Tweens sexual activity delayed by theory-based abstinence-only program

Feb 01, 2010

A new study weighs in on the controversy over sex education, finding that an abstinence-only intervention for pre-teens was more successful in delaying the onset of sexual activity than a health-promotion control intervention. After two years, one-third of the abstinence-only group reported having sex, compared to one-half of the control group. The study by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania appears in the February 1 edition of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

While abstinence-only did not eliminate sexual activity all together, this is the first randomized controlled study to demonstrate that an abstinence-only intervention reduced the percentage of adolescents who reported any sexual intercourse for a long period, in this case two years, following the intervention.

"It is extremely important to find an effective intervention that delays sexual activity; the younger someone is when they have sex for the first time, the less likely they are to use condoms," said lead author John B. Jemmott III, PhD, professor of Communication in Psychiatry and of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania's School of Medicine and Annenberg School for Communication. "Abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in delaying sexual activity until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle to consequences of sex. This can reduce undesirable consequences of sex, including pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections like HIV/AIDS."

There was a 33 percent reduction in self-reported sexual intercourse from the abstinence-only group, compared to the control group, by the end of the study. Of the students who reported that they were sexually active during the study, there were fewer reports of recent from the abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6 percent) compared to the control participants (29.0 percent).

The authors cautioned that before any policy issues are discussed, more research is needed to determine the efficacy of abstinence-only education for different populations, including replication of a study like this in young African Americans. "Policy should not be based on just one study, but an accumulation of empirical findings from several well-designed, well-executed studies," said Dr. Jemmott.

A total of 662 African American students in grades 6 and 7 participated in this randomized controlled trial, which was held on Saturdays in classrooms at four public schools participating in the study. The students were randomly assigned to an 8-hour abstinence-only intervention, an 8-hour safer sex-only intervention, an 8- or 12-hour combined abstinence and safer-sex intervention, or an 8-hour health-promotion control group. Participants in the comprehensive intervention had reduced reports of multiple sexual partners compared with the control group (8.8 percent vs. 14.1 percent).

Researchers determined that none of the interventions had significant effects on consistent condom use or unprotected sex. For those who lost their virginity during the two year study, there was no difference in consistent condom use between the abstinence-only intervention and the control group.

The abstinence-only intervention was based on principles shown to be effective in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV/AIDS, and did not use a moralistic tone or portray sex in a negative light. It encouraged abstinence as a way to eliminate the risk of pregnancy and STIs. During the 8-hour abstinence-only session, study facilitators used brief and interactive small group activities to build the pre-teens' knowledge of HIV and STIs, bolster beliefs supporting practicing abstinence, and improve skills and confidence to help negotiate and resist pressure to have sex.

The researchers noted that, in the United States, the consequences of early sexual involvement - including HIV, other STIs, and unintended pregnancies - are especially great among African American adolescents. An effective abstinence-only intervention could stave off unwanted consequences until adolescents mature and are prepared to handle the consequences of sex.

Explore further: Background TV can be bad for kids

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Background TV can be bad for kids

1 hour ago

Parents, turn off the television when your children are with you. And when you do let them watch, make sure the programs stimulate their interest in learning.

Many kids with medicaid use ER as doctor's office: CDC

1 hour ago

(HealthDay)—Children covered by Medicaid, the publicly funded insurance program for the poor, visit the emergency room for medical care far more often than uninsured or privately insured youngsters, a U.S. ...

Warning: Birthdays can be bad for your health

2 hours ago

New research has found that birthday-related drinking is associated with upsurges in hospital admissions among young people. This study of drinking behaviour in Ontario, Canada is published online today in the scientific ...

User comments : 62

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2010
Interesting to see if the main stream media will highlight this study. My guess is that it wont. Anyone want to lay odds?
If this study showed that these programs were ineffective, they would be yelling it from the rooftops.

