There’s a reason why STD rates have gone down in Uganda since they elected to introduce abstinence-only education (“no grazing” as they call it) and up in the rest of Africa since they elected to introduce ‘safe sex’ education. I wonder if we’ll learn from others, or instead choose to keep repeating our own insanity because we’re addicted to the fantasy of sport sex with no morning after?

Education does not exclude abstinence and in fact makes it more likely, the issue is the kind of education given young even children that being the ACLU kind of go forth and have sex ye of no good judgment.

This is another failure of liberals, if it feels good do it, government control of our kids by removing parental controls.

Its also why I keep close watch on my kids until I determined they had reasonable judgment.

Seriously, right now I’m seeing more similarities than differences between Muslims and you fundie Christians. Get a grip.

The formula I used to estimate the margin of error from the CDC study (+/- 3%) was based on a 95% confidence level, which is what is most frequently used and accepted.

stillaneocon on March 12, 2008 at 8:59 AM

The problem is that the sample size is too small for a 95% confidence level. For a 95% confidence level you would need a sample size of about 1070. So not only is the confidence level lower than what is considered reasonable for such a study, the margin of error is also impacted. I don’t really feel like getting into the exact math on this, especially since there is no data on how they selected their sample. My gut tells me they used something like data collected from school nurses around the country and considered that “Nationally Representative,” when in reality this is only representative of students whose primary gynecological care comes from the school nurse, which will be greatly skewed towards certain socio-economic demographic and not “Nationally Representative” at all.

I lost my virginity at the age of 17 and was excited about it at the time. I was sexually active all the way through college.

At the age of 23, I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, and decided to abstain from sex from that point until marriage. I married a little over three years later. My spouse was a virgin at the time, but thought I wouldn’t want to know the truth and (without actually lying) coyly allowed me to think they were like me and weren’t a virgin.

It wasn’t until an argument two years later that I learned my spouse had been a virgin when we got married, and inwardly resented the fact that I wasn’t.

I can’t begin to explain how much I regret having had premarital sex. If I could go back now and change things, I would gladly give up the six years of premarital sex during High School and College in order to enjoy a marital sex life that would be free of the emotional hurt that premarital sex caused.

Young people who experiment with sex really are playing with fire. The heat feels good for a little while, but you get drawn in and get burned.

Too few people are willing to tell the truth. Abstinence until marriage is best. No diseases. No unplanned pregnancies. What you get from premarital sex is not worth what you give up. Save it for marriage and you’ll be much happier.

That’s not the message delivered by Planned Parenthood. They give teenage girls the weakest possible dose of birth control pills, so that if the girls don’t take it at the same time every day they are highly likely to get pregnant. How many teenagers are disciplined enough to do anything at the same time every day? Planned Parenthood counts on these same girls needing an average of three abortions in their lifetime. Planned Parenthood makes a lot of money off of these abortions. The whole thing is sick.

And oh, by the way, Hillary Clinton thinks even partial-birth abortion should be legal. She voted against the ban. And both she and Obama voted against confirming John Roberts and Samuel Alito. What kind of judges and justices do you think they would nominate?

McCain isn’t that much better…the best you could hope for from him would be moderates, not conservatives.

I am very resentful of this push to have all our daughters vaccinated against HPV. If this is so safe, and so important, why not vaccinate the boys to prevent them from spreading it around?

MannyT-vA on March 12, 2008 at 9:20 AM

I got married at 22 and had sex with the man I married at 20. We would have gotten married before, but financially it made sense to wait until we graduated college.

You don’t speak for everyone when you say sex ed has gotten worse. I had to study sex ed in junior high, high school and again in college through courses that were required for graduation.

I don’t know if the nurses gave out free condoms with free tips on how to use them, but 1) they’re not expensive, 2) they’re available at any grocery store, gas station, walmart, planned parenthood, etc. and 3) only an idiot will have trouble figuring out how to put one on.

Making condoms as available as Chap-Stick obviously hasn’t made them any safer or wiser.

Love ya, Ed but I have to take issue with this. The overwhelming trend the last 10 years or so has to push an pro-abstinence/anti-any kind of pre-marital sex agenda. Condoms aren’t nearly as available as when I was in highschool 13 years ago.
I used to be able to go to the nurses office and grab a load of em and they gave us instruction on the use of them in sex ed and explored the risks of sex with or without condoms.
Since I have graduated, the school has been forced to lose the auto-condom distribution where you have to have a note from a parent (how many kids do you think got that note?) and sex ed is now a 1 week course in gym class.
The longer people seem to carry this willful ingnorance to forget how they were in high school/college the longer these trends of increased STD’s will continue.
Seriously folks, how many of you actually saved yourself for marriage when you were 25? All of those with their hands up feel free to write ‘liar’ on your forehead.

I am going to apologize, I am really sick today and not thinking real clearly. My biggest issue with the sample size is that the Confisence Level is going to be low, not the Confidence Interval. Certainly below the 95% or 99% usually aimed for in these kind of studies.

Buford on March 11, 2008 at 5:02 PM

The formula I used to estimate the margin of error from the CDC study (+/- 3%) was based on a 95% confidence level, which is what is most frequently used and accepted.

Of course the margin of error assumes that the sample was random/representative of the nation. If so, it means it is more likely that someone from California, New York or Texas will be included in the sample than say someone from Wyoming—because they have higher populations. Teens in populous states may be more sexually active than in others.

I take the CDC study at face value that the STD rates are high among teens in the US… not all of these STDs are very dangerous but should be prevented and treated.

Still-A-Neocon

I just finished building a chastity belt for my daughter. And I’m guarding the key with my shotgun.

