…and this is a 
Pregnancy poll
Category: Pointless polls
Posted on: October 6, 2008 3:06 PM, by PZ Myers
Since you all whomped that last poll with a ruthless savagery that does a godless brute proud, how about a new one? Should abstinence-only sex ed continue?. So far, "Yes" is winning 53% to 47%, despite the fact that abstinence-only sex ed does not work, and has been demonstrated to be an abject failure time and time again.
It's sad to see such a close vote in a poll that really should be a slam dunk. How about making one of those bars swell like Bristol Palin's fecund little belly?
Comments
Posted by: KH | October 6, 2008 3:10 PM
So far 52% yes 48% no
Posted by: Gwydion Suilebhan | October 6, 2008 3:11 PM
What bothers me most about this issue is that its a false dichotomy. It's not abstience-only education vs. go-out-and-have-sex-kids-but-do-it-safely education. The alternative to abstience-only education is a comprehehsive sex education program that includes abstinence as a component. That's what actually works.
Posted by: Alex | October 6, 2008 3:13 PM
And PZ's hoards of flying monkeys set off yet again to try and skew stupidity in the direction of reason.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 6, 2008 3:15 PM
Flying squid. Come on, get the phylum right, at least.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 6, 2008 3:15 PM
51%/49%, truth still losing.
Posted by: Alex | October 6, 2008 3:16 PM
@ 2
It's what the religious morons do best - dishonest framing, mysterious language, and verbal slight-of-hand.
Posted by: Badjuggler | October 6, 2008 3:17 PM
50/50.
Posted by: El Herring | October 6, 2008 3:17 PM
To hear is to obey, master. Score 50-50 now.
And this is the closest I think I've ever been to "first" although I know that's absolutely nothing to shout about...
Posted by: Don | October 6, 2008 3:17 PM
50 - 50.
But it's only been eleven minutes.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 6, 2008 3:18 PM
50%/50% after my vote. May the truth win out.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 6, 2008 3:18 PM
Hm, wouldn't the creos be for "teaching both sides"?
Then too, they specifically exempted sex ed from "teach both sides" in Louisiana, IIRC. As the DI would put it, they're censoring a viewpoint.
So much for the principle. Here's thought...teach what actually works.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Mozglubov | October 6, 2008 3:20 PM
But of course abstinence-only sex ed should continue... no one wants those so-called "health experts" telling them how to raise their kids...
I cannot believe that is an actual paraphrasing of a quotation I read a while back, and not a caricature suffering from excess hyperbole.
Posted by: cactusren | October 6, 2008 3:20 PM
The tide has turned: 48% Yes to 52% No.
Posted by: Mozglubov | October 6, 2008 3:22 PM
Also, to update, it is now Yes - 48%, No - 52%. Yay, voting!
Posted by: Alex | October 6, 2008 3:24 PM
Sorry PZ, I understand your affection, but after being brutalized as a youngster watching Wizard of Oz, nothing will ever be more frightening than those damn flying monkeys. Just MHO.
As an aside, I watched a neat documentary on Discovery about the Humboldts in the Gulf of California. They seem to be, shall we say, quite assertive. Scary.
Posted by: GregL | October 6, 2008 3:24 PM
Yayah! 54% and rising.
Posted by: abeja | October 6, 2008 3:24 PM
How odd. The votes were yes 47% and no 53%, when the page came up, I voted (no) and submitted, and in that timeframe, like one second, yes suddenly jumped back up to 51%.
WTF?
Posted by: Carlie | October 6, 2008 3:25 PM
Heh. I went over and was surprised that it's only at 52%, and wondered what went wrong and who else was skewing the poll, then came back and realized the post has only been up for 20 minutes. Well, then. :)
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 6, 2008 3:26 PM
My local district was considering teaching abstinence only. Thankfully they decided not to do so. One woman at the Council meeting put forth an interesting argument:
We teach abstinence only education regarding drugs because we do not want our children to ever use drugs. We do eventually expect our children to have sex and even want them to. Teaching abstinence only regarding sex is sending the wrong message to our children. It is telling them there is something wrong with sex.
Of course the best way to make sure a teen does something is to tell them it is wrong.
Posted by: Sigmund | October 6, 2008 3:26 PM
Latest Palin sex-ed initiative
Posted by: abeja | October 6, 2008 3:27 PM
Musta been a glitch or something; no is taking the lead again.
Posted by: qedpro | October 6, 2008 3:28 PM
We have done your bidding master. Another poll bites the dust.
Let's hope that all this power doesn't go to PZ's Head.
You know what they say, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 6, 2008 3:29 PM
From the comments there:
"Abstinence is the only method of protecting the whole person including body, self-respect, and future ralationships."
And a spacesuit is the only way of protecting the whole person from rain.
Posted by: tsg | October 6, 2008 3:29 PM
I am still amazed that people can call purposely withholding information "education".
Posted by: Lucas | October 6, 2008 3:31 PM
I think this poll would benefit greatly from qualified responses. For instance, "Yes. How else are we going to keep up with Asian advances in population density?"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 6, 2008 3:31 PM
There may be some groups monitoring this site to see which poll we are trying to push the results on. If they have a strong opinion on the other side, they may try to get their members to push the poll the other way.