So why does the Main Stream Media have a tendency to ignore studies such as this? Any guesses?
JayK
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2010
1) The study was "self-reported" which has problems that a 9% differential isn't positive enough to make this a definitive study in anything.

2) Because Jemmett, the lead psychologist, has a self interest in publishing positive results for an abstinence-only study.

But you knew that, right? Or are you just here to espouse your own right-wing view?
GillesV
4.3 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2010
Also despite their claim of "not using a moralistic tone or portraying sex in a negative light", did they check if the abstinence group may feel more guilt and be less willing to self report sexual activity ?

So far I'm unimpressed and would much rather focus on finding a way to communicate the importance of condoms.
JerryPark
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2010
freethinking,

The media will be silent on this study because it is politically correct to teach children how to have sex instead of teaching them to abstain from sex.

The media reports today that "everybody is doing it" at a very young age. There was a time not so long ago when everybody was not doing it. The difference is the acceptance of "doing it". That acceptance is communicated by teaching how and by reporting in the media that everybody is "doing it".
JayK
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2010
@JerryPark,

did you have something meaningful to add to the discussion, or do you just want to talk about how great it was when you were a child?
joefarah
1 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2010
It is no accident that the media will not report this. It goes against the culture of death - sex for fun - then have an abortion. And abortions are a BIG industry. Contrary to popular opinion, "safe sex" does not reduce abortions, but instead, because it encourages promiscuity, increases abortions.

Too few people realize the importance of saving sex for your marriage partner. They cave in to the "fun" without awareness of the consequences - physical, but even more so, physcological. I dare anyone here to post divorce statistics on those who abstain until marriage vs those who don't.

Also, a 9% differential is huge when you're talking about communicating diseases. The factor multiplies itself every time sexual activity occurs.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2010
If planned Parenthood released a study that said abortion is good, the media would report this without checking the facts and bias of the study.

The problem the public faces right now is that studies that support left wing progressive causes are not checked out while containing serious flaws, while studies that support conservatives believes are dismissed no matter how good they are by the media. This BIAS needs to stop.

What I would like is fair treatment of both sides, fair reporting and evaluation of studies.

So getting off my soapbox, is this study valid. If you have a left wing bias, please take off you bias then evaluate this study fairly. If your conservative, please check this out as well. If it is a poor study then label it as a poor study.

We need to get rid political bias in the evaluation of studies.
JayK
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2010
Yes, freethinking, we should have joefarah from World Net Daily do all the fact checking of studies.

And at the same time, we should invest heavily in aluminum foil beanie stocks.
GREENEMAC
5 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2010
Interesting how freethinking has already made up his mind about sex education, when the majority of studies suggest the opposite. His rebuttal? They are all biased! Oh the classic right-winger response to anything that disagrees with their views. It is ironic however that no one can produce evidence that there is a mass widespread bias in the top medical and psychological organizations, yet claim otherwise.
DaffyDuck
5 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2010
"Contrary to popular opinion, "safe sex" does not reduce abortions, but instead, because it encourages promiscuity, increases abortions."

Then would you care to attempt to explain why the Netherlands, which promotes sex education, not abstinence, has one of the lowest teen pregnancy and abortion rates in the world?

http://www.ncbi.n.../7971545
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2010
I can't wait to see the followup poll of how many of the abstinence only kids have to be treated for an STD vs the educated kids who do not.
danman5000
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2010
...more research is needed to determine the efficacy of abstinence-only education for different populations, including replication of a study like this in young African Americans.
...A total of 662 African American students in grades 6 and 7 participated in this randomized controlled trial

Anyone else catch that? They want to do more research on different population groups such as African Americans, and this study was done on African Americans.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2010
What percentage of the 1/3 vs. the 1/2 used protection when they had sex. The issue isn't so much keeping them from having sex, it's stopping the spread of disease. The second group could have had a 100% sexual activity report and had less potential to spread disease than the 1/3 who engaged in sexual activity and may have not used protection.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2010
The hate from the left progressives when you ask for facts and show bias in the media.

More proof that leftist progressives hate science.

