Hey remember that news story about chastity pledges?

[Briareos]

Where the MSM reported that kids who take pledges to wait till marriage are just as likely to have sex as those who do not. Well turns out that isn't true:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120095259855597.html

[Super Sonic]

lol virgins.:biggrin:

[Samurai]

Where the MSM reported that kids who take pledges to wait till marriage are just as likely to have sex as those who do not. Well turns out that isn't true:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120095259855597.html

When the study said that it "unlike previous studies, it "corrected" for the kids religious and moral upbringing and environment in order to get the vastly different results that it did", I figured that's what they meant. Highly conservative kids tend to wait longer and have fewer partners than the average teen, whether or not they take a pledge.

[Gilda Dent]

Where the MSM reported that kids who take pledges to wait till marriage are just as likely to have sex as those who do not. Well turns out that isn't true:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120095259855597.html

Had you actually read what McGurn writes there, or for that matter, had McGurn read what he writes, you'd see that the news reports were accurate.

His bone of contention is that the study compares pledge takers, who are generally religious conservatives, to other non-pledge takers who are also religious conservatives. What he sees as some sort of flaw is actually basic science. When you want to determine what effect a given variable has, you have to control for other possible variables to eliminate them as possible causes for differences. In other words, the control group, the one being compared to, should be as similar as possible to the experimental group except for the variable being tested.

This is eighth-grade science.

[Gilda Dent]

Double post.

[Cam63]

Thanks for posting, Gilda.

[Michael P]

Tcch. Why let reading get in the way of forming perfectly good knee-jerk opinions?

[Calybos]

But at least when they DO have sex, they won't know what they're doing or what precautions to take!

So it all works out.

[Charles RB]

His bone of contention is that the study compares pledge takers, who are generally religious conservatives, to other non-pledge takers who are also religious conservatives. What he sees as some sort of flaw is actually basic science.

Whoops!

I've also noticed this:

- These teens have less premarital vaginal sex.

when one of the results of these sorts of studies was that the pledge-teens are having less premarital vaginal sex but make up for it with increased oral & anal sex. So the article's not really proving the initial study untrue at all there.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Religious kids seems to be specified here like its not the norm but how many kids aren't religious or don't believe in some kind of God?

I mean Christians are what 80-90% of the population with most of whats left being various other religions?

Maybe its because I live in the bible belt but it seems like there are very few kids who don't believe in God, Jesus or something.

[Alix Harrower]

This is eighth-grade science.

Eighth-grade science flies well over the head of Bri, who reads at a first-grade level.

[Red Jack]

Yay, Gilda!

Way to sew up the nom for this year's VOICE OF REASON award.

[Nick Soapdish]

One out of four keep their pledge despite widespread ridicule?

First, that's a pretty unimpressive success rate, despite McGurn's amazement.

And second, what ridicule? Are they referring to ridicule for their decision to remain virgins or the public display of that decision? I think that most of the ridicule is over the latter. And his characterization of the parents is directly contradictory to the opposition from that set on sex ed.

[MartinRedmond]

I'm a freak, but I've never been really interested in knowing weither other people were having some or not.

[thespianphryne]

Religious kids seems to be specified here like its not the norm but how many kids aren't religious or don't believe in some kind of God?

I mean Christians are what 80-90% of the population with most of whats left being various other religions?

Maybe its because I live in the bible belt but it seems like there are very few kids who don't believe in God, Jesus or something.

There's a difference between believing in God or Jesus and in being religious - as in markedly, avowedly, publicly religious. You can be Christian and not religious.

[Charles RB]

One out of four keep their pledge despite widespread ridicule?

First, that's a pretty unimpressive success rate, despite McGurn's amazement.

It's certainly a higher figure than I expected.

[Grazzt]

Also, let's not forget about the fact that adolescents lie all the time. One study found that, after a year, 73 percent of the kids who broke their pledges over the course of that year denied having ever made the pledge. Conversely, a third of the kids who took pledges after having had sex previously denied ever having sex. Link. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/08/MNGPHIN8IF1.DTL)

[DavidAllred]

Had you actually read what McGurn writes there, or for that matter, had McGurn read what he writes, you'd see that the news reports were accurate.

His bone of contention is that the study compares pledge takers, who are generally religious conservatives, to other non-pledge takers who are also religious conservatives. What he sees as some sort of flaw is actually basic science. When you want to determine what effect a given variable has, you have to control for other possible variables to eliminate them as possible causes for differences. In other words, the control group, the one being compared to, should be as similar as possible to the experimental group except for the variable being tested.

This is eighth-grade science.

Come on Gilda. You read the same article I just did, and you see what's up. It certainly might be eighth grade science, but you can easily see how that science was used to create a misleading headline and series of headlines, as well as a misleading platform for groups which tout that abstinence education doesn't work. The science was used to shine a spotlight on what doesn't work, without ever mentioning what does-- that being a kid's religious beliefs.

It's still legitimate science, even if misleading, but calling it legitmate science and misusing the results to tell half the story isn't legitmate science.

This all assumes that the information in the link is true, which I have my doubts. I think that religious teens are less likely to report sexual activity on surveys, personally.

[Nick Soapdish]

Come on Gilda. You read the same article I just did, and you see what's up. It certainly might be eighth grade science, but you can easily see how that science was used to create a misleading headline and series of headlines, as well as a misleading platform for groups which tout that abstinence education doesn't work. The science was used to shine a spotlight on what doesn't work, without ever mentioning what does-- that being a kid's religious beliefs.

It's still legitimate science, even if misleading, but calling it legitmate science and misusing the results to tell half the story isn't legitmate science.

This all assumes that the information in the link is true, which I have my doubts. I think that religious teens are less likely to report sexual activity on surveys, personally.

So are you advocating teaching religious beliefs in sex ed classes? I guess that's assuming that your goal is specifically abstinence rather than less unsafe sex. If the point of the articles are about what schools should be teaching (and abstinence only does heavily tout pledges), then they should focus on what should or should not be taught in those classes.

And all the criticism of McGurn is absolutely on target. He's doing exactly what he's criticizing others of, but worse. He's not just telling half a story. He's actively lying about the other half.

You're also assuming that it's specifically religious beliefs that is related to more conservative and more religious teens practicing abstinence when they also indicated more parental involvement and another support group through the church. And I have seen a bunch of articles indicating that family involvement is important to teenagers, contrary to McGurn's complaint.

[Matt Algren]

Come on Gilda. You read the same article I just did, and you see what's up. It certainly might be eighth grade science, but you can easily see how that science was used to create a misleading headline and series of headlines, as well as a misleading platform for groups which tout that abstinence education doesn't work. The science was used to shine a spotlight on what doesn't work, without ever mentioning what does-- that being a kid's religious beliefs.Chastity pledges don't work. That's the result of the study, and that's what was reported.

And it isn't abstinence education that's a problem, it's abstinence only education. A study (http://www.yorku.ca/mediar/archive/Release.asp?Release=1125) was released a couple years ago that showed that among the sexually active, religious people were more likely to engage in risky sex. Similar findings were reported in a separate report (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot?currentPage=all) last year.

Another key difference in behavior, Regnerus reports, is that evangelical Protestant teenagers are significantly less likely than other groups to use contraception. This could be because evangelicals are also among the most likely to believe that using contraception will send the message that they are looking for sex. It could also be because many evangelicals are steeped in the abstinence movement’s warnings that condoms won’t actually protect them from pregnancy or venereal disease.

This last one also reported an unhealthy view of sex from white evangelical teens.
Moreover, among the major religious groups, evangelical virgins are the least likely to anticipate that sex will be pleasurable, and the most likely to believe that having sex will cause their partners to lose respect for them.

[Briareos]

It isn't just that they were saying that virginity pledges don't work. The MSM was trying to imply that nothing parents do will ever effect their children's sexual habbits so don't even bother trying. They were trying to say that well the best we can do is just give them as many condoms as they need. When the reality is there is ALOT parents can do. They basically used a very narrow study to try to say there is no difference between a kid who takes a chastity pledge and your random kid anywhere. That's not true.

[Nick Soapdish]

It isn't just that they were saying that virginity pledges don't work. The MSM was trying to imply that nothing parents do will ever effect their children's sexual habbits so don't even bother trying. They were trying to say that well the best we can do is just give them as many condoms as they need. When the reality is there is ALOT parents can do. They basically used a very narrow study to try to say there is no difference between a kid who takes a chastity pledge and your random kid anywhere. That's not true.

I don't think that I get the same MSM down here that you do.

The articles that I read said that virginity pledges don't accomplish anything. But I've read several other articles in the MSM that say that parenting is THE most important determinant for children.

[the4thpip]

It isn't just that they were saying that virginity pledges don't work. The MSM was trying to imply that nothing parents do will ever effect their children's sexual habbits so don't even bother trying. They were trying to say that well the best we can do is just give them as many condoms as they need. When the reality is there is ALOT parents can do. They basically used a very narrow study to try to say there is no difference between a kid who takes a chastity pledge and your random kid anywhere. That's not true.

Is it bad to wish your parents had taken cold showers on a certain night I'm thinking of? :confused:

[Grazzt]

It isn't just that they were saying that virginity pledges don't work. The MSM was trying to imply that nothing parents do will ever effect their children's sexual habbits so don't even bother trying. They were trying to say that well the best we can do is just give them as many condoms as they need. When the reality is there is ALOT parents can do. They basically used a very narrow study to try to say there is no difference between a kid who takes a chastity pledge and your random kid anywhere. That's not true.

Nobody ever says that. Of course a parent has an impact on how their child behaves, but that doesn't mean that the children shouldn't be taught about contraception and protectives just to be on the safe side.

And it's not abstinence that's being criticized here, it's the formal virginity pledges. Look, here's a study that shows that an informal and private pledge is more effective than a formal one. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T80-4FY22P2-C&_user=1067412&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000051246&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1067412&md5=7d2b074f6e2686327508b7eab32943dc) So if these parents really wanted their kids to refrain from sex, skip the stupid ceremonies and meaningless baubles and just get them to understand that being responsible means having to delay pleasure for a bit.

[escapegoat]

Reports suck.
They'll say one thing the first year, the opposite the year after, and then see-saw back and forth every year after that...

It seems like margarine is better than butter for you every other year.... :rolleyes:

[Paul McEnery]

Here's a fun fact.

The arsehole who wrote the WSJ article used to be Bush Jr.'s speechwriter.

I think we're not quite as surprised that he's a big fat liar now.

Though we ought to be surprised he's being allowed to write for the WSJ now. Which shows how little credibility the paper has any more.

