Eat Shit and _Die_, Fundies! Regular Sex Ed Works!!

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

You will bow to the altar of SCIENCE!

Sex Education Linked To Delayed Teen Intercourse, New Study Says

ScienceDaily (Dec. 23, 2007) — Sex education greatly boosts the likelihood that teens will delay having intercourse, according to a new study that is the first of its kind in years.

Male teens who received sex education in school were 71 percent less likely — and similarly educated female teens were 59 percent less likely — to have sexual intercourse before age 15. Males who attended school, meanwhile, were 2.77 times more likely to rely upon birth control the first time they had intercourse if they had been in sex-education classes.

“Sex education seems to be working,” said study lead author Trisha Mueller, an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “It seems to be especially effective for populations that are usually at high risk.”

The researchers found that sex education reduced by 91 percent the risk that African-American females in school would have sex before age 15. In general, however, sex education appeared to have no effect on whether female teens used birth control.

According to Mueller, earlier large-scale research into the effectiveness of sex education relied on data from the 1970s to the early 1990s. Those studies suggested that sex education was not very effective at delaying sex, she said.

The new study looked at a sample of 2,019 teenagers ages 15 to 19 years, who responded to a survey during a 2002 national study.

The researchers analyzed the possible effects that sex education had on the sex lives of teens and adjusted the results to account for the effects of factors like the wealth of their families.

The study did not explore the hottest debate in sex education: whether classes should teach about contraception or focus entirely on abstinence. Students received sex education if they had either or both types of instruction, according to the study.

While the study suggests a link between sex education and sexual behavior, researchers did not design it to prove a cause-and-effect relationship between the two definitively.

Claire Brindis, interim director of the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California at San Francisco, said sex education remains important because kids still harbor “mythology” about sex. “Some still believe you can’t get pregnant if you’re standing up or doing it for the first time or if your boyfriend is drinking a lot of Mountain Dew.

“A lot of sex education is about the plumbing — teaching them about anatomy and physiology, what a condom looks like,” Brindis said. “What they really need help on is: ‘I’m in the back seat or I’m at a party, and there aren’t adults around and there’s pressure to do more than make out.’ They need help with ‘What do I do in that setting?’”

Journal reference: Mueller TE, Gavin LE, Kulkarni A. The association between sex education and youth’s engagement in sexual intercourse, age at first intercourse, and birth control use at first sex. J Adolesc Health 42(1), 2008.

Now I've come across hearsay that Abstinence-Only actually makes kids more likely to fuck because of the whole teenage reverse-psychology effect, but I'd like to see further studies to this end.

[Solauren]

Well I'm sure there is some percentage of 'Reverse Psychology' affect with Abstience only' education, I'm not surprised by the sex ed = less sex result.

Reasoning
#1 - Say what you want about teenagers, most of them at least acknowledge when someone is obviously better or smarter at something then them. i.e Doctors.
If you have a doctor or a nurse telling you stuff about sex, odds are, they know what there talking about, and most will listen.

I'm willing to bet the sexually active numbers of those that had safe sex-ed vs absitence sex ed used protection.

#2 - FEAR
You give people knowledge, and they'll take it to heart.

For example, one of the most common things I've heard amongst teenagers is 'you can't get pregnant your first time / you can't get a girl pregenant your first time', and various other stupid 'old wives tales' things about avoiding pregenancy.

If you have someone show you proof that's not the case, they go "OH SHIT, REALLY?"

Combine that with STDS that the condom doesn't block, including ones that will affect a guys penis, most teenage males back right the hell down from sex.

[K. A. Pital]

Real sex education instead of the bogus one religious folks give, especially about STDs, is enough to make young people seriously think about their partner choices and long-term relationships...

[Spin Echo]

Hasn't most of Western Europe been proving this point for several decades?