All I ask for is fairness in evaluating studies and that studies are not influenced by right or left wing ideology.

Is this study good? I'm not sure, is it being fairly treated? Based on the comments here, no it isn't.
LKD
3 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2010
Anyone else catch that? They want to do more research on different population groups such as African Americans, and this study was done on African Americans.


You failed to read that they wished to try other selections of students AND repeat the results they found with their 662 students. Please think about what you say and double check your extrapolation.
JayK
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2010
Yes, freethinking, it is left progressive when I pointed out that the lead researcher has a bias that needs to be taken into account, or that there is a reporters bias in a "self-reported" study around sexuality that has been pointed out thousands of times before this.

You found a study that backs up your worldview and you latched onto it like a suckling, ignoring that a 9% differential isn't substantial and ignoring others that didn't share your particular worldview.

This is interesting, and it goes against a lot of other studies, so perhaps this study is just a bit questionable? Maybe? Perhaps?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2010
After two years, one-third of the abstinence-only group reported having sex, compared to one-half of the **CONTROL GROUP**.


(emphasis added)

At the same time:

The students were randomly assigned to an 8-hour abstinence-only intervention, an 8-hour safer sex-only intervention, an 8- or 12-hour combined abstinence and safer-sex intervention, or an **8-HOUR HEALTH-PROMOTION CONTROL GROUP**.


(emphasis added)

Notice how this report isn't comparing abstinence-only against sex-only (which is what the right- vs. left-wingers really care about.) Instead, it's only comparing abstinence-only against a rather meaningless "control group".

So what we have here is apples to oranges, but apparently quite enough to get the juices of the wingnuts going...
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2010
Sorry LKD, I didn't mean to rank you as 1.

Those are the kind of valid questioning I wanted. Poor studies need to be pointed out wether left or right.

JayK, your comments show you are biased. I stated I wasn't sure this study was a good one. I just questioned why the progressive left starts calling names and become dismissive when you question them. Just like you did. Must be a progressive thing.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2010
Pink Elephant, I think we are on opposite sides of the spectrum, But your comments are valid and are the ones that I was looking for. Now if you would do the same for other studies that the left use, things would be fair :)
JayK
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2010
Yeah, I'm the biased one. I'm the one that started out blaming the (liberal)MSM for not reporting studies that verify the conservative viewpoint, right?

No, wait, I'm the one that pointed out the lead researcher has a self interest in a favorable study, I pointed out that 9% is not a substantial differential when the main reporting method is "self-reporting" when sexuality is concerned. The only thing I did was point out that you, and your World Net Daily friend above, want this kind of study to be in the MSM in order to validate your worldviews, which doesn't necessarily make this a good study.

Joseph Farah's biases are widely reported, your worldview is easily discernible and I've had the audacity to just point that out.

I must be the bad guy here, eh?
LKD
not rated yet Feb 02, 2010
Sorry LKD, I didn't mean to rank you as 1.


It's quite all right. I notice some people just put 1 when they don't want to consider science in its honest form, or when they are just being asinine. I have gotten that for saying things as yourself on different topics, as you are getting. It happens, not much you can do. ::Shrug::

Anything this mired in politics has its all too prevalent ideologues who just go through and '1' anything that is in opposition to their views.

What can you do but hope to present facts and reason and pray either way you at least get one person thinking farther than the mantra. I wish both sides the best in honest facts and discussion.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2010
Well, if anything, what we have here on PhysOrg is a rather biased and misleading write-up, which (at least based on the headline) is clearly tilted toward right-wing POV.

That it is (perhaps deliberately) misleading is evident, given the heated discussion it triggered and given the fact that none of the debaters noticed the "gotcha".

With this in mind, I won't blame the MSM if it passes on this particular report. Or if it, at least, actually looks at ALL the data from the study, and produces a writeup that isn't such an oblique propaganda ploy.

