Seems like every conservative project be it the war on drugs or the war on sex creates more problems, without fixing whatever it was they thought was broken in the first place.
A study suggests the earlier you lose your virginity, the less likely you are to become a delinquent. Old finding: Kids who have early sex become delinquents. New findings: 1) When you eliminate genetic differences by comparing twins, those who have sex earlier don’t become more delinquent. 2) Compared with fraternal twins, identical twins lose their virginity at relatively similar ages, which implies that the age at which you lose your virginity is genetically influenced. 3) In fact, “adolescents who had sex at younger ages were less likely to end up delinquent than those who lost their virginity later.” Researchers’ conclusions: 1) Early sex and delinquency share a genetic basis, probably in propensity to take risks. 2) For teens with risk-taking genes, “sexual relationships may offer an alternative to trouble.” Old advice: Pet your dog, not your date. New advice: Pop a cherry, not a cap. Bonus report: Kids who smoke pot (but not cigarettes) are “significantly more likely to practice sports and they have a better relationship with their peers” than kids who smoke neither
See the whole article here
UPDATE:
Another abstinence only success story:
More than 1 million cases of chlamydia were reported in the United States last year — the most ever reported for a sexually transmitted disease, federal health officials said Tuesday.
“A new U.S. record,” said Dr. John M. Douglas Jr. of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
More bad news: Gonorrhea rates are jumping again after hitting a record low, and an increasing number of cases are caused by a “superbug” version resistant to common antibiotics, federal officials said Tuesday.
See the articel here
.
Because it makes the GOP base feel good to know that everyone is being forced to abide by their ideology. When the Christian-right is made to believe that some of their theories on life are being taken seriously by those in government, their vote can be counted on.
2004 is a great example of this. And while the marriage ammendment got most of the ink, those preachers were pumping “a few more supreme court appointments and Roe v. Wade is gone forever”, “abstinence-only is making a big difference in Africa”, etc.
Something like this program right here can crash and burn as it has, and to the politicians it doesn’t matter as long as those bible thumpers keep showing up at the voting booths. The spread of AIDS amongst Africans is a cost that doesn’t affect this mentality one bit.
Because children born to single-parent households where the single-parent cannot finish their high-school (never mind college) education is the worst place for a child to grow up, statistically.
No government program can take the place of a 2-parent household, where at least one of them has education and skills, and can hold a job down that makes more than $35k per year. Such parents will also do things like keep hygiene and medical care up, and obesity and gang-banging down, and are more likely to pass down the importance of an education to their children.
A 16 year old with a baby–and I know several of them at my church–will not afford their baby a lot of those advantages.
I don’t know of any abstinence-only programs for committed and college educated parents.
caveat – I agree with all of that. In the army they had cannisters of free condoms at every clinic on post (when I was stationed in California). That’s the answer. Make condoms easily available, and the sperm has less of a chance in reaching the egg.
As long as the statistics show that abstinance-only programs replacing free condoms doesn’t lower the rate of sexual activity, it makes no sense to continue on with it…
And that’s IF IF IF IF IF IF IF the actual intent is to lower the rate of single-parent, teenage pregnancies. If that’s the goal then there is a scientific answer to get us from point A to point B. A spiritual answer isn’t the right tool for the job.
I see abstenance only as a spiritual answer to a scientific problem.
Isn’t abstinence the factually guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy?
I understand that we are wired for sex, beginning in our teens, but people would like to avoid the negative consequences for their actions. Perhaps that is the most anti-science philosophy of all.
cb:
Of course. If you don’t have sex, you won’t get pregnant. The point, as you know, is that if we’re trying to encourage children not to have babies simply trying to indoctrinate them against having sex does not work. In the whole history of civilization, it has never worked.
I agree Jim. I don’t think government run abstinence programs are worth the money. Let’s cut that spending!