• news
  • SATURDAY APRIL 14 2007 9:00 AM

People Are Going to Fuck No Matter What

Submitted by Subrosa

Edited by Subrosa

Tags: Abstinence, study, sex, teen

From the “How is this News!?!” Department of the Center for Really Unsurprising Studies Proving Shit That Is Painfully Obvious To Everyone Except The Bush Administration and the Fucking Idiots Who Buy Into Their Nonsense (or “CRUSPSTIPOTOEEBAFIWBITN”) comes the latest no-brainer study: turns out abstinence education programs don’t work. I know, I know. I’m as shocked as you.

Students who took part in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study ordered by Congress.

Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes that were reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes. And they first had sex at about the same age as other students — 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc.


The study, its methodology and its ancillary findings are really quite interesting. While some of its conclusions are painfully obvious, others might surprise you a bit.

For its study, Mathematica looked at students in four abstinence programs around the country as well as students from the same communities who did not participate in the abstinence programs. The 2,057 youths came from big cities — Miami and Milwaukee — as well as rural communities — Powhatan, Va., and Clarksdale, Miss.

The students who participated in abstinence education did so for one to three years. Their average age was 11 to 12 when they entered the programs back in 1999.

Mathematica then did a follow up survey in late 2005 and early 2006. By that time, the average age for participants was about 16.5. Mathematica found that about half of the abstinence students and about half from the control group reported that they remained abstinent.

"I really do think it's a two-part story. First, there is no evidence that the programs increased the rate of sexual abstinence," said Chris Trenholm, a senior researcher at Mathematica who oversaw the study. "However, the second part of the story that I think is equally important is that we find no evidence that the programs increased the rate of unprotected sex."

Trenholm said his second point of emphasis was important because some critics of abstinence programs have contended that they lead to less frequent use of condoms.


In other words, this study shows that abstinence only programs have virtually no effect whatsoever, be it positive or negative. Which is kind of bad considering the following:

The federal government now spends about $176 million annually on abstinence-until-marriage education. Critics have repeatedly said they don't believe the programs are working, and the study will give them reinforcement.


Naturally, there are still folks in this administration who think spending $176 million to teach children nothing useful whatsoever can be excused because at the time the children surveyed took the programs they were still developing the classes.

"This study began when (the programs) were still in their infancy," said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association. "The field of abstinence has significantly grown and evolved since that time and the results demonstrated in the Mathematica study are not representative of the abstinence education community as a whole."


Oh absolutely. Abstinence technology has advanced leaps and bounds since then. Just wait until Q1 '08 when the new iChastityBelt v.2.0™ comes out. Then the kids are REALLY going to not bone. Besides, it's not like there have been other studies showing that comprehensive sex education programs that teach children about abstinence in addition to things like contraception and STD prevention are any more effective.

OH WAIT! There are! Like this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or hell, any of the other published studies listed in the references section here.

In other words, this administration is perfectly willing to subsidize a completely ineffective program simply because it furthers their ideological goal of battering the populace into conforming with their ideal of righteous chastity. They do this despite the fact that it puts teens at greater risk of pregnancy and disease than do available alternatives. At the cost of $176 Million per year. Fabulous.

Subrosa did not get laid until he was 16.4 years old. In other news, apparently Subrosa went to the wrong high school.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

APR 14, 2007 09:06 AM


sex

Congress



...isn't congress another word for the act of sex?

KMFCM

KMFCM

Peekskill, NY
September 2002

APR 14, 2007 09:11 AM


. . . .for real?? wink

BraveArt

BraveArt

Los Angeles, CA
February 2004

APR 14, 2007 09:12 AM

fountainofdreams said:


sex

Congress



...isn't congress another word for the act of sex?



if, by that, you mean "getting fucked" ? then the answer is yes.

audiophiliac

audiophiliac

Portland, OR
September 2006

APR 14, 2007 09:13 AM

Uhm..... why can't I get paid to do studies like this? The story would have been tops if a mathematical equation including triangles and alpha-numerics on every corner/edge possible

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

APR 14, 2007 09:19 AM

BraveArt said:

fountainofdreams said:


sex

Congress



...isn't congress another word for the act of sex?



if, by that, you mean "getting fucked" ? then the answer is yes.



if by "getting fucked" you mean "prison rape without lube", then yes.

but if i'm not mistaken, the term sexual congress is an old way to say bumpin' uglies.

