So abstinence education works?

[Perd Hapley]

Study finds that virginity is more popular among young people.

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/parenting-family/teen-ya/2011-03-03-virgins04_ST_N.htm

Or maybe it's just harder to get it on when you only talk via text and Twitter.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

What do they mean by "sexual encounter" and "sexual contact"?  Am I just too old fashioned to realize they mean plain ol' "sex"?

"The perception is all kids are engaging in oral sex. Obviously, that's not the case," says Jennifer Manlove, a senior research scientist with the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Child Trends, who studies teen sexuality.

Methinks Miss Jennifer has the perfect name for her profession.

[Jamie B]

Yea, and it has worked so well for us Catholics.....

[AJ Dual]

Study finds that virginity is more popular among young people.

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/parenting-family/teen-ya/2011-03-03-virgins04_ST_N.htm

Or maybe it's just harder to get it on when you only talk via text and Twitter.

I think you're actually right.

[MicroBalrog]

Jennifer Manlove, a senior research scientist with the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Child Trends, who studies teen sexuality.

The prosecution rests its case.

[230RN]

* Thanks for pointing that out!

[Lee]

That is a good point.  But then - maybe it was Bill Clinton's doing.  From what I've heard, kids who have had any type of sex other than intercourse (even with dozens of people - and including their own gender) still consider themselves to be Virgins. Maybe that's just Urban/Internet rumor though. 

[Perd Hapley]

The prosecution rests its case.

Huh? I'm guessing this is more of your crusade of being all pouty about the fact that most people set the age of adult-hood somewhere north of where you do. Still, what are you talkin' about?

[MicroBalrog]

It seems to me this name - combined with some of the stuff the researchers said in the article - betrays a certain bias in favor of abstinence education.

[Perd Hapley]

So you think that Child Trends commissioned the study, to push a certain point of view, and calling teens children is sufficient proof of that? Or what?

The figures come from the National Survey on Family Growth, a regular survey conducted by the U.S. government's Centers for Disease Control.
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/series/00048

If it means anything to you, the New York Times has an article about how the same survey shows an increase in condom use.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/health/policy/27contraceptive.html


Also, on second thought, I apologize for putting this in the Round Table. I probably should have put this somewhere else where kids can't read our commentary.

[MicroBalrog]

I feel it's one of those studies that can be interpreted as a proof of whatever (as both sides are obviously doing), as evident even from the article you posted (some experts say the survey shows that the situation is improving, others that young persons are lying more, 'underreporting' their sexual activity).

Two strikes for Child Trends:

1. Calling teens children.

2. The use of the phrasing ""They may be more in control of their behaviors than we think." Clearly the implication is that young persons who do have sex are not in control of their behaviors, while those who don't are.

[Perd Hapley]

I feel it's one of those studies that can be interpreted as a proof of whatever (as both sides are obviously doing), as evident even from the article you posted (some experts say the survey shows that the situation is improving, others that young persons are lying more, 'underreporting' their sexual activity).

So where did the bias go?

[Jamisjockey]

I feel it's one of those studies that can be interpreted as a proof of whatever (as both sides are obviously doing), as evident even from the article you posted (some experts say the survey shows that the situation is improving, others that young persons are lying more, 'underreporting' their sexual activity).

Two strikes for Child Trends:

1. Calling teens children.

2. The use of the phrasing ""They may be more in control of their behaviors than we think." Clearly the implication is that young persons who do have sex are not in control of their behaviors, while those who don't are.

MB:

In America, teens are treated as children with no responsibility for their actions.  Might as well call 'em children.

[Nick1911]

MB:

In America, teens are treated as children with no responsibility for their actions.  Might as well call 'em children.

Yar.  And most of them seem to rise to that level of expectation.

Then, bamb, you 18 and totally legally liable for your actions.

Least we still have driving set at 16.

[roo_ster]

In addition to all the above, most states & fed.gov define all teenagers except those 18 & 19 as children.  Referring to them as "children" reflects legal reality and social practice, not bias.

Now, this outfit may still be biased out the wazoo, but making that determination from their use of teenager as equivalent to children is not supported.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Yar.  And most of them seem to rise to that level of expectation.

Then, bamb, you 18 and totally legally liable for your actions.

Least we still have driving set at 16.

