Texas Teens Increased Sex After Abstinence Program

[dr. what]

linky

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President Bush (news - web sites)'s education plan, have had no impact on teenagers' behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study.

Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University.

"We didn't see any strong indications that these programs were having an impact in the direction desired," said Dr. Buzz Pruitt, who directed the study.

The study was delivered to the Texas Department of State Health Services, which commissioned it.

The federal government is expected to spend about $130 million to fund programs advocating abstinence in 2005, despite a lack of evidence that they work, Pruitt said.

"The jury is still out, but most of what we've discovered shows there's no evidence the large amount of money spent is having an effect," he said.

The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.

Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education.

Abstinence-only programs, which have sprouted up in schools across the nation, cannot offer information about birth control and must promote the social and health benefits of abstaining from sex.

Pruitt said he hoped the study would bring about changes in the content of abstinence-promoting programs.

"These programs seem to be much more concerned about politics than kids, and we need to get over that," he said.

One program technique has been to try to bolster students' self-esteem, based on the theory that self-confident teenagers would not have sex. Those programs, which sometimes do not even mention sex, have shown no effect, Pruitt said.

Other programs that focus on the social norms and expectations appear to be more successful, he said.

[The Silence and I]

After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.

Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education.

Just, is all I can manage right now.

[Crown]

Well quite clearly some people aren't thumping the Bible nearly as hard as they should be ...

[Shinova]

Sheesh, frickin kids getting laid so easily so young. Bastards!!!

[dr. what]

After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.

Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education.

Just, is all I can manage right now.

>>puts on neo-con tin-foil hat<<

Are you implying that King Bush's ideas don't work? Off with his head!!

[Crown]

After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.

Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education.

Just, is all I can manage right now.

>>puts on neo-con tin-foil hat<<

Are you implying that King Bush's ideas don't work? Off with his head!!

Well he could also be interpreting the stats to mean that either the boys are screwing the same girls, or some of them are gay!

[frigidmagi]

Teenagers screw and teenagers rebel. When you tell them not to screw, most of them will only attempt to laid with greater energy.

[darthdavid]

Mr. Bush, I hate to say it, but I told you so.

One program technique has been to try to bolster students' self-esteem, based on the theory that self-confident teenagers would not have sex. Those programs, which sometimes do not even mention sex, have shown no effect, Pruitt said.

What? I wonder just what kind of content that would have? Also, these people clearly know nothing about people: increasing confidence I would think would promote the opposite effect: confident teens won't be afraid to talk to girls and one thing will lead to another and boom! sex.

You're obviously not familiar with neocon speak. By confident, they mean confident in the validity of the bible and the supremacy of the republican party. Sheesh, could you be any more thick.

[Mayabird]

There's already piles of evidence that abstinence only sex ed doesn't work, and this is just one more. Of course, it's much like the ever-increasing piles of evidence of the validity of evolution. But no matter how many more fossils or pregnant 13 year olds you get, True Believers (TM) will never deviate from the True Path (TM).

[Illuminatus Primus]

You're obviously not familiar with neocon speak. By confident, they mean confident in the validity of the bible and the supremacy of the republican party. Sheesh, could you be any more thick.

Don't bluff your way through poli sci terms for "me too" posts. Neoconservativism is a school of foriegn policy.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I see a downward spiral here. After their abstienence-only program fails to decrease teen sexuality, they say it's not working hard enough. So, they demand more a more drastic program, that makes the problem worse, and before you know it, sex education consists of the teacher running into the classroom, shouting "Don't fuck, mmkay.", throwing a bunch of fraudulent pamplets listing the various ways you can get AIDS at the students, and running out.

[Mayabird]

I see a downward spiral here. After their abstienence-only program fails to decrease teen sexuality, they say it's not working hard enough. So, they demand more a more drastic program, that makes the problem worse, and before you know it, sex education consists of the teacher running into the classroom, shouting "Don't fuck, mmkay.", throwing a bunch of fraudulent pamplets listing the various ways you can get AIDS at the students, and running out.