KushielsScion

KushielsScion

Gardendale, AL
May 2004

APR 14, 2007 09:47 AM

They spend billions on a fucking war that is going nowhere and you're surprised they spend a little over a hundred million on absolute bullshit? It sounds like just another day in Washington to me. No matter which party is in control, as soon as they decide something is good for everyone else they shove it down everyone's throat no matter how little sense it makes.

tech29

tech29

I'm lost
July 2004

APR 14, 2007 09:54 AM

I read somewhere that the abstience programs actually worked to a certain age. As in kids didnt have sex till they grew up a bit more and the rates of teenage pregnecy were much lower in girls that signed up to thease programs. I mean they fucked away after they were 18 and out of school but were using condoms and alot of young women were on the pill by then. Well you learn something new every day

Felice

Felice

I'm lost
January 2006

APR 14, 2007 10:09 AM

Wow. I had never heard of... ABSTINENCE classes.... WTF?
I am glad no one here in Europe ever came up with such bullshit.

So...basically this means: Bush likes abstinent kids better than smart kids.I mean considering that he managed to cut back on the money the government is spending to buy books for kids from socially underpriviledged families... (I don't have a specific source for this info anymore, but I read it in reliable German newspaper a few years ago)....


This is going to be my semi-smart story to tell at the party I am going to tonight!

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

APR 14, 2007 10:12 AM

rampage121584 said:
They spend billions on a fucking war that is going nowhere and you're surprised they spend a little over a hundred million on absolute bullshit? It sounds like just another day in Washington to me. No matter which party is in control, as soon as they decide something is good for everyone else they shove it down everyone's throat no matter how little sense it makes.



A) It's actually a little under $200 million
B) The fact that other government waste exists in no way excuses this administration for completely failing to to anything useful to address the very real problems of teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs in this country. They might as well be taking that $176 million and lighting it on fire.

apesamongus

apesamongus

Atlanta, GA
July 2002

APR 14, 2007 10:19 AM

There are two kinds of results you can get from scientific research, results that contradict what "everyone already knows" that people will complain is flawed and those that confirm what "everyone already knows" that people will complain is a waste of time.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

APR 14, 2007 10:24 AM

Felice said:
Bush likes abstinent kids better than smart kids.



Honestly, I don't think Bush cares either way. To me, it boils down to the fact that Bush (and the Evangelical Christian idiots who make up his voting base) would rather our children be unprotected than have them be told about sex in a mature way. Because if you tell them about condoms, Jesus will be angry. This is the same reason why they initially fought against the HPV vaccine. Because they would rather kids be dead than "given license to have premarital sex."

Azadeth

Azadeth

Fairport, NY
August 2006

APR 14, 2007 10:27 AM

apesamongus said:
There are two kinds of results you can get from scientific research, results that contradict what "everyone already knows" that people will complain is flawed and those that confirm what "everyone already knows" that people will complain is a waste of time.



The results that contradict what everyone presupposes are only complained about by stupid people who are angry about being wrong. It's unfortunate, but facts prevail in the end.

Hunkpapa

Hunkpapa

United Kingdom
June 2004

APR 14, 2007 10:40 AM

$176 million? Doh!

Roethke

Roethke

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

APR 14, 2007 10:43 AM

Tech29 said:
I read somewhere that the abstience programs actually worked to a certain age. As in kids didnt have sex till they grew up a bit more and the rates of teenage pregnecy were much lower in girls that signed up to thease programs. I mean they fucked away after they were 18 and out of school but were using condoms and alot of young women were on the pill by then. Well you learn something new every day



What you "read somewhere" was the abstinence program's response to these studies. And their response was a series of unfounded claims about how the programs were effective on a specific demographic not covered under the study. How convenient.

hadees

hadees

Austin, TX
December 2003

APR 14, 2007 11:00 AM

"I really do think it's a two-part story. First, there is no evidence that the programs increased the rate of sexual abstinence," said Chris Trenholm, a senior researcher at Mathematica who oversaw the study. "However, the second part of the story that I think is equally important is that we find no evidence that the programs increased the rate of unprotected sex."

Trenholm said his second point of emphasis was important because some critics of abstinence programs have contended that they lead to less frequent use of condoms.



I found this part the study the most interesting. I had heard this critique about abstinence programs for a while now and I actually believed it. Just goes to show you that neither side is free of baseless claims.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews