But doesn't sex education of any type warn of the consequences of premarital sex for young people including unintended pregnancy or possible STDs? Many young people may act out sexually to express rebellion against their parents, which means that there may be a basic respect issue in many families.

Other studies find high sexual activity rates even among Christian youths, so the problem is far deeper than some regional sex education program in part of California with a very high minority student population and very low graduation rates. The problem still goes back to the family and the lack of respect many young people have for their parents.

Now Wizbang is anti-sex?

"Now Wizbang is anti-sex?"

For 12 year olds, maybe not such a bad thing.

Don't bother, you'll never convince them.

The reason is always the conservatives fault. The suicide rate is because society says "free love" is wrong and they feel bad about all their sex. If we would just make them feel good about all of it, then they wouldn't kill themselves.

And they diseases? Its the Christians fault almost certainly.

Study after study indicates that abstinence only programs do not work.

Just a little bit misleading aren't we? The so called increase is due to a new technique to "estimate" the number of cases.

"Jerman and her colleagues used a computer model developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to estimate the incidence of STDs. Using the technique, CDC researchers reported in 2004 that 9.1 million new STDs occurred nationwide among 15- to 24-year-olds in the year 2000 with a direct medical cost of $6.5 billion."

Sounds more like they were underestimating the problem in the past or the models are wrong. I bet this is the first time the right has argued a cause based on a computer model (see global warming deniers).

Study after study indicates that abstinence only programs do not work.

Barney
Is it the abstinence or the program that doesn't work?

Well since the last study on abstinence-only sex education concluded, that it does not keep teenagers from having sex, we can conlcude the rates would be even higher if California wasn't smart enough to try to get kids to use condoms.

That is basic logic Kim.

Barney you stubborn fool. You going to argue that CDC's use of computer models is unreliable? Hmmm. Guess that global warming crisis is up in the air.

CDC's history of estimating is not new. Despite decades of studies about second hand smoke over 40 years, CDC determined that it would change the standard deviation (previously applied without exception), aggregate dissimilar studies and came up with a conclusion that SHM was a first class carcinogen.

CDC's track record of protecting the public goes back decades. Remember Love Canal? Times Beach, MO?

If you're going to (miraculously) find skepticism from CDC's conclusions, you have a lot of re-thinking to do.

Study after study indicates that abstinence only programs do not work

Which studies might those be Barney?

Now the democrats in Me are giving 11 year olds birth control pills to make them feel that nothing will happen. I think this is to allow the teacher to reach some new meat. Will they lower that to 7 or maybe 5? There is a group of real perverts in the democrat party, or the entire democrat party has became a group of perverts. After the past couple of days watching congress I've realized that 99% of them are mentally ill to the point that they should be locked in a rubber room.

Found the below on the web. It shouldn't be hard to find more by doing a google.

Heck, if you are skeptical you can google and see if there are an counter studies. That show abstinence programs work. I am guessing no such studies exist though as everything I have ever read about it has come to the opposite conclusion. Maybe someone can find something that would prove that wrong though?

Study for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

The study released earlier this month, which was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. and authorized by Congress in 1997, evaluated the effectiveness of abstinence programs funded under Title V, Section 510 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The major findings were that the abstinence programs they studied had no correlation with a decreased level of sexual activity in the population of teens they surveyed

This was a Republican congress btw that authorized the study.

I would rather have schools work on getting children to do basic skills however if we have to Sex Education they should be taught the truth.

If you have vaginal sex you are at risk for becoming pregnant not matter what method of contraception which is used. If you engage in any sexual activity your risk getting an STD no matter what method of contraception which is used. Meaning there is no 100% safe method. However abstinence is a 100% proven method of birth control and stopping the spread of STDs. Therefore it should get equal time in the curriculum. Also their should include the both legal and economic cost of having children, as well as the physical and psychological risk of having pre-teen and teenage sex.

Abstinence only should be taught for everyone under the legal age of consent. Otherwise you the school is promoting statutory rape.

"Which studies might those be Barney?"

In the most recent and one that was most reported on:

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 14, 2007; Page A02

A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.

In another evaluation of several programs:
Summary of Results

Evaluation of these 11 programs showed few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact. A few programs showed mild success at improving attitudes and intentions to abstain. No program was able to demonstrate a positive impact on sexual behavior over time.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm

So Kim decides to report on a sociological study rather than merely pass on anecdotes? Great, Kim, you're learning!

But you still have a long way to go.

You see, if you really want to accurately assess the relative merits of California's practices, you would do a comparison with, say, some hicksville state like Alabama. Strange, but I just don't predict that the rate of sexually transmitted diseases among the young socialist Californians is greater than that for the young Bible-thumpin' Alabamans. But why don't you find out, Kim?