[Elaro]

I think the effect is down to the abstinence-only program fostering the transformation of sexual libido/curiosity into this giant EVIL THING that you must avoid at all costs, so ignorant teenagers are conned into a black/white situation: Resist valiantly against the Forces of evil and libido... until they break down emotionally and splurge. From that perspective, it's no wonder a point of view that goes "relax, sex is okay, as long you're being smart about it" has more success.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Hasn't most of Western Europe been proving this point for several decades?

America has this really wonderful way of completely ignoring anything those silly communist potheaded hippies say or do even (or more likely especially) if 90% of it makes superior results.

[Darth Wong]

Hasn't most of Western Europe been proving this point for several decades?

America has this really wonderful way of completely ignoring anything those silly communist potheaded hippies say or do even (or more likely especially) if 90% of it makes superior results.

Americans tend to ignore anything outside their borders period. That's what's so aggravating about American politics; I routinely hear people arguing that something has never been tried, or there's no evidence that it can be done etc., even if it has been done in other countries. And if they're confronted with this, they give you some kind of Special Pleading bullshit to justify their bizarre insistence that precedent from outside the US cannot possibly apply inside the US.

One of the most aggravating arguments goes like this: "In America, we have a deep distrust of our government, so that policy wouldn't work here". What, do Americans actually think other people blindly trust their governments?!?

[SirNitram]

More to the point, the people who say that, Mike, are the same ones saying only a traitor would have anything to fear from the massively increased government powers of survellience and intrusion of Bush's reign.

[Darth Wong]

Indeed. They seem to trust all of the government's most sinister agents: its most well-armed and dangerous and secretive people. They distrust its most helpful agents: social workers, environmental protection agencies, consumer safety regulators, etc. It's like some sort of black comedy.

[SirNitram]

Indeed. They seem to trust all of the government's most sinister agents: its most well-armed and dangerous and secretive people. They distrust its most helpful agents: social workers, environmental protection agencies, consumer safety regulators, etc. It's like some sort of black comedy.

Orwell had it right: Doublethink. The ability to hold two mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time, and believe both.

[Elaro]

Indeed. They seem to trust all of the government's most sinister agents: its most well-armed and dangerous and secretive people. They distrust its most helpful agents: social workers, environmental protection agencies, consumer safety regulators, etc. It's like some sort of black comedy.

I think maybe those people believe at the core that "what helps us weakens us" or some other manly macho crap. I think that these people cannot understand that being nice and kind and supportive can help more than being tough and demanding. I think honestly that these people have had very severe and punishing parents, and they believe, because they went through a difficult childhood and survived, that everyone should have a difficult life. How come? Because, having justified their parents' abusive behavior by saying it was necessary and/or useful, they're following the logical conclusion from that premise.

Well, that's my guess.

[FSTargetDrone]

Real sex education instead of the bogus one religious folks give, especially about STDs, is enough to make young people seriously think about their partner choices and long-term relationships...

Heh. The "sex education" at my old Catholic grade school (that I attended from 1980 to 1988) consisted of the boys and girls going into separate rooms to receive some instruction from a visiting health professional of some sort. It might have been a nurse, but it wasn't any of the faculty members at the school.

The girls learned, well, I'm not sure what they learned.

The boys received a pamphlet entitled "From A Boy To A Man" and then we were to watch a film (yes, an actual film, with a projector and reels--this was sometime around 1986-88 or so) that was evidently going to teach us the facts of life. Except that the projector gave up the ghost that day and we never saw the film. We spent the rest of the time snickering as the poor health worker read over the pamphlet that described in basic terms the physical changes that puberty brings about, sort of. And that was it. One day with an abortive "lesson" about all things sexual as pertained to humans.

Now, we did have an actual biology class a few years later where we learned about sexual reproduction in all sorts of other animals. But that pointless exercise I described above was the extent of human sexual education.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Bit of a necro, but highly relevant:

States Rejecting "Abstinence-Only" Funding

States Rejecting "Abstinence-Only" Funding
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7, 2008(CBS) In the sexually-charged world of teenagers, it can be tough to just say, "no."