And here's a photo of him!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/William_McGurn_1.jpg

[Gumbo Maximillian]

There's a difference between believing in God or Jesus and in being religious - as in markedly, avowedly, publicly religious. You can be Christian and not religious.

Excepting for maybe compared to J-witness and some of your more extreme types I would say most christian kids are religious, go to church at least once a week, pretty firm belief in the bible, definately willing to talk about their believes and debate against others.

But like I said; maybe its a bible belt/southern thing....

[Charles RB]

What I'm thinking is that I should have become religious and signed one of these pledges, because then I'd have gotten some.

[Matt Algren]

Could I just add that the pledge ceremonies are really, really, really creepy?

[Matt Doc Martin]

You do have poor reading comprehension and reasoning skills to match your spelling.
It isn't just that they were saying that virginity pledges don't work.
Studies, as pointed out in this very thread, show that a pledge is far from effective.

The MSM was trying to imply that nothing parents do will ever effect their children's sexual habbits so don't even bother trying.
Where does it say that again? And it is "AFFECT" and "HABITS".

They were trying to say that well the best we can do is just give them as many condoms as they need.
Condoms do wonders to help stop unwanted pregnacies and STD's. I wish your parents has used one.


When the reality is there is ALOT parents can do. They basically used a very narrow study to try to say there is no difference between a kid who takes a chastity pledge and your random kid anywhere. That's not true.

There is little difference. Hell, there are plenty of full grown pastors who can't keep their wangs out of other guy's mouths. Do you remember puberty and the feeling that you wanted to hump everything in sight? Most all kids go through that. I sure as hell did.

Words are nice, but they can easily be forgotten/ignored in the heat of passion. I did a "pledge" and first chance I got to nail a chick, I took. I was also smart enough to use condoms.

[Paul McEnery]

Here's a fun fact.

The arsehole who wrote the WSJ article used to be Bush Jr.'s speechwriter.

I think we're not quite as surprised that he's a big fat liar now.

Though we ought to be surprised he's being allowed to write for the WSJ now. Which shows how little credibility the paper has any more.

And here's a photo of him!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/William_McGurn_1.jpg

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Where the MSM reported that kids who take pledges to wait till marriage are just as likely to have sex as those who do not. Well turns out that isn't true:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120095259855597.html

Considering the article specifies vaginal sex; as others said that implies anal sex, oral and various kinds of foreplay.....wouldn't that make it true?

Unless your going for the strictest defination of sex out there but even so I can't think just going for oral and anal sex is quite what the parents of the pledgers had in mind.

[the4thpip]

Reports suck.
They'll say one thing the first year, the opposite the year after, and then see-saw back and forth every year after that...

It seems like margarine is better than butter for you every other year.... :rolleyes:

The thing is, if you look at the actual articles (and maybe took some statistics classes in college), it's usually pretty easy to tell which studies are believable and which aren't.

There's just been this tendency... I'd say since around the time that Fox"News" came around - to consider it "balanced" to offer a dissenting opinion even when the science involved is crap.

[escapegoat]

The thing is, if you look at the actual articles (and maybe took some statistics classes in college), it's usually pretty easy to tell which studies are believable and which aren't.

There's just been this tendency... I'd say since around the time that Fox"News" came around - to consider it "balanced" to offer a dissenting opinion even when the science involved is crap.

Certainly, to the discerning eye, it's usually easy to take note and figure whether the "facts" from the report are being askewed by the originator of the report, but I imagine at least half the people reading these reports (I'm guessing even higher) don't actually take the time to figure these things out.

Maybe I should do a report on that.... :tongue:

[Matt Doc Martin]

Certainly, to the discerning eye, it's usually easy to take note and figure whether the "facts" from the report are being askewed by the originator of the report, but I imagine at least half the people reading these reports (I'm guessing even higher) don't actually take the time to figure these things out.

Maybe I should do a report on that.... :tongue:

Bri cannot figure out even the simple articles, so I see your point.

[Matt Doc Martin]

Considering the article specifies vaginal sex; as others said that implies anal sex, oral and various kinds of foreplay.....wouldn't that make it true?

Unless your going for the strictest defination of sex out there but even so I can't think just going for oral and anal sex is quite what the parents of the pledgers had in mind.

Technicalvirgin.com!

[MartinRedmond]

Also, let's not forget about the fact that adolescents lie all the time.

People lying? Right to your face? That can't be!...

[Nick Soapdish]

Excepting for maybe compared to J-witness and some of your more extreme types I would say most christian kids are religious, go to church at least once a week, pretty firm belief in the bible, definately willing to talk about their believes and debate against others.

But like I said; maybe its a bible belt/southern thing....

I'm not sure if it's even that. I'm in the Bible Belt and while I went to church once a week (and yes, more if you count the youth group and choir), but by your definition, I probably only knew a half a dozen Christians outside of my church. We didn't talk much about it at school and when it did get brought up by a teacher, the topic usually died a quick death.

[MartinRedmond]

I wore a crucifix for a week at school just for fun and I kept being called Madonna. LOL

[Alix Harrower]

Bri cannot figure out even the simple articles, so I see your point.

It's true -- he's just about figured out "a" but "an" and "the" still give him fits!

[Matt Doc Martin]

It's true -- he's just about figured out "a" but "an" and "the" still give him fits!

I did set up a nice one, didn't I?

[Reverend Smooth]

I'm not sure why a conservative (not all, but this one) would be all for oral and anal sex instead of vaginal sex; isn't one of the main arguments against homosexual sex is that it's non-procreative? Also, ain't another one that a penis belongs in a vagina, and not an ass? (Note that there's never any bitching about oral, though.)

Also, why are they for higher rates of pregnancy? Abstinence-only deals result in more pregnancies, since folks are usually taught falsely that condoms are unreliable.

Because it seems to me like Briareos is advocating for things that lead to more STDs (unprotected anal and vaginal sex FTW!), pregnancies (no birth control FTW!), and sodomy (oral and anal sex FTW!). Since that's what these abstinence-only programs and movements result in.

[Spike-X]

This is eighth-grade science.

*pfft* Everyone knows science has a liberal bias.

I think that religious teens are less likely to report sexual activity on surveys, personally.

So you think religious teens are actually more likely to lie? That's interesting.

A study (http://www.yorku.ca/mediar/archive/Release.asp?Release=1125) was released a couple years ago that showed that among the sexually active, religious people were more likely to engage in risky sex.

I wonder why that is? Are they thinking that 'God' will protect them from the consequences of their actions if they beg hard enough, or do they figure they're damned already, so what the hell?

The MSM was trying to imply that nothing parents do will ever effect their children's sexual habbits so don't even bother trying.

Please stop talking shit, thank you.

As parents, we can share our views with our kids, and explain to them why we believe that jumping into bed with somebody at the first opportunity isn't necessarily the way to go, but as a parent of two, I would be deluding myself if I thought I could have total control over when my children decide to become sexually active.

Of course, to a simple-minded binary thinker such as yourself, I can see how the only possible alternative to "we can't have total control over what our teenage children do" would be "throw 'em a condom and let 'em have at it."

[Paul McEnery]

I'm not sure why a conservative (not all, but this one) would be all for oral and anal sex instead of vaginal sex; isn't one of the main arguments against homosexual sex is that it's non-procreative? Also, ain't another one that a penis belongs in a vagina, and not an ass? (Note that there's never any bitching about oral, though.)

NO NO NO THAT STUFF DOES NOT EVEN HAPPEN NOBODY DOES IT NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And even if does, I myself personally have never done it, especially not in the bathroom stalls at the airport, nor in a hotel room while snorting cocaine off of a hooker's dick, no sir.

[Spike-X]

Are they referring to ridicule for their decision to remain virgins or the public display of that decision? I think that most of the ridicule is over the latter.

That's certainly why I ridicule them.

If somebody decides to not have sex until they're married, fine. I'm not going to try to talk them out of it. It's when people wave it in your face like it makes them a better person than you that it pisses me off.

A certain former poster on this board comes to mind here.

[Matt Algren]

I wonder why that is? Are they thinking that 'God' will protect them from the consequences of their actions if they beg hard enough, or do they figure they're damned already, so what the hell?For one, they haven't received non-abstinence only sex ed.

And condoms are evil.

And if my mom finds them she'll kill me and tell God I died.

And hey, I wonder if anybody's ever tried putting it in the butt?

And I'm a good person, so she won't get pregnant.

And just this once, baby, I swear I'll pull out.

And sorry, baby, but I heard something about the rhythm method and standing on your head.

And hey, baby, maybe an abortion isn't always bad, you know?

[Charles RB]

I wonder why that is? Are they thinking that 'God' will protect them from the consequences of their actions if they beg hard enough, or do they figure they're damned already, so what the hell?

I remember reading it's because anal and oral wasn't viewed as real sex, so they can claim they're still virgins.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

For one, they haven't received non-abstinence only sex ed.

And condoms are evil.

And if my mom finds them she'll kill me and tell God I died.

And hey, I wonder if anybody's ever tried putting it in the butt?

And I'm a good person, so she won't get pregnant.

And just this once, baby, I swear I'll pull out.

And sorry, baby, but I heard something about the rhythm method and standing on your head.

And hey, baby, maybe an abortion isn't always bad, you know?

You forgot The Classic:

"You can´t get pregnant the first time."

[Spike-X]

You forgot The Classic:

"You can´t get pregnant the first time."
"This is your first time, isn't it?"

"Umm...of course!"

[Matt Algren]

You forgot The Classic:

"You can´t get pregnant the first time."
I knew I left one of them out.

[Paul McEnery]

I knew I left one of them out.

That's how I always avoid pregnancy.

[Matt Algren]

That's how I always avoid pregnancy.
Rimshot!

...



I just thought of another one!

[PatrickG]

That's how I always avoid pregnancy.

You know that you couldn't get pregnant anyway, right, Paul?

I'm just tryin' to save the virgin population from your voracious appetite by pointing out that you don't have a uterus to get pregnant with...

[Tobias March]

You know that you couldn't get pregnant anyway, right, Paul?

I'm just tryin' to save the virgin population from your voracious appetite by pointing out that you don't have a uterus to get pregnant with...

He has an external one that he attaches like a drive.

Long Live the New Flesh!

[Paul McEnery]

You know that you couldn't get pregnant anyway, right, Paul?

I'm just tryin' to save the virgin population from your voracious appetite by pointing out that you don't have a uterus to get pregnant with...

Well damn. Now I've got no excuse for my moodswings.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

If men could get pregnant, mankind would be extinct in one generation. :biggrin:

[PatrickG]

Well damn. Now I've got no excuse for my moodswings.