Then again, if a more balanced look merely reveals that while abstinence-only is marginally effective, safe-sex is significantly more effective still -- then there won't be any news to report in the first place, because everybody already knows this...
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2010
PinkElephant, I've read up on pro-safe sex studies that were widly reported on by the MSM. They were so poorly done, done by leftist sources, that they were laughable.

The problem is, the media is so slanted left, they don't bother digging in to what they and you (from your last comment) think they already know.

In otherwords, you and the media already know that safe sex education works and that absence doesnt work, so anything that shows this is unquestioned, anything against this assumed to be poor work.

What I want is the truth, reporters to investiate and report both sides fairly, and research to be unbiased (left or right).

So the next time planned parenthood presents a study that says distributing condoms keeps kids safe, doesnt promote sex, doesnt increase abortion. Please show the flaws, and show the bias.
JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2010
Maybe you should write an article and submit it, freethinking? It could be about how science totally conspires against anything and everything conservative, and how the media just plays along with it in order to get free jelly beans that taste like Tang!

Or how about in the future, you do your own hard work instead of asking everyone else to do it for you?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2010
@freethinking,

What do you define as a "leftist source"? Is AMA "leftist"?

http://jama.ama-a.../19/1529

The problem with ideological extremists, is that anyone who contradicts them must automatically be on the opposite side of the spectrum. There is no middle, and there is no "unbiased" reporting when it comes to such an audience. It's either blatant bias that agrees with their preconceived POV, or it's propaganda from the other side.
JayK
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2010
I wondering, freethinking, did you think I was talking about the lead researchers' political bias? Because if you take a few moments to do a little research on the author, his political viewpoints aren't very clear, but he has been pro-safe sex and pro-sex education. It is just that he has been doing a lot of work for a long time in the abstinence area and that probably colored his intentions and his acceptance of data. This isn't a major bias on his part, but it is something that easily could have assisted in skewing even the self-reported data, as the respondents may have been looking for affirmation for their actions and/or choices.

I'm not against this study, I'd like to see more of it, but I'd also like to make sure that children around the world get the best information to make the best choices for themselves, which sometimes will actually mean they'll have sex and need a condom.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2010
AMA is leftist.
"The American Medical Association has approved a resolution that has the thinnest veneer of science to cloak its pro-gay marriage agenda."
http://spectator....ssociati
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2010
Is the AMA leftist... on social policy yes.
Is the Media leftist... Yes.
Does the media in general report fairly? On leftist issues, no it doesn't.

Also, lets not bring out the old "the science is settled" arguments. We've seen where that leads.

I would love to get real information, but getting real information is extremely hard these days mainly due to progressives propensity for distorting the truth and name calling. If your presenting good information, I don't care about your politics, or even if the information agrees with my views.

Here is an example of biased reporting and how it distorts.
Freethinking got into a fight and almost killed a person. Police took him to the police station.

or
Freethinking was attacked and subdued the attacker. Police took him down to the police station to give a statement.

Both stories are true, but one misleads.
LKD
1.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2010
if you take a few moments to do a little research on the author, his political viewpoints aren't very clear


Do you always contradict yourself? Your initial post says nothing of the sort. If you are relenting a possible honesty in the author of the study, please state so and be forthright. Otherwise refrain from being derogatory as you only discredit yourself and any contribution you might offer.

On topic:
Pink, thank you for the link!

I read the materials of the 12 year old study and I am curious what the differences between the set of students then and now is? Is there a cultural change that is slowly altering the perception of children under 15? Were there more 1 parent and No parent children in the first study as opposed to the second study? I would love to very much hear John Jemmott's opinion on this, but likely that will not be forthcoming and it will be left to speculation.
JayK
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2010
Do you always contradict yourself? Your initial post says nothing of the sort.


My initial post says: "Jemmett, the lead psychologist, has a self interest in publishing positive results for an abstinence-only study."

Here is a link

http://www.uphs.u...ottj.htm

that fully explains how I came by my conclusion that Jemmett has a bias towards pro-abstinence.

