Nobody Tell The Flat-Earthers
Tweet
What would doctors actually know about this topic???
Pediatricians Denounce Abstinence-Only Ed
A leading group of pediatricians says teenagers need access to birth control and emergency contraception, not the abstinence-only approach to sex education favored by religious groups and President Bush.
The recommendations are part of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ updated teen pregnancy policy.
“Even though there is great enthusiasm in some circles for abstinence-only interventions, the evidence does not support abstinence-only interventions as the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy,” said Dr. Jonathan Klein, chairman of the academy committee that wrote the new recommendations.
You mean telling hormonal teenagers to just not have sex doesn’t work? Shocking.
51 Responses to “Nobody Tell The Flat-Earthers”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I think they should just f*ck like rabbits, have children while they’re in their teens, totally destroy their lives, and / or catch sterilizing or potentially fatal STD’s.
After all, the right to pursue poontang is protected by the Umpteenth Amendment to the Constitution, isn’t it?
On a serious logical note: What they are saying is that telling teenagers to practice abstinence is not working as well as hypothetical, yet to exist birth control and emergency contraception (read RU – 248) methods.
So, we give up, let our children — I have teenage boys — believe that the desire for sex is not just uncontrollable, but should be served. Thus, women will continue to be disrespected, and men will continue to besmirch themselves with the self – esteem killing self – image of knuckle dragging penis driven cavemen. I don’t like it.
My boys have been taught to control their hormones. They don’t drink, or smoke or f*ck, for the same reason — these things are bot good for you.
Third observation: Birth control and emergency contraception make it easy to have sex, right?
Whose needs are best served by lots of readily available sex?
Men or Women?
I’ll give you a hint — not women…
The religious think that fun=bad so they don’t want anyone having sex.
I’m all for science-based education therefore, we should teach kids about how to have sex while minimizing risk of std and pregnancy.
I think the best compromise is to have science-based education that parents can opt thier kids out, then we should study the difference between kids who are told to just not have sex and the kids who are educated properly.
Frank,
As long as they are careful, lots of readily available sex serves BOTH men and women’s needs.
On the other hand, please tell me whose needs are best served when men and women are told — or warned — not to have sex until they are married?
Does anyone have aboration rates during Bush’s tenure and Clinton’s? I thought I read that it was on the rise///
The operative words in my post above were lots and readily available.
Both men and women can learn that sex is a gift, not a toy, that makes procreation desirable, which is the way Gaia, Mother Nature, Yaweh, or Allah meant it to be.
Human beings know plenty of pleasurable things that we consume or enjoy in moderation. Why should sex be some sort of unbridled fantasy driven free – for – all?
Some of the people who think it’s OK for kids to have “safe sex”, wouldn’t think of jogging in the morning without a warm – up.
Strange, no?
The religious think that fun=bad so they don t want anyone having sex.
Chalk that up as the stupidest thing I have read today (so far). Idiot.
Oliver, guess what? We’re not animals that cannot control our sexual desires and need to hump whenever we have the chance. We can control it.
However, I will agree that abstinence only teaching is not the right solution for public schools since there are too many parents that don’t give a rat’s ass what their kids are doing, or are too afraid to talk with their own children about the subject of sex.
But let’s not pretend this is because we have a bunch of knuckle-dragging teenagers out there that have needs to satisfy and couldn’t possibly control themselves.
I am all for birth control, but can you at least get some social skills?
Putting everyone down is not going to get your message across.
I don’t think that fun is bad; I think that risk is not fun.
A person who got vinegar in his eye, would rinse it it out before he drove, because his vision was blurry. That same person would drink 10 beers, and drive away, and think nothing of it.
He passed his driving test, didn’t he? He knows the dangers of drunken driving, doesn’t he?
Should we tell him “Don’t drink and drive”, or just not waste our time. Give him more driving lessons, right?
Zappa, that’s a myth, perpetuated by people like HoDean and Senator H Clinton see here (I know, it’s the Free Republic)
My wife grew up amongst a conservative, evangelical Christian crowd. Some of the girls she knew who were “saving themselves for marriage” were convinced they were still virgins because they hadn’t engaged in vaginal sex. Oral? Anal? Sure, but still “virgins.”
Whether or not a specific individual teenager is capable of “controlling his urges” isn’t the point. We all have “good” kids. However, the number of teen pregnancies and the incidence of venereal disease is undeniable. Kids confront moments of weakness and they make mistakes. Telling them that abtinence is the answer won’t protect them.
But Will They Listen?
And I don’t mean the teenagers.