Wasn't there a lot of tenuous science a couple of years back, touting He-MS as a new thing. Werewolves and women aren't the only ones with 28 day cycles supposedly.

And maybe you're, ah, just picking up ambient moonlight from distant galaxies.

I'm sure if you use that as an excuse for your mood swings, no one will bother you -- or even speak to you!

[Charles RB]

You forgot The Classic:

"You can´t get pregnant the first time."

You can if you really try!

The conservative south states have higher teen-pregnancy rates because the yankees are slackers! :mad:

[Paul McEnery]

You can if you really try!

The conservative south states have higher teen-pregnancy rates because the yankees are slackers! :mad:

Too busy yanking!

[Paul McEnery]

Wasn't there a lot of tenuous science a couple of years back, touting He-MS as a new thing. Werewolves and women aren't the only ones with 28 day cycles supposedly.

And maybe you're, ah, just picking up ambient moonlight from distant galaxies.


Hell, for a couple of months there I had the Andromedan Clap. Oof! Boy was I grumpy.

[Briareos]

Nobody ever says that. Of course a parent has an impact on how their child behaves, but that doesn't mean that the children shouldn't be taught about contraception and protectives just to be on the safe side.

And it's not abstinence that's being criticized here, it's the formal virginity pledges. Look, here's a study that shows that an informal and private pledge is more effective than a formal one. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T80-4FY22P2-C&_user=1067412&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000051246&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1067412&md5=7d2b074f6e2686327508b7eab32943dc) So if these parents really wanted their kids to refrain from sex, skip the stupid ceremonies and meaningless baubles and just get them to understand that being responsible means having to delay pleasure for a bit.

Except the left constantly criticizes abstinence. They are constantly trying to have it removed or marginalized in public education sex-ed classes.

[Reverend Smooth]

Except the left constantly criticizes abstinence. They are constantly trying to have it removed or marginalized in public education sex-ed classes.
False. Most folks on 'the left' will say that comprehensive sex ed in which abstinence is part of it is fine. We really would prefer that kids keep their legs closed, believe it or not, but in the event that they do not, they should be responsible about it.

[Briareos]

Hell, for a couple of months there I had the Andromedan Clap. Oof! Boy was I grumpy.

*PULLS OUT A GUN!!!!*

NO YOU GUYS WILL NOT DERAIL THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*SHOOTS TO KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

[Matt Doc Martin]

Except the left constantly criticizes abstinence-only. They are constantly trying to have it removed or marginalized in public education sex-ed classes.

Fixed it for you.

Good job on spelling this time, though.

[Spike-X]

Except the left constantly criticizes abstinence.

Oh look, you're talking shit again.

We're not constantly criticising abstinence. We're constantly criticising abstinence-only. Because it doesn't work.

[MacQuarrie]

You know what works better than abstinence-only sex ed or chastity pledges or church programs or any of that stuff?

Parenting.

Teens who eat breakfast with their family become sexually active later and are far more responsible in their sexual activities. Why? Because they have parents who are involved enough in their lives to make sure they eat breakfast, that's why.

They're your kids, you raise them. All the pledges and rallies in the world can't do that as well as you can.

Why is this hard?

[Spike-X]

You know what works better than abstinence-only sex ed or chastity pledges or church programs or any of that stuff?

Parenting.

Teens who eat breakfast with their family become sexually active later and are far more responsible in their sexual activities. Why? Because they have parents who are involved enough in their lives to make sure they eat breakfast, that's why.

They're your kids, you raise them. All the pledges and rallies in the world can't do that as well as you can.

Why is this hard?

Because it takes more than five minutes, duh!

[Matt Doc Martin]

Oh look, you're talking shit again.

We're not constantly criticising abstinence. We're constantly criticising abstinence-only. Because it doesn't work.

Beat you by 9 minutes.

[Reverend Smooth]

That's what my grandparents did with me. I waited until I was engaged depite a lot of pressure to have sex (my mom, in particular, was upset that I wasn't looking to get laid) in good part because my grandparents took the time to kindly and reasonably make me want to live up to their morality.

[Paul McEnery]

Oh look, you're talking shit again.

We're not constantly criticising abstinence. We're constantly criticising abstinence-only. Because it doesn't work.

Well, it's never gotten me off.

[Paul McEnery]

Because it takes more than five minutes, duh!

That's not what she said.

[Paul McEnery]

*PULLS OUT A GUN!!!!*

NO YOU GUYS WILL NOT DERAIL THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*SHOOTS TO KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Ooooooh dearie me. That's worse than the Andromedan Clap. Definitely the Aldebaran Blue-balls. And in this case, I'd say it's incurable.

[Spike-X]

Beat you by 9 minutes.
Yeah, sorry about that. I was busy handing out condoms to sixth-graders.

[Tommy]

Because it takes more than five minutes, duh!

Why would anyone want to actually parent themselves when they can force the school system to teach all children their narrow minded ideology?

[Paul McEnery]

Why would anyone want to actually parent themselves when they can force the school system to teach all children their narrow minded ideology?

I'm not even qualified to parent anyone else, let alone parent myself.

[Spike-X]

Why would anyone want to actually parent themselves when they can force the school system to teach all children their narrow minded ideology?
As long as they don't go teaching them that 'science', is all I can say.

Facts have no place in the educational system!

[Charles RB]

Too busy yanking!

Well played, sir. Well played.

You know what works better than abstinence-only sex ed or chastity pledges or church programs or any of that stuff?

Parenting.

That sounds hard and confusing and scary. Are you sure there's not a pledge that can shorten it?

[DavidAllred]

Here's a fun fact.

The arsehole who wrote the WSJ article used to be Bush Jr.'s speechwriter.

I think we're not quite as surprised that he's a big fat liar now.

Though we ought to be surprised he's being allowed to write for the WSJ now. Which shows how little credibility the paper has any more.

And here's a photo of him!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/William_McGurn_1.jpg

Jeez, Paul. That's kind of new low for you in both reason and tact.... going straight for an author's character and posting pictures of them in response to their claims instead of debating those claims. I hereby appoint myself to reel you in.

[DavidAllred]

As long as they don't go teaching them that 'science', is all I can say.

Facts have no place in the educational system!

So, I'm curious (not just for Spike) if this guys facts are indeed correct, would listing religious involvement or conservatism as one of many different ways for delaying the onset of teen sexuality be reasonable? Would such mentioning or inclusion of this fact be permissible in classroom as part of an intervention strategy?

The point of the article seems to be overlooked in responses in this thread, that one half of the data was selected over the other. One half of the data was used by the press to paint a picture they wanted to paint while the other half was virtually ignored. That's a pretty serious claim I think, and I have little doubt that if the major media outlets had seized the neglected half and purposefully negelected the reported half, most people here would find that intellectually dishonest.... which is itself a form of intellectual dishonesty.

[Spike-X]

So, I'm curious (not just for Spike) if this guys facts are indeed correct, would listing religious involvement or conservatism as one of many different ways for delaying the onset of teen sexuality be reasonable? Would such mentioning or inclusion of this fact be permissible in classroom as part of an intervention strategy?


What function do you envision being served by such an inclusion? What kind of 'intervention strategy' are you picturing here?

[JeffreyWKramer]

It's heartwarming to see that in my absence, someone else pointed out the falsehoods of the extremist idiot propagandists.

Abstinence only sex ed doesn't work. That's a fact. Any attempt to spin it any other way is an attempt to avoid facing facts.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So, I'm curious (not just for Spike) if this guys facts are indeed correct, would listing religious involvement or conservatism as one of many different ways for delaying the onset of teen sexuality be reasonable? Would such mentioning or inclusion of this fact be permissible in classroom as part of an intervention strategy?

Locking kids in the basement until they're 18 might also reduce the chances of teen pregnancy. Should that also be advocated?

The reporting you and this crappy article's douchebag author don't like was about sex ed, not other factors that might influence sexual behavior. You're doing your standard red-herring spin game, stamen, and that's why you accusing someone else of being intellectually dishonest is ridiculous on par with Oprah calling someone fat.

[Super Sonic]

I SAAAAID "lol virgins:biggrin: "

[thespianphryne]

Whatever, I don't really care for religion.

But if you are religious, why does teaching young people about sex and educating them on how to stay safe frighten you? I see nothing wrong with advocating abstinence. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, most sex-ed curricula, have in the past stressed or would stress abstinence, while also providing certain factual-medical information about avoiding disease and pregnancy should one choose to have sex.

What is so frightening degenerate about this idea? Why do so many parents who ostensibly would like their children to have the same moral values as they do resist this idea of a realistic and sane approach to informing and educating their children about sex?

[Nick Soapdish]

So, I'm curious (not just for Spike) if this guys facts are indeed correct, would listing religious involvement or conservatism as one of many different ways for delaying the onset of teen sexuality be reasonable? Would such mentioning or inclusion of this fact be permissible in classroom as part of an intervention strategy?

The point of the article seems to be overlooked in responses in this thread, that one half of the data was selected over the other. One half of the data was used by the press to paint a picture they wanted to paint while the other half was virtually ignored. That's a pretty serious claim I think, and I have little doubt that if the major media outlets had seized the neglected half and purposefully negelected the reported half, most people here would find that intellectually dishonest.... which is itself a form of intellectual dishonesty.

So the pertinent part of the data was included and the part that wasn't studied wasn't included?

I can't imagine why a journalist would do that with an article.

I already mentioned this in my response to your previous post. There were a few other factors besides being religious that were described as being characteristic of the dataset. Two of them have not had many studies about their effectiveness (to my knowledge) - conservatism or religious beliefs. Although if Alaska is any indication, they aren't much of a factor and it may be worth noting that the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy are among the more religious and conservative states. The third factor mentioned is strong support from the family (and church, but you should be able to insert any peer group there). There have been studies about that and it has been frequently reported in the MSM.

I think that it would be irresponsible for the journalist to draw conclusions from the study that aren't backed by the data or even claimed by the researcher.

You might also want to check out the links that Matt provided.

[beetlebum]

You're doing your standard red-herring spin game, stamen, and that's why you accusing someone else of being intellectually dishonest is ridiculous on par with Oprah calling someone fat.

And the red-herring spinning is usually accompanied by accusations that us YABSers are a bunch of bullies because we had the nerve to call him on his BS.

Yes, how dare we do that.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Whatever, I don't really care for religion.