So care to point out how I contradicted myself with quotes, or are you just being derogatory and discrediting yourself and any contribution you'd have to offer?
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 02, 2010
Once when I asked a senior school administrator why don't they teach the complete facts about sex. He said they could not teach actual and factual sex information because it would teach morals.

I'm all for teaching actual/factual aspect of sex at the appropriate age, with full parental notification (parents must give permission for child to attend, not if you dont say no, we will teach without you), and even allow parents to watch (why hide what you are teaching.)
-teach kids biological facts.
-Lets teach kids all about contraceptives including that they most often work, but they also often fail. That failure will mean you get pregnant, or get a disease, or both.
-Gay sex is harmful to the human body.
-That an unborn baby is fully human show video of babies moving in the womb.
-If you have sex outside of marriage the odds of having a failed marriage increases.
-If you have a baby you will most likely live below the poverty line.
etc. etc.
LKD
1.7 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2010
So care to point out how I contradicted myself with quotes, or are you just being derogatory and discrediting yourself and any contribution you'd have to offer?


I already did, but you may not realize it. So, here it is again:
"Because Jemmett, the lead psychologist, has a self interest in publishing positive results for an abstinence-only study."
Then "he has been doing a lot of work for a long time in the abstinence area and that probably colored his intentions and his acceptance of data"
Then "that fully explains how I came by my conclusion that Jemmett has a bias towards pro-abstinence."

To quote your reference and show he may be actually coming in with a balanced approach, though he may not WANT 12 year olds!!!! having sex like every other sane person on this planet: "The program encourages students to practice "safe" sex - abstinence - but recognizes that they are more likely to engage in "safer" sex, the knowledgeable and habitual use of condoms."
JayK
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2010
You don't see as how his early work (practice) with his own abstinence-only program and then transferring that to a research program would cause Jemmett to have a certain amount of confirmation bias?

And leave your own morality out of this, unless you just want to scream and rant about how horrible it is that 12 year olds do have sex and do drugs and all sorts of the same things that other humans do all the time.
superhuman
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2010
As was already said the guilt associated with having had sex despite being told not to can easily explain this small difference in self reporting.
Planetbob99
5 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2010
Chastity is a perversion.

Teaching abstinence-only in place of providing a complete education is by definition a moral choice. Personally, I consider it the immoral choice.

Withholding facts is not only stupid, but ends up being ineffectual. Especially now that kids can find more and better information their cell phones. If you don't teach them to consume information and *analyze it*, kids will simply accept anything that 'feels right to them'. Which will generally be whatever it was that they wanted to hear. And those kids turn into adults that do the same bloody thing.
xstos
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2010
My god... left-wing, right-wing... you're all a bunch of wing nuts. Monkeys like to mate. It feels good. There are 6 billion monkeys on the planet. These monkeys see sexually provoking monkeys in the media and get boners. Some have self control over their biological urges, some do not. If there were no STDs and all teens were impotent this would be a non issue. Is taking a dump or gorging on an entire pizza as immoral as putting a penis into a vagina? They all feel good. Given that the population increases with sexual activity, we necessarily curb this growth with abortions and education. When lemmings overpopulate they run off cliffs. This is no better or worse on the gray-scale of life as blindly turning away as wallstreet absorbs billions that could have saved millions of people in poverty all over the world. Yet we sit here and bitch about an unformed "soul" that wasn't protected. First worry about the actually sentient individuals that are eating turd cakes for breakfast in Haiti.
NameIsNotNick
5 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2010
Joe says: "And abortions are a BIG industry"

Now Joe, isn't that a slight exaggeration? OTOH, religion is!
Mesafina
not rated yet Feb 08, 2010
-Gay sex is harmful to the human body.
-That an unborn baby is fully human show video of babies moving in the womb.


Um, your list only goes to show just how your political leanings have in fact tainted your ability to even discern what a "fact" is. Gay sex is harmful to the human body? Where did you get that one? It's only harmful if one of the people in question has an std, just like straight sex. Showing videos of babies moving proves they are fully human? What about before the nervous system forms?