Pediatricians Decry Abstinence-Only Ed
This isn’t a new stance taken by the AAP; they’ve long maintained abstinence-only sex ed is asking for failure.
What’s amusing is Frank D and Jay C. giving anyone advice on parenting.
The quote to note was “Even though there is great enthusiasm in some circles for abstinence-only interventions, the evidence does not support abstinence-only interventions as the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy . It is comforting to ignore evidence and to make the argument personal, however, the evidence is as in the quote. To extend the argument, the evidence is that providing education and access to birth control and emergency contraception doesn’t increase sexual activity. Sorry.
Jadegold, I have a serioud question for you: Whatever would possess you to make a remark about my parenting? Do you actually think you know me or something? You have spent entirely too much time in front of a keyboard and a monitor, if you think you can tell anything about my children, or how I raise them, from political posts I’ve made. You haven’t got the sense God gave a set of luggage
Quaker:
And your solution for this is not self – control, which might result in x amount of pregnancies and STD’s, but rather unbridled sex with for those whom abstinence is impossible, using devices with reliabilty as low as 70%, resulting in x + y amount of pregnancies and STD’s.
A well – thought out plan; one only a liberal could devise.
snap! The smackdown on jadegold – you think it ws bad from Jay – just wait until frank starts ripping you a new one!
Jadegold, a drunken idiot such as yourself giving any kind of advice is pretty scary.
Haven’t seen you in awhile. Guess what? You’re still a an asshole and moron. Welcome back dummy.
No one has pointed out that most of the abstinence-only programs preach a religious dogmatic view of sex, one where out-of-wedlock sex always results in STD’s, pregnancy, horrible self-esteem, etc.
It ignores the fact that millions of unmarried people are screwing like bunnies all the time, many in monogomous relationships where their personal safety comes before penetration. It ignores the freedom of choice and living with the results, something God was supposed to have given us.
Its the same thing as masturbation = hairy palms, zits, bad grammer, etc. Its just more willful ignorance of reality.
I don’t know, outer space, at first his arguments seemed, well, ignorant, lets be honest, but when he called Jadegold an idiot, boy, I saw the error of my ways.
It’s too bad he didn’t type in ALL CAPS- I find that makes a REALLY convincing argument, don’t you?
You know they’ve got nothing to say when they start calling everyone an idiot. Gotta love conservatives. Havn’t you ever heard of ‘love thy neighbor?’ Its some sort of religious saying. It means: dont go around name-calling.
Sorry: link.
Does that mean :
Abstinence (X) + Birth Control (Y) + Sex Education (Z) > X + Y ?
If so, I might be getting the hang of this.
I don’t know about condoms reducing pregnancy by 70%, they are much more effective if used properly. They would more often be used properly if kids were taught real sex ed. Furthermore, ignorant kids grow up to be ignorant adults. If kids arent taught sex ed, then later on theres going to be adults spreading stds and unwanted pregnancies everywhere.
Please leave the namecalling to free republic forums, liberals don’t condone that silliness.
Only two choices? Abstinence or “unbridled” sex?
Wait. Do I understand you right? Contraception actually increases pregancy and STD’s?
Face facts. Thirty percent of unmarried, young women have sex for the first time before they turn 18. Seventy percent have sex before they turn 20. Those who used contraception at their first instance of intercourse are half as likely to become pregant at any time.
Abstinence-only sex education doesn’t reduce teen pregnancy rates. Kids that take abstinency pledges are just as likely to get pregnant as kids who don’t. For a conservative who doesn’t believe in the “perfectability” of humans (I’ll save you the trouble of asking–it was one of your 10 conservative principles you linked last week), you seem to think teens have remarkable powers of perfectability in practicing self-restraint.
The fun thing about math (from what the kids on the street are telling me) is that you can replace a number with any one of those letters…
I wonder if x would change if there was a y happening?
very interesting…
Remember that guy who was here ranting about how “you liberals” can never come up with a link?
Practice what you preach, please. I don’t think you can back that up.
You’re assuming two separate groups that aren’t separate.
Let’s put some numbers to your example so we can be sure we’re understanding each other.
1,000 teens (let’s make them all young women, just so we don’t skew the pregnancy numbers) 15-17 years old are given abstinence-only sex education. That’s group A.
Another 1,000 young women, aged 15-17 are given no sex education. That’s group B.
Now I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that the abstinence-only group will have a lower incidence of pregnancy and STD (even though recent surveys say otherwise.) If that’s the case, then you’d have 43 pregnancies in group B and some number of STDs in group B and lower numbers in group A.