You forgot the part where the students immediately start fucking like rabbits the moment the teacher runs out.

[Stofsk]

You're obviously not familiar with neocon speak. By confident, they mean confident in the validity of the bible and the supremacy of the republican party. Sheesh, could you be any more thick.

Don't bluff your way through poli sci terms for "me too" posts. Neoconservativism is a school of foriegn policy.

It is? Not according to my Political Ideology textbook (Political Ideologies, Andrew Heywood, 2003) which defines neoconservatism on page 336 as "A modern version of social conservatism that emphasises the need to restore order, return to traditional or family values or revitalise nationalism."

I am not disagreeing that neocon ideology can be applied to foreign policy, but I disagree that it is it's sole field of expertise. Your admonishing of DarthDavid however is still just good advice. One should never try to bluff one's way through such matters if not experienced with them. And as it stands, I am genuinely curious about your point on neocon ideology being a foreign affairs (international relations?) policy.

[The Kernel]

You're obviously not familiar with neocon speak. By confident, they mean confident in the validity of the bible and the supremacy of the republican party. Sheesh, could you be any more thick.

Don't bluff your way through poli sci terms for "me too" posts. Neoconservativism is a school of foriegn policy.

It is? Not according to my Political Ideology textbook (Political Ideologies, Andrew Heywood, 2003) which defines neoconservatism on page 336 as "A modern version of social conservatism that emphasises the need to restore order, return to traditional or family values or revitalise nationalism."

I am not disagreeing that neocon ideology can be applied to foreign policy, but I disagree that it is it's sole field of expertise. Your admonishing of DarthDavid however is still just good advice. One should never try to bluff one's way through such matters if not experienced with them. And as it stands, I am genuinely curious about your point on neocon ideology being a foreign affairs (international relations?) policy.

Stofsk is right, neoconservatism is not limited to foreign policy, that's just the area highlighted most since it's the area where most neocons differ from the traditional conservative party line.

[RedImperator]

You're obviously not familiar with neocon speak. By confident, they mean confident in the validity of the bible and the supremacy of the republican party. Sheesh, could you be any more thick.

Don't bluff your way through poli sci terms for "me too" posts. Neoconservativism is a school of foriegn policy.

It is? Not according to my Political Ideology textbook (Political Ideologies, Andrew Heywood, 2003) which defines neoconservatism on page 336 as "A modern version of social conservatism that emphasises the need to restore order, return to traditional or family values or revitalise nationalism."

I am not disagreeing that neocon ideology can be applied to foreign policy, but I disagree that it is it's sole field of expertise. Your admonishing of DarthDavid however is still just good advice. One should never try to bluff one's way through such matters if not experienced with them. And as it stands, I am genuinely curious about your point on neocon ideology being a foreign affairs (international relations?) policy.

I'm going to disagree with Heywood, at least in regards to American neoconservatism. Neocons have allied with Christian conservatives in the United States, but it's first and foremost a school of foreign policy that limits its concerns about domestic matters to how they effect foreign policy (defense spending, for example). I agree that they share certain elements (Evangelical Christianity and neoconservatism are both activist philosophies that believe in aggressively spreading their ideals, though neocons want to spread democracy and Christians want to spead Christianity), but they're not the same thing and there's no reason other than political convenience that they're allied.

Christians, I think, have bought into neoconservatism because it has elements of spreading the Truth Faith to the unbelievers, at swordpoint if necessary, but it doesn't work the other way. The chief neocons in the Bush Administration--Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney--are more or less to the right socially, so far as anyone can tell, but they don't concern themselves much with it in policy matters. Cheney, in fact, opposes Bush on the gay marriage amendment. Neocons tend to be conservative the way the Wall Street Journal is conservative--in favor of big business, deregulation, lax environmental laws, and the like, but Moral Values (TM) are at best an unimportant side issue and at worst something over which the Pat Robertson types can embarass the Republican Party.