This is why we laugh at your ignorance. You are the one who would have our schools teaching propaganda rather then scientific, verified, peer reviewed fact. What are you doing on PhysOrg anyways? I think red-state wants you back.
mlange
not rated yet Feb 08, 2010
If every dude just wore a frigging condom we would not be having this discussion. What is so hard about that? education is key.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2010
Mesafina, come on now! Either you are very ignorant about health and sexuality, not suprising given the society which we live, if this is the case I will provide you with links, or you are one of those that don't want the truth being told.

Babies being fully human this is the truth. Why not show children a baby in the womb?

It does sound like you are a leftist progressive. As noted many times leftists and progressives their heros are Mao, Stalin. These leaders hated the truth, laughed and ridiculed their opponents and hated free discussions. They all used schools as propaganda arms.

Leftist progressives view the educational system as a propaganda tool. Conservatives want education to be truthful and contain useful information.
otto1923
2 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2010
Joe says: "And abortions are a BIG industry"

Now Joe, isn't that a slight exaggeration? OTOH, religion is!
If youre interested in facts:
http://www.johnst...339.html
1.2 MILLION abortions a year in this country or about 1/4 of all pregnancies, terminated. Add to that the business in counciling, problems with complications etc; not small change.
This is why we laugh at your ignorance.
This is why we laugh at your bestial gullibility.
verified, peer reviewed
PROPAGANDA. Sheep.

Now one for the other side:
Babies being fully human this is the truth.
So they should grow up to starve or die on the battlefield? Its your insistance on the god-given Right to procreate which creates this inescapable horror. Your religions are responsible for the necessity of abortions. Sheep.
Mesafina
not rated yet Feb 08, 2010
freethinking you would of course be quick to make assumptions, such as your assertion that I love Mao and am a communist.

I wonder what other opinions you may have that are based on assumption rather then reality.

"Leftist progressives view the educational system as a propaganda tool. Conservatives want education to be truthful and contain useful information."

All I can say is lol to that sir, lol to that. Wake up and smell the coffee, you have no idea what you are talking about.

...and I'd still love to hear how Gay sex is so harmful to the human body in any way normal sex is not. At least they aren't having abortions, they should be the darling poster-childs of the right if the right had any consistency at all.

"Conservatives want education to be truthful and contain useful information."

Tell that to the conservative creationists who want our schools teaching voodoo christian magic. Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder.
freethinking
2 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2010
basic anatomy,

The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

Gay diseases not commonly found in hetrosexuals
AIDS
Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia

Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:

hemorrhoids
anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2010
Unborn babies and pain.
If you stick an infant with a pin She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away.

do the same to an 8 week old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away.

A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus. Volman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Journal, Jan. 26, 1980, pp. 233-234.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2010
I have kids in the school system and I would like to challenge anyone here to show me that right wing propaganda is being forced on kids.
In the last year we have seen kids singing praises to Obama, please show me any school kids singing praises to Bush or Regan....

freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2010
Mesafina,
Why is it we can tell kids the harm smoking causes, but not Gay sex? Why do we teach them to recycle litter, but to avoid sex? I think kids can make great choices if given the facts. Do you think they are too dumb to make good choices? Why do you want to withhold facts from them that can save their lives? Just like some kids will take up smoking, some will have sex, even gay sex after being told the facts. But a least they will know what they are getting into and the dangers they face.

I dont care if you want to have gay sex, just like I dont care if you smoke. It doesnt affect me. But dont lie. Gay sex is harmful, sex outside of marriage is harmful, an unborn baby does feel pain. These are verifiable truths.
PinkElephant
1 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2010
@freethinking,

I think your inner repressed homosexual is on vivid display here today. Which might be obvious to anyone BUT yourself, so I thought I'd let you know.