"It's difficult to really be abstinent until marriage because it's a lot of different things pulling at you when you're a teenager," 16-year-old Kristen Brown explains.

CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports the forces pulling at America's teens include the tribulations of idols and icons from pop-culture; like the recent news that Britney Spears' 16-year old sister is pregnant.

All those influences have driven Congress and the Bush administration to push "abstinence-only" education. The government has provided states a billion dollars during the past decade for abstinence-only programs.

But many say it just doesn't work, and they point to the teen birth rate's first rise in 15 years as proof.

A growing number of states are taking a stand and actually rejecting federal abstinence-only funds, reports Attkisson. New Mexico just became the 15th.

"The governors are saying; 'Even if this administration is going to continue to push abstinence-only, we in the states are going to do the right thing by teens and actually give them the information they need to actually prevent an unintended pregnancy,'" said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

No state requires abstinence-only education in school. The federal money they're giving up is for outside groups to promote abstinence. Giving up the funds is more of a symbolic gesture by governors who believe kids need to know about birth control too.

Attkisson says the states are split as to exactly what they want taught in schools; Fourteen require both abstinence and contraception be taught in sex ed. Nineteen states only require abstinence, but contraception may be taught. Seventeen states don't tell their local school boards what to do.

Those who want teens to wait to have sex are upset that so many states are rejecting the federal abstinence funds.

"I think they're the victims of a huge lobbying effort on behalf of the contraception education proponents, who truly do not want abstinence education to exist," says Elayne Bennett, of the Best Friends Foundation.

But as the adults passionately debate their kids' private lives, the teens themselves are left to wrestle with the pressures and problems of young life.

"So many people have had sex and had sexual experiences, so you sort of feel left out," says Kristen.

[Shroom Man 777]

I wonder who composes this "huge lobbying effort of contraception education proponents".

[Metatwaddle]

CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports the forces pulling at America's teens include the tribulations of idols and icons from pop-culture; like the recent news that Britney Spears' 16-year old sister is pregnant.

Uh-huh. Look, I know teenagers are dumb, but are there really any dumb enough to think, "Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. I should get pregnant too!" When I was 16, my response would have been, "Damn, that's dumb."

A visible teen pregnancy seems to me a very good reminder why not to have (unsafe) sex.

[Darth Wong]

CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports the forces pulling at America's teens include the tribulations of idols and icons from pop-culture; like the recent news that Britney Spears' 16-year old sister is pregnant.

Uh-huh. Look, I know teenagers are dumb, but are there really any dumb enough to think, "Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. I should get pregnant too!" When I was 16, my response would have been, "Damn, that's dumb."

A visible teen pregnancy seems to me a very good reminder why not to have (unsafe) sex.

Did you notice that the retard never mentions nature? As in the fact that it's perfectly natural and healthy for a 16 year old to have a strong interest in sex, because that's how the human race is hard-wired by its DNA? Oh no, in JesusLand, kids would have no interest in sex at all if it weren't for TV.

[Oskuro]

Did you notice that the retard never mentions nature?

If they did, then they'd be advocating for an unnatural behaviour, and a big chunk of their anti-gay propaganda would crumble.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It's too bad these people don't frown on sex in wedlock too. Then their kind would be a genetic dead end long ago cast to the sands of time.

[Scottish Ninja]

"I think they're the victims of a huge lobbying effort on behalf of the contraception education proponents, who truly do not want abstinence education to exist," says Elayne Bennett, of the Best Friends Foundation.

This reminds me of Peggy Noonan howling about all the dirty liberals who wanted to kill poor Terri Schiavo. But hey, it's a lot easier to scare people into believing you if you can make them think that the other side wants teenagers to have sex all willy-nilly.

[PeZook]

Did you notice that the retard never mentions nature? As in the fact that it's perfectly natural and healthy for a 16 year old to have a strong interest in sex, because that's how the human race is hard-wired by its DNA? Oh no, in JesusLand, kids would have no interest in sex at all if it weren't for TV.