Incidentally, the fact that Heywood's definition excludes any mention of foreign policy makes it suspect, IMO. Unless there's more that was snipped for brevity's sake.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

One program technique has been to try to bolster students' self-esteem, based on the theory that self-confident teenagers would not have sex. Those programs, which sometimes do not even mention sex, have shown no effect, Pruitt said.
.

WHAT??

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard from the Bush administration, and that says something!
It's the confident guys who score the most! If I had had more self esteem in high school, I wouldn't have had to wait until I was in college to have sex. These idiots are completely out of touch with reality. This is what happens when you have the Angry Puritanical Virgin Brigade write your sex-ed classes.

[Stofsk]

Incidentally, the fact that Heywood's definition excludes any mention of foreign policy makes it suspect, IMO. Unless there's more that was snipped for brevity's sake.

Glossary term definition at the back of the text, reproduced in whole but glossary terms are mere one-sentence descriptions anyway. It was something which I found after about a minute of dedicated searching, and he may have gone into further detail somewhere else in the book. I'll search and see what I find.

[Patrick Degan]

Abstinence-only education not working, eh? Obviously, the answer then is to simply outlaw sex altogether!

[Illuminatus Primus]

I mean Christ, much of what makes neocons unique is that they are former New Leftists.

Our very own Axis Kast believes in a laundry list of generically "left" domestic issues like affirmative action, abortion rights, and secularism - things that fundie Republican wouldn't be caught dead spouting, but he is a SOLID neocon.

Furthermore, neocons are a relatively new phenomenoa compared to right-wing Christianity, which was active in different forms in the fucking '50's, for Christ's sake. No neocons then.

[Slartibartfast]

Instead of bolstering their confidence, they should have bolstered their feelings of inadequacy and unattractiveness to the opposite sex. Duh.

[Stofsk]

RedImp: Heywood goes into some detail over neoconservativism, as it relates to multiple countries and from a time period stretching out from post-WW2. Reproducing the entire passage would cut seriously into my recreation time, but I have provided some more quotes for you. He presents the ideology as it pertains to many facets of the nation state, not just solely foreign affairs, of which he gives it a relatively intermediate presence. He also refers to it more as a general ideology rather than one specifically pertaining to the Republican party of US politics.

New Right
During the early post-1945 period, pragmatic and paternalistic ideas dominated conservatism throughout much of the western world.

...

During the 1970s, however, a set of more radical ideas developed within conservatism, directly challenging Keynsian welfarist orthodoxy. These new right ideas had their greatest initial impact in the USA and the UK, but they came to be influential in parts of continental Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and had some kind of effect upon western states across the globe.

Quote provided to emphasise how Heywood was referring to neocon ideology as a generalist ideology in many countries, as well as giving a brief historical perspective.

Conservative new right
The conservative new right, or neoconservatism, is defined by fear of social fragmentation or breakdown, which is seen as a product of liberal reform and the spread of 'progressive' values...

...

The three principal concerns of the conservative new right are with law and order, public morality and national identity...

As the next quote will show, the third principal concern of the conservative new right which relates to foreign policy falls under 'national identity':

Finally, the conservative new right is distinguished by its desire to strengthen national identity in the face of threats from within and without.

...

The most significant threat to the nation 'from within' is the growth of multiculturalism. Increased cultural diversity both weakens the bonds of nationhood, threatening the political community, and creates the spectre of ethnic and racial conflict.

...

The threats 'from without' are many and varioius. In the UK, the main threat had been posed by European integration... In the USA in the 1970s and 1980s, the principal threat was perceived as world communism and specifically the Soviet Union... Since September the 11, 2001, however, global terrorism has been the pre-eminent strategic, political and cultural threat against which US national identity has been defined. George W. Bush's increasingly assertive and unilaterialist foreign policy in Afghanistan and elsewhere, seen as part of a 'war on terror', was thus portrayed as a defence of American values and the American way of life.

