Possibly, even probably. The fact is that the reporting is shoddy enough to leave all kinds of basic questions like this. And I’m not going to go with the report when it claims “Study: Abstinence program most effective at delaying sex among youths” while the results appear to consider intercourse only.
I thought this was already known. All the sites and statistics I was familiar with indicated that abstinence only sex ed decreased the ammount of kids having sex while at the same time increasing the number of pregnancies and STD infections relative to an actual sex ed class.
Now that I think of it, maybe that was the problem, since it was relative between the two types of class rather than between one type of class and no education whatsoever.
Anyway, it always made perfect sense to me that abstinence only sex ed was a best-of-both-worlds solution for a certain subset of the population. Not only do you see fewer kids having sex, but you also see the filthy whores who have sex anyway engaging in riskier behaviors and thus being more likely to suffer for their sins.
Personally, I’m in the oposite camp, which views it as more sex being good especially when coupled with better outcomes in terms of STDs and pregnancy.
But surely when that suffering comes from pregnancy, there’s a chance that not only the parents suffer, but an innocent does, too? Plus of course I would tend to guess that teenage parents are something of a burden on the system; they may be suffering the amount you deem worthy, but you’re still paying them for it. Pretty much nobody is better off when unprepared people get pregnant or get STDs, and pretty much everyone has to pay for both.
I didn’t say the people who held to that position weren’t idiots. Just that they were mean-spirited and valued the “guilty” suffering “just” punishments to be more important than protecting innocents from harm. Seeing “whores” punished for not holding to their personal beliefs is something that sort would gladly suffer an additional burdon for.
I guess it’s a matter of how far cognitive dissonance would take someone. I certainly wouldn’t disagree that there aren’t people petty enough for that.
Accepting for the sake of argument that this is true, you’re saying that girls that age can and do choose to be abstinent.
I what world does a 33% failure rate count as “working” ?
By comparison, and positing a condom failure rate of 50% (which is absurdly high, I’m just making a point), the sex education group would only have a 20% failure rate.
Besides that, I have to say, 46% of American kids are sexually active by the age of 14 ? One twelve year old out of four ? :dubious: Either the kids are full of shit, or…what the hell kind of operation are you guys running out there ? 
They weren’t measuring what works, just which worked better.
Note that there was no difference in any of the groups in regard to condom use and the overall effect is really pretty borderline on all outcomes. Honestly, this study doesn’t say much about anybody.
Personally, I find that as hard as I try not to underestimate how far cognitive dissonance can take a person, I end up doing it anyway.
When girls that young have sex, very often the boy/man is much older.
Yeah, so? Who said they can’t?
One only needs to go back to the time when there was no birth control available, then one can remember how a girl would have a secret abortion, or her family would send her away to a distant relative (or home they had in those days) to have her child, or the Mother and daughter would take a vacation and the mother would come back with what was called her child. There was a lot of lies told, the birth date of a child was told to be different that it was, or it was said to be premature. Sara Palin’s daughter is a good example of abstenience only.
If abstinence only was taught why were so many Catholic girls having babies out of wedlock and homes built to care for them. Abstenience only has always been the RCC church’s stand for many generations. Of course abstinence will work if one doesn’t have sex, but in the heat of the moment it doesn’t. That is why in olden days there were chastity belts!
My Mother and many Catholic women used the Rhythm method. Abstaining by using the calendar method. All four of us were planned.
At 13 I was still playing with Barbie. Kids today have sex at a much younger age but that doesn’t mean they are mentally mature enough to go get birth control. The school does teach about birth control but I think it best backed up by a parent that sits down and explains it.
Abstinence is many times a failure. I don’t think it would be anymore helpful then the “Just Say No” program is for drugs. Some kids are still going to experiment.
I spoke openly to my teenagers about it. So far they are in their 20’s and have not had any problems. One thing I said over and over to them was, “Boyfriends and girlfriends will come and go but babies are forever”. With my son I said do you like making that paycheck? He would say, Yes. I would say, then use birth control and you will get to keep it. He had a good friend that had two children by the age of 20 and sees the mess he is in. He can’t work over the table and make ends meet. Open communication worked well.
I know many couples who used the rhythm method and had unhappy marriages. The wife didn’t like to always have sex at the time she was not fertile and The husband didn’t like waiting. Thr rhythm method is the most unnatural method there is, and a lot of Catholics I know tell me they do not follow the churches teaching because the Pope didn’t say it ex-catherdra. I agree the parents should tell their children about being responsible people, and the effects of un- responsible actions like sex, and explain the reason for being responsible (as you seemed to do).
I wished my parents had been more open with me about contraception. I was brought up in the 70’s and was very ignorant of the importance of it. I also tried to never tell my kids not to do something, which often backfires. I used my sayings and then let them think about it and come up with their own conclusions. Children like to be given the choice to think of consequences and the life long effects it would have on their lives.
I would like to know what percentages of the resulting groups are girls and what percentages are boys. The article doesn’t indicate this.
53.5% were female for the entire sample and between 52.2% and 54.4% for the interventions.
Or did you mean after the interventions, among those who had sex, used condoms, etc., what % were female?
Yes, after the interventions.
It doesn’t break the results down that far, we’d have to see the raw data.
They controlled for age, sex, etc. in their analysis, and the result for “had sex in the past 3 months” was significant (barely).
To be precise about it, the method officially recommended by the Church is not the rhythm method, but something called “natural family planning”. Both are based on the premise of abstaining from sex while the woman is fertile, but they determine that time using different methods. The rhythm method determines fertility just by counting days since last menstruation on a calendar, and is very inaccurate, while natural family planning uses biometrics like body temperature and mucous viscosity, and is significantly more accurate.
Of course, in either method, couples might reasonably resent abstaining for several days each month, etc.