Abstinence only.

CDC analysis finds comprehensive sex ed is more effective than ab-only. An independent panel commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found that comprehensive sexuality education programs are better at helping teens avoid unwanted pregnancy and disease than abstinence-only programs. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent board responsible for making public health suggestions, analyzed data from 83 studies published over a period of 27 years. “Evidence and common sense have returned to public health policy,” says James Wagoner, executive director of Advocates for Youth. Two of the members of the CDC team of experts dissented from the findings, contending the data weren’t persuasive: Irene Erickson of the Institute of Research and Evaluation and Danielle Ruedt of the Georgia Governor’s Office of Children and Families. “Many types of [comprehensive] programs do not work, even in non-school settings, yet the recommendations do not identify what those are,” Erickson says. But CDC staffer Randy Elder disagrees with that assessment. “The whole point of what we are doing is to aggregate data from as many studies that are critical to answer the question,” Elder says. “What [Erickson and Ruedt] were doing was chopping up the evidence into very fine subsets to poke holes.” (Washington Post, Nov. 7)

More information is here: TheCommunity Guide - Task Force Findings - Prevention of HIV/AIDS, otherSTIs and Pregnancy: Comprehensive Risk Reduction Interventions

Promoting marriage and discouraging premarital sex through fear and false information remains a benchmark of abstinence-only sex education. The Heritage Keepers
program repeatedly cites research suggesting that married people have better sex—and many of these statistics are attributed to Glenn T. Stanton, director of global insight for
cultural and family renewal and senior analyst of marriage and sexuality at Focus on the Family. The WAIT (Why Am I Tempted?) Training program also depends heavily on moralistic, pro-marriage information to promote abstinence. The WAIT curriculum includes a game in which students repeatedly place a transparent piece of tape, symbolizing a woman, on a man's arm to show that after several "uses" (sexual acts or partners) the tape is less clean and perfect. Finally, the teacher is instructed to attach the tape to another male volunteer and ask, "If this process gets repeated too many times, do you think it will affect this person's marriage?" Such games aren't unique. Why kNOw? includes a game that compares a stuffed animal named "Speedy the Sperm," which represents a sperm cell, and a penny, used to symbolize HIV. By this reasoning, students are meant to see that if a condom fails 14 percent of the time with something as big as Speedy, it clearly cannot effectively prevent the spread of HIV—which is a thousandth of the size. Despite repeated and conclusive evidence showing that condoms available in the United States don't have holes (if they do, the entire batch is discarded), and that the real reason for error is improper use, not product defect. Why kNOw? continues to teach youth that condoms are useless, apparently believing that this will discourage them from having sex. Predictably, research suggests that young people who believe condoms don't work simply use protection less often—they don't engage in sex at a lesser rate.

-American Humanist Association

RiteDiva wrote:It gets taught because the government demands it be taught, because all of the rich "conservative" politicians and 'community activists' running the country in their spare time are having adulterous affairs (and closeted gay liaisons) want to stick their fingers in their ears and go "LA LA LA...I don't hear you!" when they are confronted with the unsurprising truth that the average teenager isn't doing as they say, but rather as they themselves do.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:It has not been shown to not be effective. Kids who remain abstinent don't get pregnant. I dare any study to find me people who have not had sex who contracted sexually transmitted diseases that condoms would've prevented. It's not a school's responsibility to sponsor irresponsibility.

And the argument "they will do it anyway" is the weakest cop-out I ever heard. It's a lame excuse to give kids a free pass for irresponsibility. Imagine if we used that excuse to justify everything else. It's laziness plain and simple. Abstinence-only is the easiest thing in the world to justify. It's just not a popular idea, so when not being abstinent leads to trouble, people point the finger at abstinence as the cause of the problem. It's lame. Grow up America and stop pointing fingers cause you don't like the consequences YOUR decisions led to. If you choose to have sex, you can choose to wear a condom. Stop blaming the people telling you to control yourself when your behavior lands you in hot water.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:That's hogwash. But since as you point out, the average teenager isn't listening to what they say, than any sex ed program is as good as another. They all fall on death ears.