On second thought, I'll do it for you, at least for young women with chlamydia:

"In 2000, the 10 states with the highest level of chlamydia positivity among 15- to 24-year-old women in family planning clinics include: Mississippi (15.8%), Rhode Island (11.9%), Louisiana (9.7%), Texas (9.3%), South Carolina (8.6%), Alabama (7.9%), North Carolina (7.5%), California (7.3%), Illinois (7.4%) and Wisconsin (7.2%)." http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1017352076.html

Well! Not only does Alabama rank above California, but North Carolina does too! Say, isn't North Carolina where Lorie Byrd lives? Don't you live there too, Kim?

Oh, and Kim, you left this part out:

"Jerman [the study author] stressed that there has not been a surge in sexually transmitted diseases, it's just that the sheer size of the problem has never been fully appreciated."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/10/BAG5SMCRK.DTL&type=printable

Is it the abstinence or the program that doesn't work? BTW, define "program".

STD's Soar in California because of Pro-Sex, Anti-Abstinence Programs

Where are you getting that "because of" from, Kim? It looks like the CDC updated their computer model and reported the numbers. And then some wacky web site takes those numbers, and then adds a couple of paragraphs about California's sex ed policies, and a completely unrelated and out-of-left-field mention of suicide rates.

And then along comes you and Wizbang to take all of those and establish a fake causal relationship.

Well, the numbers don't lie, right? So let's take a look... the population of California is 12% of the US. The CDC reported that 9.1 million new STDs occurred nationwide, with 1.1 million of them in California. So what's 1.1 out of 9.1? That's right.... 12%.

Wow, looks like California is right in line with the national average. Huh. So much for the causal relationship. In fact, you have no way of knowing whether California's programs helped keep the number lower than it would have been otherwise, do you?

This is shockingly sloppy, even for you, Kim. But I guess that's what happens when you get your news from the Catholic News Agency.

Study after study indicates that abstinence only programs do not work.

However, the mere idea of discouraging promiscuity on any level is banished from any 'program'.

I always like this finding:

"..they also are more likely to engage in oral or anal sex than nonpledging virgin teens and less likely to use condoms once they become sexually active, according to a study published in the April issue of the... Journal of Adolescent Health, .."

You going to argue that CDC's use of computer models is unreliable?

The CDC is arguing that themselves, so there's no need for anyone else to.

CDC's history of estimating is not new.

The new study, the first of its kind...

If you're going to (miraculously) find skepticism from CDC's conclusions, you have a lot of re-thinking to do.

Miraculous? The CDC was skeptical of their own past conclusions. That's why they developed a new model.

If you're going to spout off without knowing what you're talking about, then you're going to look as silly as you already do.

One more example of how liberals hate children and want to destroy families. Liberal policies are criminal policies.

One more example of how liberals hate children and want to destroy families.

Yeah, except that if you bothered to read the comments and their citations, you'd have realized that this post and its conclusions are complete and utter fabrications that are at odds with their own sources.

Oops.

"The liberals in the state of California are doing these kids a horrible disservice."

Of course they are , the dirty pack of "GOTZ 2 FEELZ GOOD" bastards. Democrats are child molesters in every way possible. Lets not forget to give credit where credit is due, thank you very much BJ Clinton for your "it's not sex , sex".

Does anyone truly expect anything honest or decent from the party of criminal frauds?

Last democrat President was a draft dodger , sexual deviant , liar and a no good incompetent phony.

Al gore and Fraud Kerry?

An imbecile and uncoordinated football in the face Traitor where the next two embarrassments they thought they could successfully lie into office.

"they also are more likely to engage in oral or anal sex than nonpledging virgin teens"

Like I said before , thanks alot Bubba aka the "Bent one" as in hell bent on doing whatever of whoever he wants. Sharon Stone is proud to admit how well she was capable of climbing that latter, not shy about it one bit.

Aren't democrats the greatest?

Brain:

If you're going to spout off without knowing what you're talking about, then you're going to look as silly as you already do.

And we know Brain would NEVER look silly now would he?

No never.

RobLACal:

Of course they are , the dirty pack of "GOTZ 2 FEELZ GOOD" bastards. Democrats are child molesters in every way possible.

Yeah, and you're the shining light of decorum, civil discourse and the defender of truth, justice and the American way.

Gotcha... but no thinks, I'll pass.

I once heard an abstinence advocate say that *of course* abstinence education doesn't work because you can't teach abstinence if you don't teach self-control and self-discipline from an early age and you can't teach *those* things... if you refuse to do so.

At least since I was in school (going on 25 years now) the message to teens has been, "We know you're going to do it *anyway* so..."

And how about this bit of psychological brilliance... MADD or SADD at school assembly asks the kids who *don't* drink to raise their hands. When the kids do... "You're all liars."

The message "everyone does it" has consequences. Firstly, it's not true. Secondly, the damage done to one group (those who don't "do it" or may not have "done it" otherwise,) in order to reach those kids that *are* "doing it" is inexcusable.