I believe most states have upped it to 17, actually. 

I haven't read the article, but I highly doubt abstinace only education efforts are responcible, and bet it has more to do with generations, as the teens these days are children of the first wave of the children of the first generation since the sex lib movement.
A happy middle ground has been achived.

My theroy is thus. The first generation told their kids one of two things, a. Screw everybody, or b. Don't screw ANYBODY, then the second gen proceded to screw away, got some emotional scars along with the AIDS crisis and such, thus told there kids, 'hey, this is what happens when you screw everybody, but, dude, sex is great when its great, so be careful and be safe'.

Well, that plus the text/twitter theroy, which is great.

[BlueStarLizzard]

MB:

In America, teens are treated as children with no responsibility for their actions.  Might as well call 'em children.

In the legel sphere yes, but in an youth outreach program?

On the other hand, if they are so stupid as to alinate the 'children' they're trying to reach out to, i'm not sure I care for them to teach kids anything. 

Actually, one of my pet peeves is seeing stuff marketed to teens and its obvious that whoevers designed the campaign has long since forgotten what it was to be a teen, and in the effort to make whatever they're selling 'cool', they get over the top and the result is any teen is gonna go 'your a dork' and walk away.

(i am not bashing abstince only groups, although they do have a habit of this, but all groups and companies. Trust me, the other side of the fence commits this booboo too.)

[MicroBalrog]

My explanation is approximately like this: A dip of several percentile point means very little. We should FUND MOAR STUDIES.

But if this is a program dedicated to the study of an issue, it should not be using terminology that is not only painfully wrong but turns towards a wrongheaded examination of the issue.

Children are by definition the group of people we don't want to see having sex, ever. If we refer to young adults as children, we're clearly a bunch of abstinence advocates.

For the record, I am not opposed to abstinence education per se.

[Perd Hapley]

But if this is a program dedicated to the study of an issue, it should not be using terminology that is not only painfully wrong but turns towards a wrongheaded examination of the issue.

Children are by definition the group of people we don't want to see having sex, ever. If we refer to young adults as children, we're clearly a bunch of abstinence advocates.

I wish I could have your degree of confidence that the Washington elite are uncomfortable with the idea of children having sex. Unfortunately, I doubt it. That being said, you're making a quite a leap from the name of some non-profit being "Child Trends," to one of their staff commenting on teen sex (or non-sex), to some "program" being "painfully wrong."

[MicroBalrog]

I'm sort of assuming that most readers and observers whom the organization's naming scheme is aimed at are opposed to children having sex. Which is why, again, the name was chosen, either consciously or not. It is possible the Washington Elite are Evil Child-Eating Monsters. I do not know. But the average American is not.

[Perd Hapley]

No, I think you may be assuming that Child Trends only deals with teen sexuality. Or the phrasing of that sentence may have misled you. From glancing at their web site, they have many other interests. http://www.childtrends.org/  So I don't think it's likely that they chose the name just for the purposes of promoting abstinence.

But again, the fact that they may speak of teens as children doesn't mean they don't want them to have sex. And the average American actually thinks of teen sex as normal, even if they don't want their daughter to do it.

[MicroBalrog]

And the average American actually thinks of teen sex as normal, even if they don't want their daughter to do it.

Yes, this is because it is and has always been normal. But the average American - and in fact the average person almost anywhere - is correctly outraged when he hears the words "child sex". This is because an entirely different and justly negative image is hereby invoked. Think windowless vans.

[MicroBalrog]

By "normal" I mean that 15, 16, 17-year-olds have been being married and/or sought after for relationships all the way up to modern times. Catherine Floyd/James MAdison would have creeped modern editors the hell out.

Or David and Michal.

[Perd Hapley]

But the average American - and in fact the average person almost anywhere - is correctly outraged when he hears the words "child sex". This is because an entirely different and justly negative image is hereby invoked. Think windowless vans.

Oh, OK, I see that small point. Here's a pdf from Child Trends web site. It declares abstinence-only education a failure, and stresses the importance of condom classes.

http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends-2008_05_20_FS_WhatWorksRepro.pdf

[MicroBalrog]

Okay. I might be wrong, then?

To be fair, I'm not sure I understand the study. But I might understand it in an hour or so after I've re-read it.