But if you are religious, why does teaching young people about sex and educating them on how to stay safe frighten you? I see nothing wrong with advocating abstinence. In act, if I'm not mistaken, most sex-ed curricula, have in the past or would stress abstinence, while also providing certain factual-medical information about avoiding disease and pregnancy should one choose to have sex.

What is so frightening degenerate about this idea? Why do so many parents who ostensibly would like their children to have the same moral values as they do resist this idea of a realistic and sane approach to informing and educating their children about sex?


The best explanation can be found in my signature.

[Matt Algren]

Whatever, I don't really care for religion.

But if you are religious, why does teaching young people about sex and educating them on how to stay safe frighten you? I see nothing wrong with advocating abstinence. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, most sex-ed curricula, have in the past stressed or would stress abstinence, while also providing certain factual-medical information about avoiding disease and pregnancy should one choose to have sex.

What is so frightening degenerate about this idea? Why do so many parents who ostensibly would like their children to have the same moral values as they do resist this idea of a realistic and sane approach to informing and educating their children about sex?
Because telling kids how to have safer sex infers approval of them having sex. Whether you're talking about sex when they're teenagers or sex when they're adults, teaching them about sex as part of their upbringing is viewed as tacit approval for sex that is not allowed.

Condoms and other forms of protection and education are unnecessary because they will be having sex with only one person who has also only had sex with one person, making STDs irrelevant. To handle the other objection, sex for purposes other than procreation is taught as strictly verboten. In their line of thinking, sex outside of marriage and sex within marriage for non-procreative purposes is always and forever wrong.

[Adam C]

The point of the article seems to be overlooked in responses in this thread, that one half of the data was selected over the other. One half of the data was used by the press to paint a picture they wanted to paint while the other half was virtually ignored. That's a pretty serious claim I think, and I have little doubt that if the major media outlets had seized the neglected half and purposefully negelected the reported half, most people here would find that intellectually dishonest.... which is itself a form of intellectual dishonesty.

*Reads the original link*

Let me get this straight: the problem McGunn has is that the media didn't report on things that Rosenbaum's study never looked at when reporting on Rosenbaum's study. Therefore it is intellectually dishonest?

Granted I'm severely skeptical of McGunn's claims. He claims that religiously conservative teens have less risky sexual behaviour because they have fewer partners and engage in less vaginal sex. Yet going back to the New Yorker article Matt linked to it was found that those among more socially liberal families actually are more likely to use protection and have lower rates of STDs. They also have lower rates of teen pregnancy. (Which begs the question as to where Dr. Healy's data on teen pregnancy comes from because McGunn provides slender context for me to assess it.) Also I have one more issue with his commentary:

Unlike the majority of health experts and their supporters in the press, however, they don't believe that the proper use of the condom is the be all and end all.

And what does he base this on? The comprehensive sex-ed courses I got that emphasize abstinence is the only truly effective way to avoid pregnancy or STDs, but still teach you proper use of condoms, as well as other forms of birth control? I've heard this cliche brought up multiple times by social conservatives, yet I've never seen it matched with actual examples. It feels more like a point that was made up for the sake ideological warfare than anything else.

[thespianphryne]

Yeah, because no one in their family has ever had extramarital sex. Ever. Ever. Ever.

[Calybos]

Because telling kids how to have safer sex infers approval of them having sex.

Yes, I remember in U.S. History class when they taught us about the Civil War.

Clearly, they were providing tacit approval for me to own slaves and start shooting at the people across the street.

[Samurai]

Whatever, I don't really care for religion.

But if you are religious, why does teaching young people about sex and educating them on how to stay safe frighten you? I see nothing wrong with advocating abstinence. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, most sex-ed curricula, have in the past stressed or would stress abstinence, while also providing certain factual-medical information about avoiding disease and pregnancy should one choose to have sex.

What is so frightening degenerate about this idea? Why do so many parents who ostensibly would like their children to have the same moral values as they do resist this idea of a realistic and sane approach to informing and educating their children about sex?

Matt explained it well. Here's an analogy that may help you. Kids are in danger from guns, right? So, should schools, starting as early as possible, since young kids can play with guns, simply tell them not to play with guns or point them at others because you never know when it's loaded, or should they also teach them how to properly shoot and handle a gun, how to check the magazine to know if it's loaded, how to clean and field-strip it, etc?

You may think the comparison doesn't work, but many of the same arguments you'd make against comprehensive gun training vs "just stay away from them" are exactly the same ones abstinence advocates would make.

"If they just stay away from guns like they're told, no training is needed."

"My children don't need gun training, and if we the parents decide they need it, we'll do it ourselves, it isn't the school's job."

"Teaching them about how to actually use a gun will increase the danger that they'll actually decide to use one, rather than avoid it."

"Kids shouldn't learn about that at such a young age, in spite of the danger they could get into if all they know is "just avoid it"".

[Red Jack]

Yes, I remember in U.S. History class when they taught us about the Civil War.

Clearly, they were providing tacit approval for me to own slaves and start shooting at the people across the street.

I like you. You're funny.

[Matt Algren]

Yes, I remember in U.S. History class when they taught us about the Civil War.

Clearly, they were providing tacit approval for me to own slaves and start shooting at the people across the street.
Understand, it's not what I think, but I know where it comes from.

[thespianphryne]

Matt explained it well. Here's an analogy that may help you. Kids are in danger from guns, right? So, should schools, starting as early as possible, since young kids can play with guns, simply tell them not to play with guns or point them at others because you never know when it's loaded, or should they also teach them how to properly shoot and handle a gun, how to check the magazine to know if it's loaded, how to clean and field-strip it, etc?

You may think the comparison doesn't work, but many of the same arguments you'd make against comprehensive gun training vs "just stay away from them" are exactly the same ones abstinence advocates would make.

"If they just stay away from guns like they're told, no training is needed."

"My children don't need gun training, and if we the parents decide they need it, we'll do it ourselves, it isn't the school's job."

"Teaching them about how to actually use a gun will increase the danger that they'll actually decide to use one, rather than avoid it."

"Kids shouldn't learn about that at such a young age, in spite of the danger they could get into if all they know is "just avoid it"".
Yes, clearly. Because there's a gun growing out of my crotch.

[MacQuarrie]

As a parent, a Christian and a fairly conservative person, I can understand the Religious Right's views here. I don't agree with them, but I understand. But politically, I'm a Geopragmacrat.

Geo-pragma-crat:
Geo= the world. We live there, and have to base our policies on that fact. We can't base our policies on some ideal world that does not exist, or some perfected world that hasn't yet come into being. We live in the real world where people are stupid, greedy, selfish, fearful, and apathetic, where people rationalize and excuse themselves and blame others and lie to themselves constantly. Our policies have to reflect and account for that.

Pragma= short for "pragmatic." Sometimes you have to accept the solution that works, even if it isn't the ideal. It's great to have absolute principles and high aspirations, and to constantly shoot for them, but you can't really make perfection the baseline standard. Accept what's achievable and keep pushing for better.

So with that in mind, sex education becomes fairly simple.

With my kids, I basically said, here's the moral and ethical standard. Below that are the practical concerns. If you're going to be immoral, at least don't be stupid and compound the problem.

My son has a friend who is pregnant at 18. She comes from a super-legalistic religious family (a bizarre offshoot of a non-mainstream Christianish sect), so she had to tell herself that having sex was an accident, being overcome by her emotions and feelings and not what she planned. Using a condom or pill would put the lie to that, so they didn't. She and her boyfriend acted like every time they had sex it was an impulsive act that they didn't intend. Because they needed to rationalize their way into still being "good religious people" who didn't do that sort of thing.

My son is basically appalled by the whole situation.

Sometimes I want to smack church people.

[Samurai]

Yes, clearly. Because there's a gun growing out of my crotch.

There are guns all over the place, right? Who knows where and when your kid might encounter one? Are they properly trained to know how to handle it, or just told "stay away, don't touch"? Kids will be kids, they'll want to play with it no matter what the parent or teacher says, right? Shouldn't they be taught to know how to handle it safely?

[Matt Algren]

Yes, clearly. Because there's a gun growing out of my crotch.
That's hot.

I agree with Samurai's analogy, but I also think it shows why the thinking is wrong. If it's a question of my theoretical kid necessarily being around guns, you're damn right I want her trained on how to use one properly and taught that she shouldn't mess with them.

[JohnPopa]

Matt explained it well. Here's an analogy that may help you. Kids are in danger from guns, right? So, should schools, starting as early as possible, since young kids can play with guns, simply tell them not to play with guns or point them at others because you never know when it's loaded, or should they also teach them how to properly shoot and handle a gun, how to check the magazine to know if it's loaded, how to clean and field-strip it, etc?

You may think the comparison doesn't work, but many of the same arguments you'd make against comprehensive gun training vs "just stay away from them" are exactly the same ones abstinence advocates would make.

"If they just stay away from guns like they're told, no training is needed."

"My children don't need gun training, and if we the parents decide they need it, we'll do it ourselves, it isn't the school's job."

"Teaching them about how to actually use a gun will increase the danger that they'll actually decide to use one, rather than avoid it."

"Kids shouldn't learn about that at such a young age, in spite of the danger they could get into if all they know is "just avoid it"".


Um, those pseudo-parallel arguments don't change the fact that guns aren't sex and guns aren't an undisputed part of the hormonal and emotional changes all human beings go through and thus, the way gun training and sex are taught and discussed with people should be, you know, different.

It's a cute Mad Lib, though.

[thespianphryne]

That's hot.

I agree with Samurai's analogy, but I also think it shows why the thinking is wrong. If it's a question of my theoretical kid necessarily being around guns, you're damn right I want her trained on how to use one properly and taught that she shouldn't mess with them.

Crotch guns, I'm telling you: they're a biological imperative.

---

Brains, right? They're everywhere. Brains are what people use to come up with things like spears, bows, arrows, guns, right? Dangerous. Personally, I want my kids protected from brains. I don't want anyone teaching my kid how to use brains. That violates my parental prerogative. Just stay away. "Don't touch!"

[Indigo Al]

There are guns all over the place, right? Who knows where and when your kid might encounter one? Are they properly trained to know how to handle it, or just told "stay away, don't touch"? Kids will be kids, they'll want to play with it no matter what the parent or teacher says, right? Shouldn't they be taught to know how to handle it safely?

Samurai, do you honestly buy that argument?

[Charles RB]

Samurai, do you honestly buy that argument?

I'm not sure what his argument is there.

I think his argument is based on the assumption that we think kids whose parents own guns shouldn't be taught about proper gun use so they don't kill themselves or others.

[DavidAllred]

Locking kids in the basement until they're 18 might also reduce the chances of teen pregnancy. Should that also be advocated?