Saying "we know it's not easy but we know you can" is a far more positive message, and *reinforcing* message, than saying "we can't expect you not to, because you're kids."

What kind of results would parents be expected to get if they treated their kids like liars because "all kids lie?"

Looks like the new part is this show how much it cost.

The new study, the first of its kind, also found that the direct cost of treating the new infections is more than $1 billion per year.

"We've seen the human toll, but this provides the first estimate of the enormous economic cost that is borne in California due to STDs," said Dr. Peter R. Kerndt, director of the county's sexually transmitted disease program.

Looking at it the number were low because of reporting requirments.

Condoms help prevent STD's...
Condoms should be made available to H.S. males.
Condom use should be a part of sex education.

The males is our society get off too easily(cheap pun intended). Not getting a girl pregnant is our(Male) responsibility.
Why is it a popular male student who has different sexual partners is "a stud" but a female student who does the same is "a slut"?

Sex sells in our nation. It is everywhere and please don't get into Liberal media just watch FOX.
High School and middle school sex is not a Liberal plot.
It happened when you were that age. If you did not experiment with sex...love or lust, in school you know those that did...

Our hormones don't give a rat's ass about political philosophies....never did and never will.

Take away the perceived consequences (IE pregnancy), drench the culture in sex, add in a hefty dose of irresponsibility and is it terribly surprising you get more of an action and more side effects of that action?

Simple cause and effect... and as Nogo said, hormones don't give a damn about political philosophies.

Yeah, except that if you bothered to read the comments and their citations, you'd have realized that this post and its conclusions are complete and utter fabrications that are at odds with their own sources.

'Condoms help prevent STD's...
Condoms should be made available to H.S. males.
Condom use should be a part of sex education.'

'It happened when you were that age. If you did not experiment with sex...love or lust, in school you know those that did...'

We also know those that didn't use condoms, despite having access to them and knowing the consequences. Gee, maybe kids don't have the nuanced notion of self-restraint that libs expect them to have. Educations, smeducation...my hormonez iz ragin', and bareback just feels sooooo good....

Libs are such freakin' sociopaths. I swear to God.

And we know Brain would NEVER look silly now would he?

Being wrong makes one look silly? In that case, you're a regular Bozo.

The problem with condoms, nogo, is that if you go to your college doctor and say, "I use condoms for birth control", the woman will have an aneurism, yell at you for at least 30 minutes, shove a armload of "condom failure" pamphlets at you and when that's all over you'll walk out of her door with a prescription for a pill.

But if the discussion is persistent, non-curable, or even deadly STD's... use a condom and you're fine. Just be sure to have Safe Sex.

One thing no one has mentioned yet... young people tend to evaluate risk differently from adults.

I'd say that "safe sex" is one place where adults take a teenager's risk assessment failings and douse the fire with gasoline. The kids know they're lying about the effectiveness of condom use because they've either read the package or suggested that a condom will solve the pregnancy issue. If a condom can't be counted on to keep you from getting pregnant, how is someone supposed to assess the risk involved of catching a disease? The other, back up contraceptive that is supposed to be so necessary doesn't exist for STD's or AIDS.

So they've stopped saying "Safe" sex and started to say "safer" sex. Well, what good is "safer" if it isn't "safe?" And if a risk of catching something is acceptable, then maybe the risk isn't so great after all. Hm?

What *is* the risk of catching something, even pregnancy, from any random encounter? If it were up to me I'd concentrate on abstinence and the near *surety* of getting emotionally hurt either by pretending that sex doesn't matter or by placing that physical and emotional investment in someone you'd never dream of staying with forever at a point in your life when forming a permanent life-partnership is not considered.

I guess with my kids it *is* up to me. I don't discount either hormones or opportunity but I don't discount my kids ability to understand what a powerful tool for messing up their lives their *minds* are, and I don't discount their ability to rule their own selves.

The thing about knowing how it was when I was that age is that I know just now truly messed up a lot of my friends were, how their attitudes of self-worth related to sex, how patterns of accepting abusive or "using" relationships was established or reinforced. The hormones aren't any different. The interpersonal traps aren't different either, no matter how many times someone tries to pretend that "hooking up" is powerful and liberated.

AIDS is something far away for most people. STD's ignored. Even the chance of pregnancy isn't that great. And then we've made up supposed new rules for an ancient biology that makes it unacceptable to talk about the one element of risk assessment that, while it might not be as *dire* and most people do work out their issues, it's not at all unlikely... which is the psychological dangers and pitfalls of being *that* physically and emotionally vulnerable with anyone and everyone.

..
felt as a former H.S. teacher charging under 18 crimes as adult are B.S.)

The part of our brain dealing with choices is still developing..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/interviews/todd.html