So much for the fiction that abstinence programs don’t work.
http://sev.prnewswire.com/education/20050428/LAW08927042005-1.html
Fiction? Come on man…
That’s great, but the skeptic in me tends to think that the kids that sign these pledges tend to the the “good kids” who are less likely to smoke/drink anyway.
**That’s great, but the skeptic in me tends to think that the kids that sign these pledges tend to the the “good kids” who are less likely to smoke/drink anyway. **
Good grief, jhc, I’m disappointed in you. Usually you’ll at least grant me the courtesy of actually reading what I link to.
This isn’t an abstinence pledge program. It’s a program that includes actually teaching abstinence in schools. Entirely different.
You’re right… sorry.
“The Best Friends program, currently operating in more than 100 schools across the United States, licenses school systems to use an extensive year-long curriculum and faculty training program that provides the skills, guidance, and support to choose abstinence from sex until marriage and reject illegal drugs, alcohol use, and violence.”
So you have a program that teches teens to reject drugs, booze, and smoking, and it works. Thats commendable. Excatly how does the abstinence factor in? Seems like the outcome you’d want to measure would be things like STDs and pregnancy, right?
And there’s more - this journal isnt on Medline. And it is the journal of this organization:
The Institute for Youth Development is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that promotes research, messages, and action to help the nation’s youth avoid or abandon unhealthy behaviors. Recognizing the links between the major youth risk behaviors, the Institute promotes a comprehensive approach to the avoidance of alcohol, drugs, sex, tobacco, and violence.
You tihnk they’d publish any study that shows programs like these don’t work? There aren’t any articles on Medline that refer to the “Best Friends Program”
**That’s great, but the skeptic in me tends to think that the kids that sign these pledges tend to the the “good kids” who are less likely to smoke/drink anyway. **
Good grief, jhc, I’m disappointed in you. Usually you’ll at least grant me the courtesy of actually reading what I link to.
This isn’t an abstinence pledge program. It’s a program that includes actually teaching abstinence in schools. Entirely different.
You have looked at who publishes this Journal, along with the position of said organization and its founder, correct? Does the report define “sex”? To see the abstract alone requires registration. Feel free to fill us in on the details, since you’ve read the paper.
So you have a program that teches teens to reject drugs, booze, and smoking, and it works. Thats commendable. Excatly how does the abstinence factor in? Seems like the outcome you’d want to measure would be things like STDs and pregnancy, right?
Are you kidding me?
And there’s more - this journal isnt on Medline. And it is the journal of this organization:
So what? Now you don’t accept peer-reviewed papers if they’re not on Medline?
Yep. One study definitely proves abstinence programs work. I’ll bet for every study you find that proves these programs work, I can find a study that proves they don’t. In fact, I can probably find a study that proves pretty much anything I want proved.
So much for non-selective fact hunting.
In fact, I can probably find a study that proves pretty much anything I want proved.
Ah, well then. So much for science.
So you have a program that teches teens to reject drugs, booze, and smoking, and it works. Thats commendable. Excatly how does the abstinence factor in? Seems like the outcome you’d want to measure would be things like STDs and pregnancy, right?
Are you kidding me?
No, I’m not kidding you. Why is this so painfully obious to everyone but you? Where is the evidence that teaching abstinence (from sex, isnt this what we’re talking about) per se reduces things like drinking.
So what? Now you don’t accept peer-reviewed papers if they’re not on Medline?
It’s very unusual for any journal that deals with anything remotely medical not to be on Medline. Seems highly suspicious to me.
In fact, I can probably find a study that proves pretty much anything I want proved.
Ah, well then. So much for science.
How about this one:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fstrends.htm
It’s an analysis of the government’s data collected from 1991 through 2003. The analysis shows that there has been little change in adolescent sexual behavior from 1997 (when federal money began to be spent on abstinence-only programs) to 2003, whereas there was significant positive change in said behavior from 1991 to 1997. That was the period where sex education was predominant.
The study carefully indicates that this does not imply causality.
Do you have any comment on the impartiality of the journal and its publisher?
Oh, I’m still waiting for your examples of scientific knowledge based on “argument from incredulity”, in case it slipped your mind…
“Ah, well then. So much for science.”
While I enjoy your penchant for hyperbole (it makes me laugh), I think it’s more a matter of you cherry picking studies that prove what you want to prove.
“Please save that line for the next time we look at the scientific proof behind evolution.”