RiteDiva wrote:

Your attitude is hogwash. You assume that there is only one viable option—yours.

LOL.

Everyone (kids too) knows abstinence is full proof from STDs and pregnancy. Just like everyone knows that if they stay locked in their house 24/7, they won't get hit by a train. But not everyone is interested in taking the chaste route, or being a virgin all the way up until their wedding night, ok? Because of that, there SHOULD be education (not based on scare tactics to manipulate folks into abstaining) provided to those who have decided for themselves that they are interested in being sexually active (OR are pondering their options) on how to be safe(r).

"Abstinence only" education is ridiculous and dangerous, because not everyone is GOING to choose that path...nor should they have to if they'd rather not. It's unfortunate that some would prefer to throw people who choose to be sexually active to the wolves and let them try and save themselves, rather than to provide tips on how they can follow their choice in a way that will lower any risk they may face. You don't limit or slant information to mind control the masses. That is fascism.

alan smithee wrote:
Why are you even mentioning raincoats ? Don't you think that "all birth control is fairly dumb to begin with?" Why do you even bring that into the equation? You should have stopped at "just don't have sex and you won't get pregnat or contract an STD." Why do you imply that using something you call "dumb" is responsible behavior?

alan smithee wrote:Sorry, not buying it. You want to say that people need to take personal responsibility for their actions but you don’t want to give them the tools to help make the responsible choice. Yeah, they’ve got the freedom to use a condom but the knowledge of it’s proper use isn’t instinctual. It has to be taught. Do you know how to use one? And if you do…WHY do you know? Don’t even bother telling me that you don’t need to know how to use one because you think they’re dumb in the first place. That’s not the point and you know it. The point is in order to make good decisions, people need knowledge.

As to your rebuttal, that you’re refuting the argument of blaming a school for the possible consequences of an abstinence only curriculum, I may have missed it but I don’t think anyone here said that. Besides, what’s taught in public schools is a reflection of the community. If people want to blame the school they should probably start by looking in the mirror.

GrayWolf wrote:Tell them not to have sex at all. Then when they do it and get knocked up, can ship them off to a wayward school for unwed mothers to secretly have their babies in shame and have them snatched out of their arms and thrown into an orphanage. 1950s America was so much fun!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:It has not been shown to not be effective. Kids who remain abstinent don't get pregnant. xD I dare any study to find me people who have not had sex who contracted sexually transmitted diseases that condoms would've prevented. xD It's not a school's responsibility to sponsor irresponsibility.

And the argument "they will do it anyway" is the weakest cop-out I ever heard. It's a lame excuse to give kids a free pass for irresponsibility. Imagine if we used that excuse to justify everything else. It's laziness plain and simple. Abstinence-only is the easiest thing in the world to justify. It's just not a popular idea, so when not being abstinent leads to trouble, people point the finger at abstinence as the cause of the problem. It's lame. Grow up America and stop pointing fingers cause you don't like the consequences YOUR decisions led to. If you choose to have sex, you can choose to wear a condom. Stop blaming the people telling you to control yourself when your behavior lands you in hot water.

Impact wrote:It's even more lame to want to punish people, or set them up to fail, for opting to make their own independent choices. As has been stated already, not everyone WANTS to abstain. These people shouldn't be withheld knowledge that can help protect themselves as punishment for not following the beat and path guidelines of "abstinence only" propaganda. And that's basically the connotation behind what all this is: punishment. As if to say, "if you don't choose this route, then may you catch whatever is out there."

alan smithee wrote:You've still managed to side step the fact that on one thread you state that all contraception is "dumb" but here you criticize if some one isn't mature enough to use a condom.

alan smithee wrote:You've still managed to side step the fact that on one thread you state that all contraception is "dumb" but here you criticize if some one isn't mature enough to use a condom.