Pope Linus on March 11, 2008 at 6:07 PM

Dare I ask why you feel that your daughter is not going to be responsible enough to manage her romantic life without you keeping it under lock and key? Not that I think you’re serious, but if that’s the general attitude you take towards your kids’ sexuality it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you can call it “safe sex” because you’re using a condom, then you can call driving down a dark, gravel road at 100 mph “safe driving” if you wear your seat belt.

taznar on March 11, 2008 at 10:11 PM

Nitpick: bad analogy. With proper use, condoms are in fact fairly effective at reducing the risk of pregnancy and STDs (e.g. this study, which showed that properly used condoms would reduce the risk of pregnancy to 2%/year); the problem comes because typical use of condoms is imperfect. So, a better analogy: condoms are like cars. Just because you know how to fasten your seatbelt and turn on the engine doesn’t mean you can drive safely.

Anyway, this study is fairly obviously bogus. What’d they do, take their samples from 42nd street? As rightwingpastor suggests, it’d be nice to know what stock these people have in vaccination against STDs and the like. More importantly, why is it that so many of the commenters are uncritically accepting the study and using it to justify the whole “cesspit of immorality” bs rather than applying a little logic to the situation? It’s quite annoying that people are using this ridiculous number to moralize about the sinfulness of the younger generation. For me to hear that I’m inherently irresponsible because I’m 16 is similar to Michelle’s lecture about broken souls and cynical laziness. I’ve already seen several posts that go “well, in this age of sex sex sex from every angle, how could you expect kids to know better?” I find that insulting to my intelligence and the intelligence of my generation – especially when the critics can’t be bothered to do the basic math required to put this study to bed.

To the new parents – don’t be discouraged. It is very much possible to bring up sexually responsible kids even in this day and age.

inmypajamas on March 11, 2008 at 11:05 PM

As I implied in my comment on March 11 at 8:13 PM, it seems good for one to reconsider thoughtfully the notion of a post-pubertal child. I accept that human beings are an unusual case, but it still seems worth considering that, as far as I know, we don’t consider the young of any other species still to be children a few years after puberty.

Parents probably do a pretty good job of keeping their children from having sex. In the industrialized countries, including the United States, the real problem may be that early adulthood is being mismanaged because it’s been misconstrued as late childhood.

I’ve still never had sex, but I still wish I’d heard it.

Having worked in public health off and on for almost 20 years, I can offer that the CDC stats sound pretty much in line with what I have seen for that population. What is discouraging is the casualness with which STDs are regarded. These young people just show up for their shots or pills and move on to the next partner and the next STD. (And contrary to the above poster, chlamydia does not just “go away” on its own. Untreated chlamydia can lead to serious problems.)

To the new parents – don’t be discouraged. It is very much possible to bring up sexually responsible kids even in this day and age. Just be involved in their lives and very nosy! It sounds too simple but just be sure you know who their friends are and where they are when they’re not at home. Surround yourself with other families who reject the prevailing culture and raise their kids likewise. Raise them in and be active in your faith, if you are so inclined. It won’t be easy but it’s worth it. I am continually amazed at the maturity and good sense of my daughter and her friends (more than I had at their age) and my son is a great kid as well. They are not sheltered by any means but they have the resources to make good choices when challenged and they have done so more often than not. Hope that’s not too preachy but you will probably do better than you think possible right now.

If you can call it “safe sex” because you’re using a condom, then you can call driving down a dark, gravel road at 100 mph “safe driving” if you wear your seat belt.

“HPV causes cancer” is not necessarily true.

most cases of cervical cancer do not involve HPV at all. most girls with HPV will not get cervical cancer.

still bad stat though.

The CDC I’m sure wants everybody to get the HPV vacinne, and that’s skewed their point of view.

“A study shows that 25% of all teenage American girls have at least one sexually-transmitted disease”

Hrm. Before the age of 18, 44% of girls in the US are still virgins. Assuming their sample was representative of ages within the general population, that means about 40% of the total sample should have been virgins. Let’s say 35%, just in case. Doing some quick math, that would mean that the overall STD rate amongst sexually active teenage girls is actually 38%. Seems a bit high, eh? As others have pointed out, this “study” doesn’t seem very credible.

I think a lot of old-school religious types (not an insult) don’t approve of self-love – I think there’s an interpretation of some guy in the Bible, Onan or something, and that gets killed off for masturbating (I was taught he wouldn’t impregnant his dead brother’s wife, but it’s been years). I agree that it would be very complementary to abstinance education, and it serves another purpose as well – if you don’t know how to please yourself, how are you going to please someone else (not just sexually either).

the goddess anna on March 11, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Let’s put aside for a moment the religious argument (Old Testament kickin’ it old school) and just focus on the emotional state of a teenager. During the age that one’s emotions are developing “self-love” is simply emotionally insufficient.

Even the most brain-dead MTV-watching teenager needs to feel emotionally connected at some level and that at minimum is a warm body participating in sexual congress along with you.

That is the absolute minimum for most kids to feel normal and wanted. It doesn’t even begin to take in the legions of teenagers with particular needs: cheerleaders who want their boyfriends to think they have a perfect body, Goth boys who want that weird girl in The Cure t-shirt to think they’re really intelligent, football players who want someone other than their Coach and friends to value them etc. etc.

The list is endless. Teenagers are especially vulnerable and “self-love” just won’t cut it. (Not that they won’t engage in it all the same.)

It does not complement abstinance education because it does not require self-discipline.

For that matter, the best place I can think of to get laid, aside from the Mayflower hotel, is your average evangelical church. No joke.

Seriously?