Better yet - during our evolution, it was the perfect time for pregnancy! I mean, the girl's organism was not yet damaged too much by famine and disease, and she had little chance to live beyond 25, anyway.

Modern society is different, of course, but evolution has yet to catch up with that fact, much like the religious right have to catch up with the fact we no longer live in the Victorian era.

[Johonebesus]

Better yet - during our evolution, it was the perfect time for pregnancy! I mean, the girl's organism was not yet damaged too much by famine and disease, and she had little chance to live beyond 25, anyway.

Modern society is different, of course, but evolution has yet to catch up with that fact, much like the religious right have to catch up with the fact we no longer live in the Victorian era.

In a "state of nature" primitive humans routinely lived into their fifties and beyond. In fact, lifespans actually decreased with the advent of agriculture. Hunting and gathering is less stressful on the body than the daily labor involved in farming. Also, you should be very careful about dealing with averages that don't allow for infant and childhood mortality. If you average in every live birth, the average lifespan might be twenty, but anyone who survived childhood could reasonably expect to see fifty.


In both chimpanzees and gorillas, each group has older, dominant males who work very hard at preventing younger males from getting any. Human females normally reach the peak of fertility in their twenties. Formerly humans did not begin puberty as early as they do today; within living memory it was normal for a boy to start shaving at seventeen or later. All of this indicates in our evolutionary past human adolescents did not go around rutting willy-nilly. Like other primates, the boys probably wanted to, but they likely didn't get the chance very often.

[Darth Wong]

In a "state of nature" primitive humans routinely lived into their fifties and beyond. In fact, lifespans actually decreased with the advent of agriculture. Hunting and gathering is less stressful on the body than the daily labor involved in farming. Also, you should be very careful about dealing with averages that don't allow for infant and childhood mortality. If you average in every live birth, the average lifespan might be twenty, but anyone who survived childhood could reasonably expect to see fifty.

Precisely why should infant and childhood mortality be excluded? Do you think it's somehow "unfair" to characterize primitive living by one of its biggest problems? And what's your source for child-bearing women routinely living into their fifties (you're responding to a post about child-bearing women, after all) in prehistoric times when childbirth carried a very high risk of mortality before the development of modern medicine?

[Civil War Man]

It's too bad these people don't frown on sex in wedlock too.

IIRC, the Shakers advocate this. So, at least they are consistent. But, as any of us could guess, it puts a major damper on their recruitment.

[Adrian Laguna]

Precisely why should infant and childhood mortality be excluded?

Becasue if they aren't then the average lifespan doesn't tell you how long can a person who survived childhood expect to live. Imagine a world where everyone dies at either 10 or 80, with a 50-50 chance of either. The average life span is 45, but those who made it past 10 get live 35 years more than the average.

High childhood mortality would tend to actually make puberty take longer to start. Puberty is energy intensive thus it should begin at a time when the body is strong enough to deal with it and any threats to itself at the same time. If only a fraction of the population makes it to, say, 17, but most 17 year olds go well into their 20s, then puberty would start at around 17. Lowering childhood mortality makes puberty start earlier because lengthening the period that a person is fertile promotes population growth. There is, of course, a limit to how early it can start due to physical constraints..

[Civil War Man]

Modern society is different, of course, but evolution has yet to catch up with that fact, much like the religious right have to catch up with the fact we no longer live in the Victorian era.

Arguably, we live in a neo-Victorian era. There was little more than a thin veneer of politeness painted on to gloss over the fact that everyone loves sex. I mean, just look at Jack and the Beanstalk, and how when Jack woke up in the morning he found that his beanstalk was thick and tall and rigid.

On one hand they gave us "white meat" and "dark meat" because saying "breast" and "thigh" was considered loose language, even though it's a god damned chicken. On the other hand, during the Civil War the Union had army-run brothels to make sure the troops didn't catch venereal diseases.