Of course not. How about simply reporting where she had to go to make the data work?

The reporting you and this crappy article's douchebag author don't like was about sex ed, not other factors that might influence sexual behavior. You're doing your standard red-herring spin game, stamen, and that's why you accusing someone else of being intellectually dishonest is ridiculous on par with Oprah calling someone fat.

As usual, you and you're ilk are unable to keep the debate civil. You can't stay on topic without hurling an insult.

So back to the topic, what about teens delaying sexual activity isn't about sex ed? And what about making claims about a religious program by using religious teens not in the program as your control group is intellectually honest? I suppose it would have been if the report had read,

"Religious pledges shown to not make much difference for religious teens."

Would it have been that hard to randomize the control group? Isn't that good science?

[DavidAllred]

And the red-herring spinning is usually accompanied by accusations that us YABSers are a bunch of bullies because we had the nerve to call him on his BS.

Yes, how dare we do that.

Would you like to call me on some BS?

Or do you prefer that this conversation remain about me instead of the topic at hand?

Jeff came straight at me, and you just read it. He took 3/4 of his response to the author and to me, and 1/4 of his response to the issue-- if that.

You took the time to devote 100% of your post to me.

Would you like to debate the issue, or not?

[Matt Algren]

Of course not. How about simply reporting where she had to go to make the data work?



As usual, you and you're ilk are unable to keep the debate civil. You can't stay on topic without hurling an insult.

So back to the topic, what about teens delaying sexual activity isn't about sex ed? And what about making claims about a religious program by using religious teens not in the program as your control group is intellectually honest? I suppose it would have been if the report had read,

"Religious pledges shown to not make much difference for religious teens."

Would it have been that hard to randomize the control group? Isn't that good science?
Please return to page one and read Gilda's post. She explained very well the reason that wouldn't be good science.

[Nick Soapdish]

Of course not. How about simply reporting where she had to go to make the data work?



As usual, you and you're ilk are unable to keep the debate civil. You can't stay on topic without hurling an insult.

So back to the topic, what about teens delaying sexual activity isn't about sex ed? And what about making claims about a religious program by using religious teens not in the program as your control group is intellectually honest? I suppose it would have been if the report had read,

"Religious pledges shown to not make much difference for religious teens."

Would it have been that hard to randomize the control group? Isn't that good science?

Please read the two links provided by Matt a couple days ago. Or the post by Gilda. Or one of mine. Quoted below for convenience. You might notice that the New Yorker article does refer to a study about sexual activity among religious tendencies and it doesn't say what you want it to say so maybe it's one of those other factors.

And the pledges aren't religious pledges. They're chastity pledges. Abstinence-only sex education isn't a religious program either. It's one that is promoted for public (secular) schools.

There is a difference and accuracy should be somewhat relevant.

Had you actually read what McGurn writes there, or for that matter, had McGurn read what he writes, you'd see that the news reports were accurate.

His bone of contention is that the study compares pledge takers, who are generally religious conservatives, to other non-pledge takers who are also religious conservatives. What he sees as some sort of flaw is actually basic science. When you want to determine what effect a given variable has, you have to control for other possible variables to eliminate them as possible causes for differences. In other words, the control group, the one being compared to, should be as similar as possible to the experimental group except for the variable being tested.

This is eighth-grade science.

Chastity pledges don't work. That's the result of the study, and that's what was reported.

And it isn't abstinence education that's a problem, it's abstinence only education. A study (http://www.yorku.ca/mediar/archive/Release.asp?Release=1125) was released a couple years ago that showed that among the sexually active, religious people were more likely to engage in risky sex. Similar findings were reported in a separate report (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot?currentPage=all) last year.



This last one also reported an unhealthy view of sex from white evangelical teens.

So the pertinent part of the data was included and the part that wasn't studied wasn't included?

I can't imagine why a journalist would do that with an article.

I already mentioned this in my response to your previous post. There were a few other factors besides being religious that were described as being characteristic of the dataset. Two of them have not had many studies about their effectiveness (to my knowledge) - conservatism or religious beliefs. Although if Alaska is any indication, they aren't much of a factor and it may be worth noting that the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy are among the more religious and conservative states. The third factor mentioned is strong support from the family (and church, but you should be able to insert any peer group there). There have been studies about that and it has been frequently reported in the MSM.

I think that it would be irresponsible for the journalist to draw conclusions from the study that aren't backed by the data or even claimed by the researcher.

You might also want to check out the links that Matt provided.

[Paul McEnery]

Jeez, Paul. That's kind of new low for you in both reason and tact.... going straight for an author's character and posting pictures of them in response to their claims instead of debating those claims. I hereby appoint myself to reel you in.

I put it to you that slamming this pedophile-looking lying fascist cocksucker is an entirely reasonable thing to do; and that if one is a lying fascist cocksucker who's spreading disinformation about teenage sex in a manner guaranteed to do harm, that's exactly the kind of pedophile-looking face I'd expect one to have.

[Spike-X]

Would you like to debate the issue, or not?

Would you? I'm still waiting for an answer to this (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=8186711&postcount=80).

Thanks!

[Spike-X]

it may be worth noting that the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy are among the more religious and conservative states.

Yeah, hey, how 'bout that?

[Paul McEnery]

Yes, clearly. Because there's a gun growing out of my crotch.

I prefer the term crotch rocket, myself.

[Paul McEnery]

My son has a friend who is pregnant at 18. She comes from a super-legalistic religious family (a bizarre offshoot of a non-mainstream Christianish sect), so she had to tell herself that having sex was an accident, being overcome by her emotions and feelings and not what she planned. Using a condom or pill would put the lie to that, so they didn't. She and her boyfriend acted like every time they had sex it was an impulsive act that they didn't intend. Because they needed to rationalize their way into still being "good religious people" who didn't do that sort of thing.

My son is basically appalled by the whole situation.

Sometimes I want to smack church people.

And sadly, that's not at all unusual, and one of the things I had to deal with as the University Chaplain.

On top of only just having dealt with it for myself, even!

[DavidAllred]

Please return to page one and read Gilda's post. She explained very well the reason that wouldn't be good science.

I get it, really. But the conclusion from the data is at best misleading and doesn't tell us much of anything useful.

It's reporting that taking a "No-Mountain Dew" pledge doesn't keep people away from soda, while failing to admit that your reporting on people that generally don't drink soda. There is a problem. Maybe not with the science, but with the way the science is being used.

It might be sound, but it's certainly not very meaningful.

[PatrickG]

There are guns all over the place, right? Who knows where and when your kid might encounter one? Are they properly trained to know how to handle it, or just told "stay away, don't touch"? Kids will be kids, they'll want to play with it no matter what the parent or teacher says, right? Shouldn't they be taught to know how to handle it safely?

You know, speaking as someone who lives a life where neither sex nor firearms have ever really played a welcome role (generally because the only time either factor into my life are when somebody else does something stupid with them), I totally support both safe gun education and safe sex.

I also believe in the basics I've heard coming out of Rahm Emmanuel about training kids to be first responders and field medics in the event of terrorist attack or natural disaster.

A standardized test view of education is weak. High school should prepare people for life and train them for bad contingencies. College should build critical thinking, expose people to challenging and offensive ideas, foster an appreciation for service, volunteer or commercial, and prepare them to be rounded individuals for the good contingencies.

I'd like to see more time spent on critical thinking and logic in schools and effort put into restoring team-building, visceral, elective based activities. High school shouldn't be about preparing people for a test or even college.

Besides which, colleges, good colleges, wind up having to retrain students out of bad study habits and bad composition techniques they developed because high schools weren't focusing on decision making, team building, cementing people as independent adults and members of a community.

Sex Ed and Econ and Critical Thinking are more important than Calculus, Grammar and Physics. Granted, good teachers manage to inject the important stuff into other subjects; IMO, any great math teacher is also a Socratic teacher. But we don't really WANT teachers teaching relative values or decision making skills because we don't want kids to realize that life is entirely options and personal responsibility.

Sure, abstinence is better on paper. But if kids don't see the effects -- and if we aren't straight with them, both positive and negative -- then we aren't empowering them to make decisions and we're creating a generation of victims.

If there are words or ideas that are off-limits to a sixteen year-old in a scholarly context that is relevant to their lives and their peer's lives then our society is a failure waiting to happen.

[DavidAllred]

Would you? I'm still waiting for an answer to this (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=8186711&postcount=80).

Thanks!

Yeah, Spike. Sorry that I went on to feed the trolls rather than respond to a genuine question you put forward.

Of course, I am personally against any kind of formal religious instruction in schools. I'm also personally against pledges like this and I've never taken any of my students to one of these things after 18 years of working with teenagers. In fact, I think they are kind of counterproductive.

I believe that schools should suggest that a kid be surrounded by "protective factors" and when they are, they are less likely to engage in risky behaviors. I think to be intellectually honest, we have to include what we know works -- from latex, to strong parenting, and yes, to participation in religious activities. Give students and parents a smorgasboard of protective practices from which to choose. I think it can be mentioned without endoctrinating children and families to a particular world view. If being a religious conservative helps reduce risky sexual behavior, then it should be seen as a protective factor and mentioned in curriculum or programming. To exclude it and not any of the other factors is being disengenious.

[Paul McEnery]

Yeah, Spike. Sorry that I went on to feed the trolls rather than respond to a genuine question you put forward.

Of course, I am personally against any kind of formal religious instruction in schools. I'm also personally against pledges like this and I've never taken any of my students to one of these things after 18 years of working with teenagers. In fact, I think they are kind of counterproductive..

Well then why do you go out of your way to defend a guy who's lying through his teeth to promote them, then?

[DavidAllred]

Please read the two links provided by Matt a couple days ago. Or the post by Gilda. Or one of mine. Quoted below for convenience. You might notice that the New Yorker article does refer to a study about sexual activity among religious tendencies and it doesn't say what you want it to say so maybe it's one of those other factors.

And the pledges aren't religious pledges. They're chastity pledges. Abstinence-only sex education isn't a religious program either. It's one that is promoted for public (secular) schools.

There is a difference and accuracy should be somewhat relevant.

Was there a link to the original study, or did I miss it? If someone has could they throw it up?

[DavidAllred]

Look at the way this was spun by CBS:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/30/health/webmd/main4691685.shtml

The results showed that five years after taking the virginity pledge:


82 percent of pledgers denied ever having taken the pledge.

A fair criticism of group-think and peer pressure working the in the wrong direction.


Pledgers and matched non-pledgers did not differ in rates of premarital sex, sexually transmitted disease, or oral or anal sex behaviors.