Now suppose you introduce a third group of 1,000 teens, group C, who receive sex education that includes discussion of contraception, including its risks and limitations. Are you saying the rate of pregnancy would be higher than group B?
Hey – I am offended by the silliness statement…I actually think we could use a little more silly. I am very passionate about this.
Very. Passionate. I am.
Well – luckily we have a lot of parents that just know their kids would never – so we don’t have to worry about them, nope not one bit…cuz their kids would never! Cuz I taught em real good.
Boy howdy – I knew all kinds of those kids growing up…and I tell you what – they were the craziest when they got to college or away from the folks for a weekend…something about represion I guess.
To me, the facts are these: If you don’t have sex, you cannot get pregnant, or get a girl pregnant. You can not give or get a sexually transmitted disease. When I was growing up, it was socially disapproved to engage in sexual behavior before marriage. That’s not to say it didn’t occur.
However, the number of illegitimate births was ridiculously low compared to what it is now. The number of people with STD’s is incredibly high compared to what it used to be.
This will not be changed by sex education, if that education does not include an element of disapproval of premarital sex. Instead, it will come off sounding like, “Having sex before marriage is fine, if you use birth control”, which is not true. Why gamble?
I once heard a woman Naval officer (ret) give an hour long talk of the subject of “Why Wait?.”
What she said made more sense than anything I’ve ever heard on the subject. I wish I could find that for you…
Let me try it this way for the algebraically illiterate: The theory goes that “Without sex education, with abstinence, a certain amount of kids will ‘do it’ any way.
This means, as BinkyBoy pointed out, that amongst all random sex acts there will be x illegiimate children, abortions, and STD’s. With me so far?
Since the abstinence program “doesn’t work”, we dump that, and substitute sex education. This means that all of x still occurs, among those who attempt abstinence, but fail — these “weak” people everyone likes to talk about. And, amongst all the people who practice birth control, there is a less than 100% rate of prevention (as low as 70%). Those pregnancies, abortions, and STD’s equal y.
With abstinence = X
relatively successful birth control = Y
w/o advocating abstinence, plus relatively successful birth control = X + Y
I may be wrong — show me.
Quaker, I have read and memorized the entire 2 MB document you tricked me into downloading. I have not only not changed my mind, but now I hate you. =:-}
This is not it, but it’s close:
http://gabministries.com/duck/
Frank_D says: “# And your solution for this is not self – control, which might result in x amount of pregnancies and STD s, but rather unbridled sex with for those whom abstinence is impossible, using devices with reliabilty as low as 70%, resulting in x + y amount of pregnancies and STD s.
A well – thought out plan; one only a liberal could devise.”
I can’t tell whether this is a convenient straw man or you actually believe this, Frank. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re being honest rather than disingenuous.
There are so many problems with your argument it’s hard to know where to begin. So, I’ll just pick a place.
First of all, good sex education programs all mention abstinence as the most effective and least costly method of birth/STD control. True, they also talk about condoms, but they also take care to get their facts straight. There are methods of birth control with low effectiveness rates; but there are methods with extremely high rates as well. You need to qualify your statements a little more to make sure you’re not lumping hops and garlic.
You have also made a big, stupid assumption – that kids getting sex education somehow causes them to have sex and result in your Y. No, and I mean *no* credible evidence exists to validate that assumption. It works better the other way – in any group of kids (people, for that matter), there will be a proportion X of them who are going to have sex outside of marriage. If out of those X people having sex, Y of them get pregnant and Z of them get an STD, then the probability of either consequence is (Y+Z)/X. Using your figures, if a method of birth control is only 70% effective at preventing pregnancy or STD, then the adjusted probability is 0.3*(Y+Z)/X, or better than using nothing at all.
Jay C touched on the real problem – parenting. The single biggest factor keeping kids from having sex too soon, smoking, using drugs, drinking, or engaging in other self-destructive behaviors is strong, loving parents who aren’t afraid to be authoritative and are sensible and secure enough not to be buttheads with that authority. Frank_D, in his histrionic way, makes this point when talking about his sons. If you really want to make a dent in the social problems that those silly abstinence programs are intended to solve, you’d spend a lot more time teaching people how to be strong parents and actually _raise_ their kids, not just let them occupy the same space.
Yeah a great thing to tell kids…..
Sex is bad beacuse you can get pregnant or sick”
But Not telling how to prevent either of these things IF they engage in sex is STUPID
“With abstinence = X
relatively successful birth control = Y
w/o advocating abstinence, plus relatively successful birth control = X + Y”
The facts just don’t agree with your algebraic equation. Remember the ‘virginity pledge’ study?
