Rural teens might marry at 14-17 years old, but would typically live with one or the other set of parents, and be under their guidance, until such time as they were able to buy a farm of their own, or inherit one.

A Roman youth was commonly enlisted in the legions at the age of 14. We consider military service an adult activity... but that 14yo legionary would be under the direction of his centurion, not running around acting independently without guidance.

In modern times the transition period has been moved up to "college". This period, typically from 18-22, is when the youths begin to experience greater independence but often remain somewhat accountable to their parents... though in many cases the parents are "absentee guides" if the youths live on campus. Part of the problem here is that so many youths in that situation make poor choices and get away with it for a time, until the consequences pile up and land on them.

I think Sam is correct that we tend to make the transition too abrupt and uneven in modern times. There are, fortunately, some parents who begin giving responsibility-under-guidance in the early teen years, and keep a "hand on the reins" into the college years, as a way of making the transition smoother and more gradual. This is what I am attempting to do.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I have a question for you, CC. Is it that people's brains aren't full developed until their early 20's? Or is it that people don't acquire enough experience and be able to process it to make connections until their early 20's?

The reason why I ask this is because my grandfather had a saying: "You learn by doing." As people get older, they come across a larger number and a wider variety of events. Because they then get older and come to realizations, they start to spot patterns in the causation of events.

So it's not that teens are willfully ignoring the consequences of their actions - it's more that teens haven't performed enough actions to experience the consequences themselves. So it isn't until a person's early twenties where a person has performed enough independent actions that they are able to understand what the consequences are.

So some things can only be learned by experienced. By that, I mean no matter what a person reads or gets told about from others, the best way for someone to learn something is for them to experience it themselves. And it is only during the early 20's that that occurs.

Or am I grossly oversimplifying things?

Actually, it's biological brain structuring. Experience, though having an impact, is not what I'm taking about here. The synapses in the pre-frontal cortex are not fully developed until the early 20's. This has been confirmed through MRI testing. Since it is this part of the brain that both regulates emotion, and manages decision-making, this is part of the reason that, biologically, people are not fully developed in these areas until young adulthood. When you add the hormonal explosions of puberty, plus the reactions of the lymbic system, teenage behaviors can be fairly well explained through biology. This is why teens and young adults have more difficulty drawing the conclusions of consequences from their actions... or even if they recognizing, acting on emotion or impulsivity anyway.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This is what is complicated about neuroscience. You can take a picture and see that something is not developed. But is that lack of development due to physical limitations or because that part of the brain hasn't been "worked out"? I would argue that previous generations "worked out" that part of the brain by expecting and teaching them that there are consequences for their actions. Brain scans can't go back to previous generations and prove that this may not have a environmental/societal component.

There undoubtedly is a societal/environment component, and it is also possible that human evolution... longer lifespans especially, may have a part in the differences. However, the emotionality and decision-making issues may have still been an issue in generations past. One thing that may have assisted in this being less noticed is that, in generations past, the extended family was far more prevalent, assisting the young person in managing some of this.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'd say this is an intresting viewpoint worth considering.

Based on my studies of historical societies, it was often the case that teenagers began assuming some adult responsibilities and privileges as young as 13 or 14... but they remained to some degree under the guidance and direction of their elders until they were in their 20's (or even older in some cases).

In some historical societies, a teenager could be apprenticed at age 12-14 for seven years, to learn a trade. The teen would be working daily and might even live with his master, but would be under his master's direction.

Rural teens might marry at 14-17 years old, but would typically live with one or the other set of parents, and be under their guidance, until such time as they were able to buy a farm of their own, or inherit one.

A Roman youth was commonly enlisted in the legions at the age of 14. We consider military service an adult activity... but that 14yo legionary would be under the direction of his centurion, not running around acting independently without guidance.

In modern times the transition period has been moved up to "college". This period, typically from 18-22, is when the youths begin to experience greater independence but often remain somewhat accountable to their parents... though in many cases the parents are "absentee guides" if the youths live on campus. Part of the problem here is that so many youths in that situation make poor choices and get away with it for a time, until the consequences pile up and land on them.

I think Sam is correct that we tend to make the transition too abrupt and uneven in modern times. There are, fortunately, some parents who begin giving responsibility-under-guidance in the early teen years, and keep a "hand on the reins" into the college years, as a way of making the transition smoother and more gradual. This is what I am attempting to do.

This is a pretty good assessment of what I am saying. In past generations, I'd imagine that the biological structure of the brain was similar, with some possible small evolutionary differences. However, because of how the family was structured, how people tended to receive more guidance from elders, and because they tended to live more in proximity to older generations, we saw some of the consequences of this brain development be much less significant.

 

[liblady]

Has it failed wherever it's implemented? What is proof of the failure of the program?

bristol palin.

seriously, and realistically, i think it's fine to teach abstinence as the ONLY sure fire to avoid disease and pregnancy, but we also need to be sure kids are armed with all the information they need about contraception, AND they are educated about their bodies. abstinence only does not work in practice, because kids are horny.

 

[Josie]

bristol palin.

seriously, and realistically, i think it's fine to teach abstinence as the ONLY sure fire to avoid disease and pregnancy, but we also need to be sure kids are armed with all the information they need about contraception, AND they are educated about their bodies. abstinence only does not work in practice, because kids are horny.

You seem to be slightly obsessed with the Palin family....especially Bristol. You've made this comment a few times before...