Ok, so this kind of negates the idea they put forward here:

But the results, published in the journal Pediatrics, suggest that these virginity pledgers are less likely to protect themselves against pregnancy or disease when they do have sex.

If they did not differ in rates of sex, disease, or behavior then how do they make that claim from the data? Notice the article doesn't even use any pregnancy data here. It just says that when compared with this unnamed other group there was no difference in disease rate. How do you get from that result in the data to the statement above?

Futhermore, they never describe who the non-pledgers are or that the non-pledgers in the control group already delay sex for a full four years later than randomized non-pledgers. They only notion that the control group is non-randomized is in the word "matched."


Pledgers had, on average, 0.1 fewer sexual partners in the past year but did not differ from non-pledgers in the number of lifetime sexual partners and the age of first sex.

Here, they don't bother with throwing in the word "matched." They just make an openly dishonest statement about the age of first sex, which leads one to assume that they are referring to randomized non-pledgers. They aren't.


I really don't see how anyone regardless of where you stand on the issue can read that with a straight face. So we can talk about what good science it is all day long, but I don't see how anyone could hold their head up in defense of how it was used.

[Spike-X]

Of course, I am personally against any kind of formal religious instruction in schools. I'm also personally against pledges like this and I've never taken any of my students to one of these things after 18 years of working with teenagers. In fact, I think they are kind of counterproductive.

Glad to hear it.

I believe that schools should suggest that a kid be surrounded by "protective factors" and when they are, they are less likely to engage in risky behaviors. I think to be intellectually honest, we have to include what we know works -- from latex, to strong parenting, and yes, to participation in religious activities. Give students and parents a smorgasboard of protective practices from which to choose. I think it can be mentioned without endoctrinating children and families to a particular world view. If being a religious conservative helps reduce risky sexual behavior, then it should be seen as a protective factor and mentioned in curriculum or programming. To exclude it and not any of the other factors is being disengenious.

On the face of it, that sounds reasonable. I imagine schools would have to be careful about how they word the whole religious participation thing, though. Something like, "If you're a church-goer, participating in your church's youth group might be helpful because you'd be around other young people who would hopefully share your commitment to remaining abstinent."

Although from what we've heard here, being a religious conservative might not be as big of an influence as you'd like to believe.

And you'd want to be sure that didn't end up being abused in some fashion, too. All it would take is one teacher to be seen to be pressuring kids to attend church, and there'd be lawsuits flying all over the place.

[DavidAllred]

Well then why do you go out of your way to defend a guy who's lying through his teeth to promote them, then?

Because I think trashing authors on an internet message board rather than intellectually dismantling what they wrote is bad form.

[beetlebum]

Fine Stamen, I admit that it was wrong of me to take my little pot-shot at you.

However, I don't fancy mine much when it comes to being called a "troll."

[Paul McEnery]

Because I think trashing authors on an internet message board rather than intellectually dismantling what they wrote is bad form.

Well, it isn't.

It's classic "consider the source". If someone tells me that blacks are dumber than whites, I'm going to ask which talkshow host they heard it from, and then I'm going to assassinate what little character they've got until it's dead dead dead.

In this case, the primary source is the WSJ, which used to be the voice of business, and has become the voice of neo-fascism since Murdoch took it over. It's important to be aware of this when assessing anything you read from that source, since it is now utterly unreliable.

However, there are still reasonable, readable writers working there, so it's important to know which is which. This turd-in-a-tie isn't one of them. In fact, his resume states in big bold letters PAID TO BULLSHIT.

The bottom line is: everything printed by the WSJ should be treated with extreme suspicion; and everything written by this numbskull should be ignored with extreme prejudice. Saves a lot of bother.

And just to clarify one teeny bit more: neo-fascists (can't be arsed to weasel-word this by calling them neo-conservatives, because they're not conservatives at all, are they) never, ever, not one teeny little bit, in any way at all EVER tell the truth.

They do not care about the truth. They spit on the truth. They wipe their arses on the truth and then jam it in our faces so that all we can smell any more is their stinking arses.

That's because all they care about is power. Everything they say is spin designed to make people do what they say. And that's it. Engaging with one of these jerks about truth as if truth mattered is an absolute waste of time.

Though I invite you to spend ten pages or so arguing with Samurai if you feel you want an object lesson.

[Michael P]

You know, speaking as someone who lives a life where neither sex nor firearms have ever really played a welcome role (generally because the only time either factor into my life are when somebody else does something stupid with them), I totally support both safe gun education and safe sex.

But that's impossible; only conservatives believe in gun education, and only liberals believe in sex education! Lkz can never be Yz, and Yz can never be Lkz! War War War!

[Corrina]

I believe in gun education. Hell, I grew up in an area of hunters. My grandfather restored antique rifles. (And I'm still bitter that my cousin got them and I didn't.)

[Paul McEnery]

I believe in gun education. Hell, I grew up in an area of hunters. My grandfather restored antique rifles. (And I'm still bitter that my cousin got them and I didn't.)

It certainly makes it a more dangerous proposition to steal them back.

[Corrina]

Oh, my cousin's a wimp. I could take 'em. :)

[Samurai]

Look at the way this was spun by CBS:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/30/health/webmd/main4691685.shtml



A fair criticism of group-think and peer pressure working the in the wrong direction.




Ok, so this kind of negates the idea they put forward here:



If they did not differ in rates of sex, disease, or behavior then how do they make that claim from the data? Notice the article doesn't even use any pregnancy data here. It just says that when compared with this unnamed other group there was no difference in disease rate. How do you get from that result in the data to the statement above?

Futhermore, they never describe who the non-pledgers are or that the non-pledgers in the control group already delay sex for a full four years later than randomized non-pledgers. They only notion that the control group is non-randomized is in the word "matched."




Here, they don't bother with throwing in the word "matched." They just make an openly dishonest statement about the age of first sex, which leads one to assume that they are referring to randomized non-pledgers. They aren't.


I really don't see how anyone regardless of where you stand on the issue can read that with a straight face. So we can talk about what good science it is all day long, but I don't see how anyone could hold their head up in defense of how it was used.
Stamen, it is blatantly obvious that the writers of the original article were trying to deceive people with their description of the study while still giving themselves some cover with a couple of hints at what the study really entailed. But they knew the casual reader, the one they are hoping to influence, won't catch the meaning of words like "matched". They hoped that the next time someone brought up abstinence pledges, they'd simply say "I think I read something somewhere that they have no effect, and can actually be harmful or something? I dunno, it was a little vague, but..."

[Gilda Dent]

Crotch guns, I'm telling you: they're a biological imperative.

The only defense against them is a mutant transsexual prostitute in a frog mask.

. Ok, so this kind of negates the idea they put forward here:

No, it doesn't. They report the results accurately there. Not controlling for other potential influencing factors would have been faulty science. Comparing pledge-takers to a random sample of non-pledge takers would not have given us any information about the effect of taking the pledge. This is important because those who promote such pledges would want us to believe that the act of taking such a pledge will decrease the likelihood of risky behaviors or the consequences that result from them and the study shows that this isn't true.

If they compared to a random sample of non-pledge takers and found a difference, there would be no way of telling what the cause of the difference was.

If they did not differ in rates of sex, disease, or behavior then how do they make that claim from the data? Notice the article doesn't even use any pregnancy data here. It just says that when compared with this unnamed other group there was no difference in disease rate. How do you get from that result in the data to the statement above?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. They compared those specific items--rates of sex, disease, behaviors--and found no differences between the pledge-takers and the non-pledge takers. They isolated the factor they wanted to study and found that factor has no influence.

It sounds to me as if your complaint is that you dislike the factor they were studying.

Futhermore, they never describe who the non-pledgers are or that the non-pledgers in the control group already delay sex for a full four years later than randomized non-pledgers. They only notion that the control group is non-randomized is in the word "matched."

Yes, exactly.

Comparing to a randomized sample would be bad science for the reasons outlined above.

A truly random sample wouldn't account for age and would include small children and adults. This wouldn't give us much useful information. Instead, we control for age so that we are making a like comparison. The authors also controlled for other demographic elements that might affect the outcome so as to isolate the one factor they wanted to test--the effect of the pledge itself.

A random sample would have given us no information about the pledge itself because there is a potential intervening cause.

Here, they don't bother with throwing in the word "matched." They just make an openly dishonest statement about the age of first sex, which leads one to assume that they are referring to randomized non-pledgers. They aren't.

No, it doesn't. They've already made reference to the two groups being matched. If a reader assumes the control group was random, this is a problem regarding reading comprehension, not bias. Why would one assume the control group was randomly chosen? It doesn't actually say that in the article anywhere. It does say that the groups were matched.

I really don't see how anyone regardless of where you stand on the issue can read that with a straight face. So we can talk about what good science it is all day long, but I don't see how anyone could hold their head up in defense of how it was used.

The fact that it was good science matters. That you don't like the results doesn't change this.

Stamen, it is blatantly obvious that the writers of the original article were trying to deceive people with their description of the study while still giving themselves some cover with a couple of hints at what the study really entailed. But they knew the casual reader, the one they are hoping to influence, won't catch the meaning of words like "matched". They hoped that the next time someone brought up abstinence pledges, they'd simply say "I think I read something somewhere that they have no effect, and can actually be harmful or something? I dunno, it was a little vague, but..."

Someone saying that pledges have no positive effect would be relaying the facts. They would be correct.

The study didn't compare religious conservatives to liberals or the non-religious. That isn't what it was looking at. It was looking at one factor, pledges, it controlled for that factor, and the result was that it makes no difference. The CBS report above reports the results accurately.

Criticizing the study for not looking at the effect of religious belief is like criticizing a study on frogs because it doesn't tell us about all amphibians.

[beetlebum]

Gilda: I ღ you.

I notice no admission of wrong doing from Stamen for calling me a troll.

Fine. Whatever.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I prefer lemon scented Pledge.

[Nick Soapdish]

I get it, really. But the conclusion from the data is at best misleading and doesn't tell us much of anything useful.

It's reporting that taking a "No-Mountain Dew" pledge doesn't keep people away from soda, while failing to admit that your reporting on people that generally don't drink soda. There is a problem. Maybe not with the science, but with the way the science is being used.

It might be sound, but it's certainly not very meaningful.

McGurn claimed in his article that one out of four pledges actually kept the pledge. That means that three out of four didn't keep the pledge. Which means that three out of four did have sex. Three out of four looks a lot like "generally do".



A fair criticism of group-think and peer pressure working the in the wrong direction.