Turns out what you call "Gay sex" is anal intercourse. What do you have to say regarding lesbians? What do you have to say regarding heterosexual couples that engage in anal sex? Which is a statistically more frequent occurrence among the overall population: homosexual anal sex, or heterosexual anal sex? Is anal intercourse the only method for man-man sex? What about fellatio; what about mutual masturbation? Transsexuals?

You need to start using your noodle a bit more, free"thinking".

As for STDs, what you really ought to argue against, is not homo- vs. heterosexuality. You really ought to argue against sexual promiscuity, and against unprotected sex. Oddly, you right-wingers are opposed to gay marriage, just as you're opposed to condoms.

Feel free to continue pissing into the wind...
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2010
PinkElephant,

Very poor response. Dont like truth being taught do you? Liberals always resort to name calling when facts are presented that counter what they believe.
PinkElephant
3 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2010
I'm not the one publicly obsessing about male-on-male anal intercourse to the exclusion of everything else, free"thinking". And I think the kernel of "truth" in your otherwise fatuous rants is rather self-evident, which is why nobody bothers to respond to it specifically. Yes, neither the sphincter nor the colon are well suited for penile penetration. What, did you think this was somehow a revelation to anyone? I've got only one thing, really, to tell you with regard to anal sex: particularly since you don't appear to like it much -- don't do it!
Mesafina
1 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2010
freethinking, you make me chuckle :)
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2010
Anal sex and fellatio were invented by women who were desperately trying not to get pregnant... again.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2010
Ok how about telling kids anal sex is bad. Now which group of people will think you are against them? I bet gays will...

But Planned Parenthood, the abortion industrial complex, feminist groups (that need government money to survive because they cant get real women to support them), gay (both male and female btw) and progressive group want to use kids for their own ends and could careless for them.

debate with an abortion activist, femanist, gay activist, see how long before they start calling names, swearing, hurling insults. For a bunch of people who say they are tollerent, they are the least tollerant of any opinion other than theirs.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2010
For a bunch of people who say they are tollerent, they are the least tollerant of any opinion other than theirs.

That might have a little something to do with the fact that people like yourself have managed to make the very word "gay" into a derogatory curse. Spend some time on any elementary school playground, and see how many times per hour you'll hear this slur casually cast about.

Yes, people who are told they are abnormal and abhorrent by their very nature, tend to react negatively to such proclamations. I mean, how would *you* feel if I walked up to you and started arguing that the world would be better off without *your* presence therein?

Then again, most crusaders against the "homosexual agenda" have such stunted capacity for empathy, that trying to make them understand that they're actually hurting people is like trying to dig a hole in a lake.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2010
Pink Evephant, it was gay crusaders that changed the meaning of Gay from happy to homosexual.

Yes kids are mean, gay is thrown around and so is retard. Only kids and people without respect for others call other people names. All people who call names and try to put down people are bullies. Ive been bullied and know how it feels. That is why if someone bullies someone I get my back up.

Is being gay abnormal? Since they make up 2-5% of the population they are classified as abnormal. Just like having 1 leg, 1 eye, or even being evangelical christian (less than 10% pop in US, less in other countries)

Does being abnormal mean you are a lesser person. No it doesnt. You have seen enough of my posts where I defend the deginity and respect of all people.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2010
But I will not allow people with an agenda to say something is good when it isnt. Anal sex is bad for you. Pre-marital sex is bad for you statistically speaking. Smoking is bad for you. Driving without a seatbelt is bad for you. Will I force you to put on a seatbelt, (no, I'm against seatbelt laws), make you quit smoking, no (just don't smoke in my house), stop you from shacking up, no, or prevent you from having any type of sex you want (other than rape, incest, child) no.

People hate me because Im a Christian, people hate you because you are gay (or whatever you want to be called), people hate those with one leg.

Calling me names and hating me because I'm a christian is just as bad as someone hating you because your gay.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2010
Let me correct a few of your misconceptions, free"thinking".