“when pledgers break their pledges they have a tendency to have unsafe sex. Researchers suggest that since the pledgers promised not to have sex, when they finally do, they haven’t done much planning and are unlikely to use contraception. ”
” recent study by the Urban Institute, also funded by the federal government, focused on the sexual practices of 15- to 19-year-old boys and found that two-thirds of the more than 3,000 boys interviewed had experience with oral sex, anal intercourse or masturbation by a female. The first two behaviors put the participants at risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases, though few of the respondents were aware of that.”
Bottom line is, if you dont teach people how to have safe sex in highschool, then when are they going to learn? Keeping them ignorant makes some of them think anal and oral sex is ok, it increases thier risk of std, and increases thier risk of unwanted pregnancy.
Gtumpy: How’s this, instead — Use this, and maybe you’ll get sick or pregnant, maybe not.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/broken.html
requores PowerPoint http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/slides.htm
and a bonus:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0001.html
amongst all the people who practice birth control, there is a less than 100% rate of prevention (as low as 70%).
Frank, I’m assuming you’re refferring to condoms here ’cause the pill is 98% effective in preventing pregnancy. As for condoms, their effectiveness is as high as 86%.
The primary reason condoms fail is because people don’t know how to use them properly. In other words, with proper instruction, condoms may be used successfully to prevent pregnancy and disease–hence the suggestion that sex education is an important part of preventing pregnancy and disease.
And another thing: how did algebra get dropped into a conversation about sex??! I can only imagine how conversations with some of your children went: “See son, sex is like binary code; the 1 goes into the 0…”
The reality is that teaching abstinence without sex education doesn’t work. As for the contention that sex education must have an element of disapproval of premarital sex in order to work, let me just say this: that’s the perfect way to breed lack of self-respect and provide an outlet for rebellion. And let me just add: it doesn’t work.
So, if our goal is to help reduce the possibility of pregnancy and disease, then sex education in addition to proper health care and attention to the well-being of young people has been shown to be a good recipe for success. But if the main point is to control behaviour to fit with a specific view-point, with disease and pregnancy as punishment if you don’t follow the rules, then by all means, go with abstinence education only. But if I may add: it doesn’t work.
Sorry: here’s the link regarding programs that do work.
(Oliver, I really, really miss the edit function.)
What I’m a little unclear about is this: Is the problem that there is insufficient sex education?
Or is the problem that simply advocating abstinence is insufficient?
How do you explain the increase in teenage sexual activity, and consequently, the increase in illegitimate births?
Until the 1960′s, advocacy of abstinence, with a minimum of sex education, was not producing these results.
I think you’re looking at the wrong variable or variables.
I would find the argument more convincing if increases in pregnancies and STD’s followed an end of (or a decrease in) sex education, but that’s not what happened.
Understand what I’m getting at?
Let’s not get crazy, o_s. The following factors could also explain it:
More couples enter their first marriage at a younger age.
Average household incomes are lower (OK and AR rate 46th and 47th in the U.S.)
They have a lower percentage of Roman Catholics, a denomination that does not recognize divorce. Anthony Jordan, executive director of the Southern Baptist Convention in Oklahoma commented: “I applaud the Catholics,” says Jordan. “I don’t think we as Protestant evangelists have done nearly as well preparing people for marriage. And in the name of being loving and accepting, we have not placed the stigma on divorce that we should have.”
Some factor in conservative Protestantism — which is prevalent in the Bible Belt — may cause a higher level of divorce.
Interesting article mouse.
“We know the average onset of puberty is 11 or 12, and the average age for a first marriage is 27. This causes a real disconnect for young people. It also tells them that they need to get married so they can have sex.”
It can also be said that abstinence-only education causes a higher divorce rate. Help save marriage! End abstinence-only ‘education!’ I read somewhere the divorce rate among christian-heavy populations is %2 higher annually than the norm. (I think it was %3 vs %5) Thats a big difference. It could be explained by those people getting into too early marriage so they can have sex.
“More couples enter their first marriage at a younger age.”
Right. Because they want to have sex. So they hastily enter marriages that are 3/5 more likely to end in divorce.
Catholics may have a lower divorce rate, but thats just because they dont believe in getting divorced. Theres a lot of catholics stuck in miserable marriages.