As compared to what, the scientific proof behind creationism?
**Why is this so painfully obious to everyone but you? **
I must be extraordinarily dense.
**Where is the evidence that teaching abstinence (from sex, isnt this what we’re talking about) per se reduces things like drinking. **
Yep, I’m extraordinarily dense. Must be. What are you talking about?
Here’s what the Best Friends says about its goals: “The Foundation promotes self-respect through the practice of self-control and provides participants the skills, guidance and support to choose abstinence from sex until marriage and reject illegal drug and alcohol abuse. In the spirit of true friendship, the Best Friends Foundation provides peer groups for adolescents and creates an environment that raises aspirations and promotes achievement.”
As you say, it works.
The press release is admirably hyperbolic. And the program’s aims seem well intentioned (ie personal responsibility, responsible sexual behavior and what not). But, I don’t think educational programs like this change behavior to any great degree.
Look at DARE, the anti-drug program that has been taught in schools (chiefly elementary and middle schools) for two decades. Evaluations of the program by DARE (a for profit company) show marked reductions in drug use, violence, and other anti-social behaviors.
Non-partisan academic reviews show no impact on drug use. Students who “graduated” from a DARE program use/abuse drugs at the same rate as those who were not exposed to the curriculum.
Factors impacting behavior, particularly juvenile behavior, are far beyond the reach of these sorts of programs. Without addressing cultural issues, I don’t think any real change will occur.
One of the interesting findings of several DARE review studies was juvenile attitudes toward police. Those that had DARE had more favorable attitudes towards the police than those that had not been exposed to DARE. Whether this attitude is reflective of behavioral change is unknown (but I doubt it).
Don’t misunderstand, I think programs like the one you referenced have value, for no other reason than they do send a moral message. But I’m not convinced that the message alone, without a cultural, societal, and parental basis, is enough to shape behavior.
Popular culture is always going to have a far more powerful pull than any mere program.
Factors impacting behavior, particularly juvenile behavior, are far beyond the reach of these sorts of programs.
I don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think most other people do, either. And if it is, then that’s not much point in trying to change any juvenile behavior, either- like trying to get kids to use condoms.
But I’m not convinced that the message alone, without a cultural, societal, and parental basis, is enough to shape behavior.
Popular culture is always going to have a far more powerful pull than any mere program.
I agree with that 100%. The question is how to go about changing the popular culture. I submit that programs like this are part of the answer, and in the meantime, offer real benefit to those in the program.
But I’m not convinced that the message alone, without a cultural, societal, and parental basis, is enough to shape behavior.
Additionally, I think a strong argument can be made that this is a significant reason why abstinence *pledges *are of limited value, while abstinence *programs *like this one are more effective.
In fact, I can probably find a study that proves pretty much anything I want proved.
Ah, well then. So much for science.
How about this one:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fstrends.htm
It’s an analysis of the government’s data collected from 1991 through 2003. The analysis shows that there has been little change in adolescent sexual behavior from 1997 (when federal money began to be spent on abstinence-only programs) to 2003, whereas there was significant positive change in said behavior from 1991 to 1997. That was the period where sex education was predominant.
The study carefully indicates that this does not imply causality.
Do you have any comment on the impartiality of the journal and its publisher?
Oh, I’m still waiting for your examples of scientific knowledge based on “argument from incredulity”, in case it slipped your mind…
Unfortunately ken, there are reports that counter your claim.
From a CDC report… HHS REPORT SHOWS TEENS MAKING MORE RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS Fewer Teens Using Tobacco, Marijuana,
Engaging in Risky Sexual Behavior
HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson today released a new report showing that high school students are acting more responsibly by avoiding tobacco, marijuana, risky sexual behavior and other potentially dangerous behaviors that increase their risk for injury, illness and death.
The percentage of students who ever had sexual intercourse decreased from 54 percent to 46 percent from 1991-2001, and those who had four or more sexual partners decreased from 19 percent to 14 percent. Simultaneously, the percentage of sexually active students who used a condom at last sexual intercourse increased from 1991-1999 (46 percent to 58 percent) and then leveled by 2001 (58 percent).