Abstinence only does work in practice because there ARE people who wait until marriage to have sex. There are even couples who wait to KISS until their wedding day. Teaching about contraception only works because there are people who use birth control and condoms. Neither fails simply because SOME do not follow what was taught.

 

[cpwill]

Has it failed wherever it's implemented? What is proof of the failure of the program?

no it has not. from a study from the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, for example:

...Between 2001 and 2004, John B. Jemmott III and his colleagues studied 662 African-American sixth- and seventh-graders (average age 12). The kids were randomly assigned to one of four programs. The first emphasized abstinence and included role-playing methods to avoid sex. The second combined an abstinence message with information about condoms. The third focused solely on condom use, and the fourth (the control group) was taught general health information.

Over the course of the next two years, about half of the kids who received the condom instruction and half of the control group were having sex. Forty-two percent of those who got the combination class were sexually active, but only 33 percent of the abstinence-only group were having sex. Additionally, and this confounds one of the myths of the condom pushers, the study found no difference in condom use among the four groups of students who did engage in sex. “I think we’ve written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence,” Jemmott told the Washington Post....

 

[ithrail]

Does anyone else see a dash of irony when believers-in-virgin-birth insist that abstinence is the only foolproof method of preventing pregnancy?

Not a serious argument, I know, but I always crack a smile when I see Christian conservative preachers & politicians extolling abstinence on that ground.

 

[cpwill]

:lol: only effective in 99.9999999999999999% of cases.

 

[mikhail]

Telling people to not have sex will be as successful as telling people not to eat.

Human beings are animals and we have a extremely strong desire to have sex and we will have sex no matter how much jesus and other crap you throw at us.

The best way to handle the problem of sti and unwanted pregancies is to be more open about sex otherwise you are just putting your fingers in your ears and pretending they arent happening.

 

[Toothpicvic]

Has it failed wherever it's implemented?

duh

What is proof of the failure of the program?

The fact that states like Texas with abstinence education have the highest teen pregnancy and HS dropout rates.

The fact that the majority of abortions are done by young Christian girls who never learned how to use protection and feel pressured to abort out of guilt because of the view that sex outside of marriage is "sinful".

The fact that AIDS is rampant in Africa due to bull**** such as the Pope lying and telling uneducated tribal people that condoms increase the risk of AIDS.


etc etc etc (yawn)
---
"Abstinence education" is a no-brainer anyway. Unless you're the Virgin Mary, then you know that if you don't have sex, you won't get pregnant. Everyone knows that. So "abstinence education" is really just "an abstinence from actual sex education".

It would be like if Christians wanted to ban schools from teaching kids dieting and healthy eating habits and have them teach kids that they have to starve themselves if they don't want to get fat. (All done with the intent of having kids eat as little as possible, using some "gluttony is a sin" Buy-Bull verse as their justification).

Ultimately it was destined to be a failure from the get-go, because it's based on a "single mad belief" - that sex outside of "marriage" is "immoral". It's an idiotic "belief" (actually it's not even a real belief, but I'll go into that later) and therefore the "education" policy is pure idiocy too. That's what you get when you mix religion with education.

I saw more pregnant teens in one place at my fundamentalist HS than I have anywhere else. Thank Abstinence dis-education, people.

 

[Deuce]

Abstinence education isn't bad. Abstinence-only education is.

 

[obvious Child]

Has it failed wherever it's implemented? What is proof of the failure of the program?

Let's see.

We know that lack of information often leads to bad outcomes.
We know that using false information often leads to bad outcomes.

So it would logically conclude that Abstinence Education which has been proven to include false information as well as leaving out relevant information would lead to bad outcomes.

Considering that when tried, the students who go through it often have equal if not higher rates of abortion, STD and pregnancy, I'd say it's a failure.

 

[Your Star]

Abstinence only education is a failure on almost every level. First off to expect anyone to remain abstinent is unrealistic. It is human nature to want to have sex, just like it is human nature to want to eat, or socialize. It is just part of being human. I remember my sex education in public school, and looking back on it. I realize it was terrible. The first misstep I remember were separating the girls, and the boys. It was adding fuel to the fire, of this "sex" thing we were all so curious about. I remember each side talking to each other wanting to hear what they learned and vise versa. So instead of learning about the opposite sex from a teacher,we learned about them from our classmates, not a very accurate source. I remember when we discussed sex there was no talk of contraception, of any kind, and everytime they mentioned sex it was always precluded with the phrase when a man, and his wife, or when the married couple have sex, and with wording like that, it completely ignores premarital sex, and homosexual sex. Which is just wrong. This country really needs to dump this stance on sexual education, it leads to nothing but, unwanted pregnancies, and disease. Without proper information, on how to practice safer-sex, or the accommodations to practice safer-sex(i.e. access to condoms, in schools, or health centers) then we will never cut down on the numbers of STI's, or unwanted pregnancies. I personally didn't really know all too much about sex until had access to internet sites, that are run by real sexual educators that don't want to work for the government because the governments stance on sexual education is just terrible.(Just to clarify I'm not talking about personal websites, or blogs. I'm talking about sites run by professional sex educators that want to give teens, a proper sexual education. One example of the sites I frequented were scarleteen.com)

 

[1069]

One example of the sites I frequented were scarleteen.com

I like Scarleteen. It's got some good info.
Also some bad info, obviously, since anybody can post anything they want there.
But the administrators seem kind, knowledgeable, and open-minded.
It must be nice for kids today to have places like that where they can go and ask questions anonymously, or network with their peers and discuss issues they might be too embarrassed to discuss face to face.