That is also a criticism of peer pressure in the "right" way. Teenagers are pressured by their parents, even if indirectly (if asked by my parents and my church, I would've had a lot of trouble standing up in front of them and saying "no, I won't pledge"), into taking a pledge that they don't



Ok, so this kind of negates the idea they put forward here:

Pledgers and matched non-pledgers did not differ in rates of premarital sex, sexually transmitted disease, or oral or anal sex behaviors.

But the results, published in the journal Pediatrics, suggest that these virginity pledgers are less likely to protect themselves against pregnancy or disease when they do have sex.


If they did not differ in rates of sex, disease, or behavior then how do they make that claim from the data? Notice the article doesn't even use any pregnancy data here. It just says that when compared with this unnamed other group there was no difference in disease rate. How do you get from that result in the data to the statement above?


Re-read what you just quoted and then re-read what you just said. I'll give you a hint. It's in two words that you omitted when characterizing the data. It's also precisely two paragraphs lower than the your second quote.


The biggest difference between the two groups came in the area of condom and birth control use. The study showed that fewer pledgers used birth control or condoms in the past year or any form of birth control the last time they had sex.


There is another common type of sexual behavior than oral and anal. This particular type is actually the only one of the three that is prone to causing pregnancies although any of the three can result in STDs. However, birth control and condoms are not the only determining factors for pregnancy or STDs.


Futhermore, they never describe who the non-pledgers are or that the non-pledgers in the control group already delay sex for a full four years later than randomized non-pledgers. They only notion that the control group is non-randomized is in the word "matched."

Here, they don't bother with throwing in the word "matched." They just make an openly dishonest statement about the age of first sex, which leads one to assume that they are referring to randomized non-pledgers. They aren't.

I really don't see how anyone regardless of where you stand on the issue can read that with a straight face. So we can talk about what good science it is all day long, but I don't see how anyone could hold their head up in defense of how it was used.

Gilda's explained it a couple times and I've tried the same. I'll try once more in a bit more detail.

In seventh grade, I was required to do a science fair project. (It was seventh grade for me because I was "gifted". Given my choice of project, which way may be a matter of debate.)

I chose to research whether or not Coca-Cola would work as a fertilizer. I liked drinking Coke a lot and thought that the sugar might work as a fertilizer, offsetting the carbonation. (I didn't even think about the caffeine.) Plus, it seemed Creative.

So for my experiment, I set up three different groups of pots that I planted seeds in. The first group got just water. The second group got half-and-half. And the third group got Coca-Cola. Each group was immediately adjacent to the others so that they'd be able to get roughly the same amount of light.

Lo, and behold, the Coca-Cola plants completely refused to grow, never even germinating. Which obviously proved that Coca-Cola was a complete failure as a fertilizer. Except that neither did the half-and-half. Or the ones that got water. I overwatered them all and they never had a chance.

So I had to re-plant them and try again almost immediately before the project was due. And it'd be a great example for this argument if I was able to say that my second experiment actually showed that Coca-Cola was a great fertilizer, but obviously that isn't the case. The beans getting only water did have time to sprout and the other two groups apparently died again.

I actually got a decent grade on the project, despite my poor display skills, because (I believe) it was weird and because I did demonstrate the importance of having a control. Using a control was something that my teacher had carefully gone over during the year while teaching us about the Scientific Method. Sure, the results were the same when it came to disproving my hypothesis, but it showed why you can't include multiple variables. Otherwise, my experiment could've just as easily shown that water was fatal to plants and they shouldn't be given it.

You're complaining that the study singled out just one factor and trumpeted the comparison on that factor without mentioning any of the other variables. But the researcher can't and neither can any journalist reporting on this that has any knowledge of science. They can't extrapolate results beyond what they tested for and they can't extrapolate what the reasons for them are. Not if they want to keep a job in the field.

You are welcome to make whatever assumptions you want by choosing which of the three other factors that I singled out you want to credit or ignore (or whether there are other factors entirely). But you don't have any responsibility to look like a credible source on science. That's just you speaking for yourself.

If you do decide to choose which of those factors, you may want to look at some other anecdotal evidence such as how the more religious and conservative states have higher rates of teen pregnancy than the more liberal ones. That's also very broad data and IMO, you shouldn't use that single pair of data points alone to determine anything. But hey, if you're willing to take a leap of faith ...

Or you could read the article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot?currentPage=all) that Matt linked to that I keep mentioning. That article actually reports on a study that evangelical Protestant teenagers have sex at an earlier age than any other group except for black Protestant teenagers. And that areas with high rates of abstinence pledges have higher rates of STDs. (Remember, that there can be many reasons for that.) But there's an exception.

You should read the article to find out. I think that it's a really good and in-depth article and makes a lot of good points on many sides.

[DavidAllred]

No, it doesn't. They report the results accurately there.

I'm not saying they aren't. I was saying that the data said there was no significant difference in rate of disease, etc. etc., while the article was stating that pledge-takers put themselves at great risk for disease, etc. etc.

Not controlling for other potential influencing factors would have been faulty science. Comparing pledge-takers to a random sample of non-pledge takers would not have given us any information about the effect of taking the pledge. This is important because those who promote such pledges would want us to believe that the act of taking such a pledge will decrease the likelihood of risky behaviors or the consequences that result from them and the study shows that this isn't true.

That's really fine and good, but her methods were no where near clearly stated. That's why you are getting statements like this from Web MD:

Dec. 29, 2008 -- Teenagers who take virginity pledges are no less sexually active than other teens, according to a new study.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20081229/virginity-pledge-doesnt-stop-teen-sex

That is a categorically false statement and it serves as the tag line for the article on a medical webpage, no less. And her science is being used to make it because it was disingenuously reported. Do you see the problem?

They compared those specific items--rates of sex, disease, behaviors--and found no differences between the pledge-takers and the non-pledge takers. They isolated the factor they wanted to study and found that factor has no influence.

What they did was cook their numbers so they could report exactly what they wanted.

It sounds to me as if your complaint is that you dislike the factor they were studying.

Not at all. Study away. I'm arguing for clarity and for honesty, which as seen in the WebMD article just isn't likely to happen.

[Calybos]

And just to clarify one teeny bit more: neo-fascists (can't be arsed to weasel-word this by calling them neo-conservatives, because they're not conservatives at all, are they) never, ever, not one teeny little bit, in any way at all EVER tell the truth.

They do not care about the truth. They spit on the truth. They wipe their arses on the truth and then jam it in our faces so that all we can smell any more is their stinking arses.

That's because all they care about is power. Everything they say is spin designed to make people do what they say. And that's it. Engaging with one of these jerks about truth as if truth mattered is an absolute waste of time.

If any of you haven't read Altemeyer's work on the "right-wing authoritarian" mindset and its political consequences, there's an interesting point there. People who have both follower AND leader tendencies in the authoritarian mold will explicitly state that "truth isn't important--power is" and that "morality is how you manipulate people, one of the key tools to success." Altemeyer labels this group (thankfully rare) as "double highs," or more simply: "creepy and dangerous."

You can read excerpts, or the download the whole thing, here: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[DavidAllred]

Re-read what you just quoted and then re-read what you just said. I'll give you a hint. It's in two words that you omitted when characterizing the data. It's also precisely two paragraphs lower than the your second quote.

There is another common type of sexual behavior than oral and anal. This particular type is actually the only one of the three that is prone to causing pregnancies although any of the three can result in STDs. However, birth control and condoms are not the only determining factors for pregnancy or STDs.


My point was and remains that the article claims that pledge takers put themselves at greater risk for x, y, z while the data actually cited there was no difference in disease rates. So the article is moving outside its own data to make claims. And while moving within its own data, it increases the level of confusion by not being clear (and I believe somewhat intentionally) about its methods, which leads to mistatements such as the one WebMD began their report with in the above quote from their website.

[Michael P]

If any of you haven't read Altemeyer's work on the "right-wing authoritarian" mindset and its political consequences, there's an interesting point there. People who have both follower AND leader tendencies in the authoritarian mold will explicitly state that "truth isn't important--power is" and that "morality is how you manipulate people, one of the key tools to success." Atlemeyer labels this group (thankfully rare) as "double highs," or more simply: "creepy and dangerous."

You can read excerpts, or the download the whole thing, here: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

I believe the more common term is "sociopaths."

[Michael P]

My point was and remains that the article claims that pledge takers put themselves at greater risk for x, y, z while the data actually cited there was no difference in disease rates. So the article is moving outside its own data to make claims.

Not very far. It's accepted fact that not using condoms puts one more at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Pledge-takers are more likely not to use condoms, ergo they are putting themselves at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Q.E.D.

A news article about a scientific study is allowed to use relevant facts from outside the study. This is no different than an article on a study of teen smoking mentioning that smoking puts one at risk of cancer, lung disease, emphysema, etc.

Finally, observed outcome does not affect risk. If I jaywalk in Times Square and don't get hit by a car, that doesn't mean that jaywalking in Times Square doesn't put one at risk of getting hit by a car. It means I got lucky.

[DavidAllred]

Not very far. It's accepted fact that not using condoms puts one more at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Pledge-takers are more likely not to use condoms, ergo they are putting themselves at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Q.E.D.

Except for the claims made in the McGurn article, that the subgroup tested is already delaying sex and having sex with fewer partners than most teenagers. Logically, they should be at greater risk for using less birth control, but according to their own data they aren't. Could it be because the group in question isn't truly a randomized sample and therefore extrapolating conventional wisdom which applies to truly randomized groups is less likely to apply?

I think maybe so. If not, how do they explain the data and still justify the claim?

[Charles RB]

Not very far. It's accepted fact that not using condoms puts one more at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Pledge-takers are more likely not to use condoms, ergo they are putting themselves at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.

And they're more likely to have oral and anal sex, which IIRC is riskier than vaginal when it comes to STDs.

[Michael P]

And they're more likely to have oral and anal sex, which IIRC is riskier than vaginal when it comes to STDs.

I was going to put in (har!) something about anal being more risky, but I wasn't sure if it was really true, or a holdover from taking health class with a rabid homophobe.

[Solaris]

If I remember correctly, the risk depends on the STD in question. People tend to assume that the risk factors for AIDS are the same as other STDs, but IIRC they're not.

You can catch AIDS via oral, vaginal, or anal contact---but on average, the risk is slightly greater with anal because anal sex sometimes tears tissues, which creates a direct blood exposure. Thing is, you can have tears with vaginal sex, or abrasions, or you can have abrasions or "ow, you scraped me with a tooth" with oral sex---both of which might also bring blood into the picture. AIDS *can* move directly through semen and vaginal discharge into the somewhat porous tissues of the mouth, vagina, rectum/colon, or penis---but when you bring blood into the picture, it becomes a little more likely... and since anal sex, *on average*, tends to involve more of those tiny tears than the other types, that's why it's a little risker for AIDS.