Again, it seems as though Heywood refers to neoconservatism as a general ideology, so the American 'flava' may be different. Perhaps this should be split?

[Stofsk]

In my second quote, 'national identity' should be emphasised in yellow. Oh well.

[The Kernel]

I mean Christ, much of what makes neocons unique is that they are former New Leftists.

Our very own Axis Kast believes in a laundry list of generically "left" domestic issues like affirmative action, abortion rights, and secularism - things that fundie Republican wouldn't be caught dead spouting, but he is a SOLID neocon.

There are a lot of people on the left who the Neocon foreign policy agrees with, but it doesn't change the fact that most of the Neocons today in the Legislative and Executive branches are solidly in line with the Conservative social agenda.

Axis Kast is a nice example of those Neocons who support a liberal social agenda, but it doesn't matter enough for them to support the Democrats because they put their foreign policy agenda ahead of social issues.

I mean fuck, look at the reality of the situation. The Conservative Right is firmly behind the Neocon agenda, and they wouldn't be so firm of a base if the Neocons were preaching liberal social agendas. This might work for Neocons in Massachusetts, but it's not going to do squat in the South for voters who refuse to vote for anyone who is pro-choice. That's why the unholy alliance between Neocons and traditional Conservatives works so well, they don't care enough about social issues to bother oppossing their base and the rest of the GOP.

Furthermore, neocons are a relatively new phenomenoa compared to right-wing Christianity, which was active in different forms in the fucking '50's, for Christ's sake. No neocons then.

So? How does this dispute the fact that Neocons are firmly in bed with a conservative social agenda (even if it is merely to gain a solid base)?

[Chris OFarrell]

I laugh at the united states. Hell in my Sex Edu class(s) at a CATHOLIC SCHOOL, we got the complete data. They encouraged abstance as a LIFESTYLE choice, but were completly informative of contraception, pros and cons of various methods, effective use and average percentages and so on.

They did stress that the only 100% safe way to keep away from STD's, pregnency issues and so on was not to have sex, but they sure as all hell didn't skimp on telling everything in great detail.

Hell, we got very basic sex edd in year 5-6 at primary school, though the focus was almost entirely on puberty and the changes we were all about to head through. Then in year 9-10 we had sex-edd as part of physical education cores. And at the end of year 10, as part of a sort of 'year reflection day' where the entire year got out of the school for a day for various activities, we got the hardcore breifing from professional health care people...including a prac with dildos and condoms, VERY funny, but very well done really. Balanced and highly informative.

I just shake my head at the idiots in the US who think sexual EDUCATAION means "Tell kids NOT to do it and everything will be fine!"

[Justforfun000]

I laugh at the united states. Hell in my Sex Edu class(s) at a CATHOLIC SCHOOL, we got the complete data. They encouraged abstance as a LIFESTYLE choice, but were completly informative of contraception, pros and cons of various methods, effective use and average percentages and so on.

They did stress that the only 100% safe way to keep away from STD's, pregnency issues and so on was not to have sex, but they sure as all hell didn't skimp on telling everything in great detail.

Well then I have to give great kudos to your Catholic school. If they were all that responsible, I'd be championing them as a good place to be educated. I've never had a problem with a creed having religion as PART of the curriculum, (provided they don't try to pass off their religious beliefs as fact), but I am strongly against censoring material that is important simply because they feel it doesn't hold up the "values" of the school.

Any religion has to understand that they can, and SHOULD have the right to be able to offer their point of view as an option. But it has to be entered into as an informed choice without withholding comprehensive info on subjects. If someone wishes to choose a value based system based on religion, then that's fine as LONG as they are given all the options to use their judgement. I'll still think they are idiots in a general sense, but at least they had their choice.