First, I'm heterosexual; but I will defend gay rights because unlike some, I feel their pain, and I perceive the fundamental injustice of how society treats them. Second, people don't hate you because you're Christian; they will only hate you when you try to *force* YOUR religion upon them... Such as advocating for blatantly discriminatory and/or repressive laws based on religion.

Now, I'm glad you've figured out that driving without a seat belt is "bad for you". Wake me up when you figure out that having sex without a condom is bad not just for you, but possibly for your partner, your future children, and definitely for the entire population.

Lastly, please enlighten me as to which gay advocacy groups are putting out statements proclaiming that anal sex is good for you. Aside from sadomasochistic nut jobs and right-wing demagogues, I have yet to observe any sane individual making such preposterous claims.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2010
PinkElephant,Your funny. Sex without a condom is bad..for your parnter, your future children..
You need to take off the condom (or have it fall off) for you to have children. If you are married sex without a condom isnt bad.

Please tell me which gay groups ARE saying anal sex is bad? Please anyone? You show yourself an ignorate hateful hetrosexual. Homosexual groups dont need your help defending them, your ignorance of homosexual behavior make you a laughing stock.

As for Christians forcing thier religion on you, when you'rforced to hold christian services in your house, forced to convert, etc... then tell me about forcing religion on you. When Christian teachers, printers, nurses, doctors, pharmasists are told not to speak their views outside of work, print what they consider offensive, kill unborn children, or distribute drugs they dont want to sell, by the government, and churches forced to allow gay marraige on their property. Who is persecuting who?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2010
As for Christians forcing thier religion on you, when you'rforced to hold christian services in your house, forced to convert, etc... then tell me about forcing religion on you.

No one is saying you have to engage in anal sex or homosexual activites in your house so I'm not sure how you were trying to help your stance here. If anything you've weakened your objection as it doesn't concern you, just as you say Christianity shouldn't concern an atheist like myself.

FYI: Permitting Gay marriage has never forced the church to marry non-church goers, nor has it mandated that churches need to have gay members.

If anything churches are isolated from this entire discussion as the states' individual mandates only pertain to the fiscal properties of marriage and the civil state practice of marriage, not the religious institutional marriage.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2010
PinkElephant,Your funny. Sex without a condom is bad..for your parnter, your future children..

See, this is what happens when you flunk basic sex-ed. Tell me, is it good for you to catch Herpes, or Syphilis, or HIV? Will it be good for your children, when they risk inheriting such *chronic* infections, or suffer birth defects due to these diseases, from either parent years later?
If you are married sex without a condom isnt bad.

Only if you assume both spouses are faithful. What if one of them cheats? What's the rate of divorce, these days?
Please tell me which gay groups ARE saying anal sex is bad?

The reason they are "groups" in the first place, is because they feel they have something IMPORTANT to say. Making universally obvious non-statements is not the point. You might as well be asking why gay groups aren't saying that the sky is blue.
...your ignorance of homosexual behavior make you a laughing stock.

You need to get yourself a gay friend.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2010
skeptic Heretic, Churches have been forced to rent out their facilities for Gay weddings. In Canada, teacher was fired for writing an article against gay marriage. A Christian printer who refused to print pro-gay propaganda was forced to pay a fine, Pharmacists were forced to sell the morning after pill. Priests who spoke against gay marriage investigated by the human rights tribunal Nurses forced to help with abortions. Catholic hospitals forced to provide services they dont agree with. All these are stories if you look up you will.

Gay Marriage has nothing to do with marriage. But that is a differnt topic. If anyone truely wants more info on the subject and where it will lead PM me and I will provide links.
JayK
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2010
Ah, so "freethinking" shows his moniker is nothing more than false advertising.

I'm wondering if freethinking is related to the infamous homophobe Clayton Cramer?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 10, 2010
Priests who spoke against gay marriage investigated by the human rights tribunal Nurses forced to help with abortions.


I'd be upset at the fact they had an unqualified priest assist in an abortion.

Sorry, none of those tales pass the sniff test. I need references for each.