I think everyone here forgot that the crux of this post was the fact that doctors are saying this is ineffective. Teaching abstinence is great- but teaching that and that alone, is frankly, just ignorant. Teaching safe sex side by side is an entirely more realistic approach. When it comes down to professional opinion vs. personal moral opinion, I’ll choose the professional opinion.
o_s: These were just possible factors, not points of debate. You’re beginning to sound like Sean Hannity.
To return to the “crux of this post”:
Understand what I m getting at?
Why do you hate america????
outer_space, because I’m trying to legalize cannibus, I like to be ‘spaced out’ sometimes, and I always wanted to be an astronaut when I was a kid. And, I believe theres a small possibility that humans could be from another planet originally. Maybe we are all from outer_space. Until we find the ‘missing link’ fossils or the original space vehicle we don’t know for sure. (or until we confirm creationism)
Why are beginning to sound like user id is where you come from?
FrankD,
I’m not sure why you think liberals somehow want sex education that encourages teens to run out and hump the first person they meet. To me it sounds more like your personal fantasy than something anyone on the left advocates.
Me, I’m a Christian and a stay-at-home mom of two small children who I think will be best served by an honest discusion of sex in an age-appropriate manner throughout their lives. That includes an open discussion of the physical and emotional consequences. It also of necessity includes a discussion of birth control, sexually transmitted diseases and the like. I don’t see a bit of a problem with the school curriculum backing up good, positive lessons learned at home, and I have every confidence that kids in middle school and high school can understand the concept of “It’s better if you don’t, but if you do, please be cautious and responsible.” In fact, by treating the children as mature, moral actors in their own lives you actually encourage them to *think*, which, IME, delays sexual activity.
I advocate for high-quality education about human sexuality because the chances are very high that my children will, at some point, have sexual intercourse, whether before or after a marriage. Why would I not wish for them to have good information about the effects sexual activity could have? The mind boggles at why you would want people to just muddle along in ignorance and expect better results. Of course, the administration expects that in most circumstances, so perhaps that’s the new hallmark of the Republican Party.
Magenta: I almost – almost – had you pegged for a reasonable person, until the last sentence. As usual, you couldn’t overcome the need to grind your ideological axe.
Instead of pretending you know what I think, stick with what you think.
What I’m hearing from the sex – education proponents is
You’re saying the same thing!
I’m saying – for the third time, with no one addressing it:
How do you explain the increase in teenage sexual activity, and consequently, the increase in illegitimate births?
Until the 1960 s, advocacy of abstinence, with a minimum of sex education, was not producing these results.
I think you re looking at the wrong variable or variables.
I would find the argument more convincing if increases in pregnancies and STD s followed an end of (or a decrease in) sex education, but that s not what happened.
Is there anybody out there who can avoid blaming Bush and born – again Christians long enough to look at the facts?
Frank D. –
There was an increase in teenage sexual activity for a couple of reasons. One is that kids go through puberty a lot earlier than they did even in the ’50s. In addition, in the ’50s and ’60s, people married about eight years earlier on average than they do today. Basically, people were going through puberty at about 15 and marrying five years later. Now, people are going through puberty at about 12 and marrying 18 years later. That’s a heck of a lot more years of temptation.
And, of course, it isn’t as if people didn’t think of it back in the good old days. Why do you think young women were constantly chaperoned? It wasn’t because people expected teens to exercise self-restraint simply because they were told to do so.
The increase in illegitimate births is more related, IMO, to the fact that we no longer have shotgun weddings when a woman finds herself pregnant. If you look at studies, there were a lot of brides who were quite evidently not virgins on their wedding days, but those children were not counted as illegitimate. As to STD’s, they are unfortunately just more prevelant these days, but it’s not the first time that they have spread widely. Syphilus killed a lot of people, too. Those seem to go in cycles.
I think it’s rather foolish to compare the society of the ’60s to the society of today in general. Seriously, it’s not as if sex education is the only thing that’s changed. The media takes an entirely different view of sexuality. I mean, you’re talking about an era in which married couples on TV slept in single beds. I don’t understand anyone who thinks the kids are better off learning about human sexuality from “The Real World.” And we’re talking teens, so let’s not go on about how they’ll never be allowed to watch that. Unless we lock them in their rooms until they’re 30, they will have some exposure to modern culture.
And, BTW, what does it mean “as usual” I couldn’t overcome the need to grind my ideological axe. If I posted on Oliver’s site in the past, it’s been years. I just happened across a couple of debates that interested me. So you don’t know what my “usual” behavior might be. For that matter, given how ideological you seem to be, perhaps you should reconsider throwing those sorts of stones.