*Other* STDs tend to pass quite readily via those other fluids and via those other tissues... at least the ones I know about. So as for those, so far as I know, anal and oral sex are no more or less risky than vaginal sex.

By the way---I seem to recall studies that showed in many countries where virginity is considered a prime requisite in the female (often tied to religion there, as well as the culture), one of the consequences is a higher rate of anal sex---because the girl still has her "virginity", and if you stretch the definition, so does the guy.

Bottom line for me on the whole issue is, teach the kids *everything*. Teach 'em abstinence, teach 'em birth control, teach 'em about disease and pregnancy, teach 'em about emotional involvement and raging hormones... then point out to them that it's *their* bodies and *their* lives they have to live in forever: it's the only life and body you'll get, and YOU are ultimately responsible for the risks you take, the diseases you have to suffer through, the pain you'll feel in breakups, the child you generate. All these things can change your life FOREVER---so be smart with what you do, and think it through.

My own personal experience in it is that a kid who's taught all that will wait till they're older than average, and will be smarter about safety etc. when they *do* decide to "go all the way."

[Nick Soapdish]

Except for the claims made in the McGurn article, that the subgroup tested is already delaying sex and having sex with fewer partners than most teenagers. Logically, they should be at greater risk for using less birth control, but according to their own data they aren't. Could it be because the group in question isn't truly a randomized sample and therefore extrapolating conventional wisdom which applies to truly randomized groups is less likely to apply?

I think maybe so. If not, how do they explain the data and still justify the claim?

"At greater risk" is not logically equivalent to "higher rates". While one would usually follow from the other, it doesn't always.

Engaging in sex without using birth control pills or condoms has been defined for quite a while as risky behavior because it tends to be conducive to resulting in pregnancies and the spread of STDs. Just because it doesn't always happen doesn't mean that it isn't risky.

Put a simpler way, playing Russian roulette is a risky game. If I play Russian roulette and nothing bad happens, it doesn't mean that it isn't risky for me.


Also, I think that there is a bit of a contradiction in you complaining about researchers and journalists not extrapolating from those studies that being religious or conservative reduces the rates of teenage pregnancy (and incidentally, other evidence has shown just the reverse) and then complaining that the journalists are extrapolating that engaging in risky behavior may be more at risk.

[Matt Algren]

Interesting findings from 2004 on the same subject:


STD Findings
Bearman and Bruckner in March 2004 at the 2004 National STD Prevention Conference in Philadelphia presented their findings that teens who make abstinence pledges have similar rates of STDs as teens who have not made pledges. The study -- also based on data from the NLSAH -- found that, although teens who made the pledges had sexual intercourse an average of 18 months later than teens who did not take a pledge and averaged fewer sexual partners overall, they had similar rates of STDs. In addition, the study found that pledgers were much less likely to use contraception the first time they had sex and also were less likely than other teens to have undergone STD testing and know their STD status, which could increase their risk of STD transmission to sexual partners (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 3/10/04). Of the 777 teens who reported being virginity pledgers throughout the course of the study, 4.6% had trichomoniasis, chlamydia or gonorrhea. Of the 1,622 who reported pledge to remain abstinent at some point during the study, 6.4% had one of the STDs. Of the 9,072 teens who did not ever make a virginity pledge, 6.9% had one of the STDs (Wetzstein, Washington Times, 3/19). The study did not reveal significant geographical differences but did show that minorities were "far more likely" to have an STD, according to the Post. About 25% of African-American girls had at least one STD in 2002, the study found (Washington Post, 3/19).

Details
Because pledgers typically delayed sexual activity, had fewer sexual partners and married earlier than nonpledgers, the researchers "looked for explanations" as to why the differences in STD rates were not statistically significant, Bearman said, the Times reports (Washington Times, 3/19). The gap between pledgers and nonpledgers for high-risk behavior was statistically significant, with 2% of virgins who did not pledge reporting engaging in anal or oral sex, compared with 13% of those who did pledge (Washington Post, 3/19). According to Bruckner, the pledgers' increased likelihood of substituting oral or anal sex for vaginal intercourse puts them at risk of contracting STDs, according to Bruckner. Among virgins, boys who had pledged abstinence were four times as likely to have engaged in anal sex as those who did not pledge, and pledgers overall were six times as likely to have engaged in oral sex as teens who were virgins but did not take a pledge, the study found. In addition, teens who made virginity pledges were less likely to use condoms during their first sexual experience and were less likely to get tested for STDs, the study found (Detroit Free Press, 3/19).

Conclusions
"Advocates for abstinence-only education assert that premarital abstinence and post-marital sex are necessary and sufficient for avoiding negative consequences of sexual activity, such as STDs," the study says, adding, "This assertion collides with the realities of adolescents' and young adults' lives." As a result, abstinence-only education is insufficient to prevent teens from contracting STDs, Bruckner said, according to the Toronto Globe and Mail. "It can't be enough because eventually, even the most abstinent adolescents, the great majority of them will have sex. ... We need to provide education that helps in dealing with it when they do it," Bruckner said (Mahoney, Globe and Mail, 3/19). "The sad story is that kids who are trying to preserve their technical virginity are, in some cases, engaging in much riskier behavior," Bearman said, adding, "From a public health point of view, an abstinence movement that encourages no vaginal sex may inadvertently encourage other forms of alternative sex that are at higher risk of STDs" (Washington Post, 3/19).

Reaction
"Not only do virginity pledges not work to keep our young people safe, they are causing harm by undermining condom use, contraception and medical treatment," William Smith, policy director at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, said (Washington Times, 3/19). Deborah Roffman, an educator and author, said that teens who take virginity pledges "are often undereducated about sexual health" and will engage in oral or anal sex because they do not consider it "real sex," according to the Post (Washington Post, 3/19). However, Leslee Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, called the study "bogus" and said that the supposed pledgers had not pledged true abstinence, which forbids oral and anal sex (AP/Long Island Newsday, 3/18). Robert Rector, an analyst at the Heritage Institute, said that the study overlooked previous findings about teens who take virginity pledges -- including that they usually have fewer pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births -- adding that the programs are "hugely successful" in those areas (Washington Post, 3/19).

[Flâneur]

Matt explained it well. Here's an analogy that may help you. Kids are in danger from guns, right? So, should schools, starting as early as possible, since young kids can play with guns, simply tell them not to play with guns or point them at others because you never know when it's loaded, or should they also teach them how to properly shoot and handle a gun, how to check the magazine to know if it's loaded, how to clean and field-strip it, etc?

You may think the comparison doesn't work, but many of the same arguments you'd make against comprehensive gun training vs "just stay away from them" are exactly the same ones abstinence advocates would make.

"If they just stay away from guns like they're told, no training is needed."

"My children don't need gun training, and if we the parents decide they need it, we'll do it ourselves, it isn't the school's job."

"Teaching them about how to actually use a gun will increase the danger that they'll actually decide to use one, rather than avoid it."

"Kids shouldn't learn about that at such a young age, in spite of the danger they could get into if all they know is "just avoid it"".
I agree with you, Samurai. Gun crotches are dangerous. I found this picture depicting the dangers of safe sex education:

http://www.headinjurytheater.com/images/dpc%20full%20page%20punch%20and%20cock%20rocket.jp g

[Cam63]

'Tis a silly place.

[Suzanne]

Except the left constantly criticizes abstinence. They are constantly trying to have it removed or marginalized in public education sex-ed classes.Sit down, my son. I live in a "blue" state, and we talked about abstinence in my 8th grade health class. Only difference is we didn't stop there. We also talked about pregnancy, birth control, adoption, abortion, STDs, all that good stuff. It's better to know the truth than dance around it.

[Suzanne]

And here's a photo of him!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/William_McGurn_1.jpgMan, he does look like a pederass, doesn't he? I'll bet he lives in mommy's basement and is served cookies n' milk before beddie-bye time :rolleyes:

[the4thpip]

No, it doesn't. They report the results accurately there. Not controlling for other potential influencing factors would have been faulty science.


Here's an easy example why that is so important:

If you do a study that tries to find a correlation between income and shoe size, you will find that people with bigger feet earn more money.

Now, you could start a movement that protects the rights of people with little feet.

Or you could realize that women, on average, have both smaller feet and smaller incomes (still!) than men, and that you need to control your study for gender. And in some countries, other factors: The two largest groups of immigrants in Germany (Turks and Italians) are usually shorter and have smaller feet than Germans.

Not controlling for those variables would give you crap science. This virginity pledge study - and the reporting on it - were well done.

[the4thpip]

If I remember correctly, the risk depends on the STD in question. People tend to assume that the risk factors for AIDS are the same as other STDs, but IIRC they're not.

You can catch AIDS via oral, vaginal, or anal contact---but on average, the risk is slightly greater with anal because anal sex sometimes tears tissues, which creates a direct blood exposure. Thing is, you can have tears with vaginal sex, or abrasions, or you can have abrasions or "ow, you scraped me with a tooth" with oral sex---both of which might also bring blood into the picture. AIDS *can* move directly through semen and vaginal discharge into the somewhat porous tissues of the mouth, vagina, rectum/colon, or penis---but when you bring blood into the picture, it becomes a little more likely... and since anal sex, *on average*, tends to involve more of those tiny tears than the other types, that's why it's a little risker for AIDS.

*Other* STDs tend to pass quite readily via those other fluids and via those other tissues... at least the ones I know about. So as for those, so far as I know, anal and oral sex are no more or less risky than vaginal sex.

By the way---I seem to recall studies that showed in many countries where virginity is considered a prime requisite in the female (often tied to religion there, as well as the culture), one of the consequences is a higher rate of anal sex---because the girl still has her "virginity", and if you stretch the definition, so does the guy.

Bottom line for me on the whole issue is, teach the kids *everything*. Teach 'em abstinence, teach 'em birth control, teach 'em about disease and pregnancy, teach 'em about emotional involvement and raging hormones... then point out to them that it's *their* bodies and *their* lives they have to live in forever: it's the only life and body you'll get, and YOU are ultimately responsible for the risks you take, the diseases you have to suffer through, the pain you'll feel in breakups, the child you generate. All these things can change your life FOREVER---so be smart with what you do, and think it through.

My own personal experience in it is that a kid who's taught all that will wait till they're older than average, and will be smarter about safety etc. when they *do* decide to "go all the way."

I approve every word of that.