And in a Newsweek cover story…
– “There’s a sexual revolution going on in America,” the Newsweek article begins, and you think: Oh brother, here we go again. But read on. The magazine reports that there is among teenagers “a new counterculture” made up of kids who have decided to postpone sex until marriage. A recent Centers for Disease Control study finds that the number of high-schoolers who say they’ve never had sex rose 10 percent between 1991 and 2001. Crediting (or blaming) the efforts of “cultural conservatives and evangelical Christians” for the reversal, the magazine spoke to American teenagers who gainsay the media-created stereotype of teen virgins as prudes. Religious faith plays a key role in the decisions these teens made for chastity, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Parents who care enough to be open and blunt with their children about their expectations for moral behavior are also an important factor. “It’s amazing, but they did listen,” one mom confessed. What Tom Wolfe called The Great Relearning may have begun. The Bush administration is asking for $135 million more to fund abstinence-education programs in public schools. The new data prove it’s money well spent.
I must be extraordinarily dense.
Then I’ll try again, real slow. Your original post, as well as the “news” article you cite, stress that the Best Friends Program is an abstinence-based program. It is also an anti-drinkng, anti-smoking, and anti-drug program. The study finds that it is effective in reducing alcohol/smoking use. Perhaps because its teaching kids not to drink and smoke? The abstinence component might be totally ineffective as far as we know… where are the data that measure outcomes like how much sex these kids are having.
Abstinence has nothing to do with any of this. And this is assuming that this study is valid, which considering the fact its published in a journal which is little more than the mouthpiece of pro-abstinence organiztion, is highly suspect. But since I cant read the actual article or even an abstract, there’s no way to know for sure.
In fact, I can probably find a study that proves pretty much anything I want proved.
Ah, well then. So much for science.
How about this one:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fstrends.htm
It’s an analysis of the government’s data collected from 1991 through 2003. The analysis shows that there has been little change in adolescent sexual behavior from 1997 (when federal money began to be spent on abstinence-only programs) to 2003, whereas there was significant positive change in said behavior from 1991 to 1997. That was the period where sex education was predominant.
The study carefully indicates that this does not imply causality.
Do you have any comment on the impartiality of the journal and its publisher?
Oh, I’m still waiting for your examples of scientific knowledge based on “argument from incredulity”, in case it slipped your mind…
Unfortunately ken, there are reports that counter your claim.
From a CDC report… HHS REPORT SHOWS TEENS MAKING MORE RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS Fewer Teens Using Tobacco, Marijuana,
Engaging in Risky Sexual Behavior
HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson today released a new report showing that high school students are acting more responsibly by avoiding tobacco, marijuana, risky sexual behavior and other potentially dangerous behaviors that increase their risk for injury, illness and death.
The percentage of students who ever had sexual intercourse decreased from 54 percent to 46 percent from 1991-2001, and those who had four or more sexual partners decreased from 19 percent to 14 percent. Simultaneously, the percentage of sexually active students who used a condom at last sexual intercourse increased from 1991-1999 (46 percent to 58 percent) and then leveled by 2001 (58 percent).
And in a Newsweek cover story…
– “There’s a sexual revolution going on in America,” the Newsweek article begins, and you think: Oh brother, here we go again. But read on. The magazine reports that there is among teenagers “a new counterculture” made up of kids who have decided to postpone sex until marriage. A recent Centers for Disease Control study finds that the number of high-schoolers who say they’ve never had sex rose 10 percent between 1991 and 2001. Crediting (or blaming) the efforts of “cultural conservatives and evangelical Christians” for the reversal, the magazine spoke to American teenagers who gainsay the media-created stereotype of teen virgins as prudes. Religious faith plays a key role in the decisions these teens made for chastity, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Parents who care enough to be open and blunt with their children about their expectations for moral behavior are also an important factor. “It’s amazing, but they did listen,” one mom confessed. What Tom Wolfe called The Great Relearning may have begun. The Bush administration is asking for $135 million more to fund abstinence-education programs in public schools. The new data prove it’s money well spent.
Brian, you are so dense. Yes, the numbers got better from 1991 to 2001. But they did not get better from 1997 to 2001, despite the new emphasis on abstinence-only programs. What part of that don’t you seem to understand? It’s the same as saying “AIDS cases increased by 1000% from 1961 through 1995” and claiming that the sexual revolution of the 1960s was the cause (when there weren’t any AIDS cases before the 1980s).
You claim to be quoting a Newsweek cover story, yet the quote references “the magazine”. In fact, you are quoting some unnamed source that references some story in Newsweek. Nice try.
Believe what you want, ken but abstinence works and there are numbers of published reports that attest to this fact.
Preach what you want but it goes against culture and common sense.
You have no proof whatsoever that it doesn’t work.