Of course all this makes the results even more meaningless.
Posted by: Gregory Kusnick | October 6, 2008 3:31 PM
Again, it all depends on what the goal is. As a way to prevent teen pregnancy, abstinence-only clearly doesn't work; no argument there. But as a way to identify and stigmatize girls who go ahead and have sex anyway, it works pretty darned well, and I think that's the real point.
Posted by: SC | October 6, 2008 3:36 PM
58% No
By the way, I read this encouraging news over the summer:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1817663,00.html
Posted by: Patricia | October 6, 2008 3:37 PM
%58 No.
Alex, I too was scared half to death by those damned horrid flying moneys. Everytime PZ sends out the horde, I hear the music from that scene in the back of my mind. *shiver*
Posted by: Hideki | October 6, 2008 3:38 PM
Hihi
Just voted.
Results at a not quite as convincing as I'd like 60% no, 40% yes.
I've never understood how anyone can think that telling teenagers not to do something is going to be effective...
Posted by: Alex | October 6, 2008 3:41 PM
I feel you Patricia. I don't know if I'll ever shake off the trauma of those winged beasties.
Posted by: Michelle | October 6, 2008 3:41 PM
Come on, churchies... it's not that hard.
"Kids, you shouldn't have sex so young. But if you do it, here is what you should do to protect yourselves. But remember, the best protection is no sex at all." (Or masturbation.)
THERE. It wasn't that hard now was it? You shouldn't close your ears and ignore that kids are doing it anyway, and they're doing it with lacking info.
What really gets me mad is the "Before you're married" stuff. HEY! What if I don't want to get married? I should never fiddle? Sounds boring to me. Sounds... RELIGIOUS to me.
Posted by: moother | October 6, 2008 3:41 PM
fighting Teh Good Fight With Pee-Zed™ daily!
Posted by: eric williams | October 6, 2008 3:45 PM
"It's sad to see such a close vote in a poll that really should be a slam dunk. How about making one of those bars swell like Bristol Palin's fecund little belly?"
Why don't you cut the crap with trashing these polls?
It's really a little juvenile and quite tiresome.
I wonder how you'd feel if someone crashed this website.
It's really quite easy, you know.
Posted by: tsg | October 6, 2008 3:48 PM
Your concern is noted.
As for the threat....
Posted by: James F | October 6, 2008 3:48 PM
Glen Davidson wrote @11:
Some Florida senators proposed to attach a "healthy teens act" to the "academic freedom" legislation to teach more than abstinence-only sex education. It didn't pass, but the point was made brilliantly (the bill thankfully died in legislature).
As an aside:
How about making one of those bars swell like Bristol Palin's fecund little belly?
This didn't sit well with me. Too close to mocking the kid for the parent's positions.
Posted by: John Knight | October 6, 2008 3:49 PM
PZ really should stop making claims about social science. I mean, I don't blather on about biology.
Abstinence education programs do work. They reduce teen pregnancy rates & STD infection rates. The studies which claim to show the contrary make elementary methodological errors that would embarass an undergraduate in economics (which is really the only social science). Control for race, ethnicity, income, parental education, family background (parents married, divorced, never married) and the true picture begins to emerge.
Such an insular little world you folks live in.
Posted by: Michelle | October 6, 2008 3:51 PM
Crashing BS polls is important to spread common sense. Don't like it, don't do it you know?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 6, 2008 3:52 PM
Such pessimists. Rather than lament the human effect of abstinence-only sex ed, why not consider that it helps increase biodiversity by ensuring that STIs have fertile ground in which to flourish? In fact, I'm surprised the abstinence-only people haven't taken a page from the pro-lifers and got rid of their negative sounding name, instead opting for a more positive term, like 'pro-HPV' and 'pro-teen pregnancy.'
I can see the campaign already: bumper stickers proclaiming "God Loves You, But He Loves Gonorrhea More," billboards with graphic pictures of syphilis spirochetes cruelly dying on the surface of a condom, and teary-eyed ministers wailing on talk shows about the 'holocaust' being waged by godless liberals against billions of innocent virii and bacteria.
Oof, I am overcome. When will the killing stop?
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 6, 2008 3:53 PM
PZ really should stop making claims about social science. I mean, I don't blather on about biology.
from what I've seen of you, John. using your own logic, you should just sew your mouth shut.
Posted by: Alex | October 6, 2008 3:53 PM
"Why don't you cut the crap with trashing these polls?"
Ummmmm...no.
"It's really a little juvenile and quite tiresome."
That's your opinion. It's more about making a statement that these kinds of polls are pointless, and anyone using them to attribute some kind of significance of opinion to such important issues are morons.
"I wonder how you'd feel if someone crashed this website."
I think ScienceBlogs, and P,Z would luv the excess traffic.
"It's really quite easy, you know."
Not Quite. You need to restate this as "It can be really quite easy, you know." Of course you have to have an audience that will participate with your website-crashing objective.
Posted by: John Knight | October 6, 2008 3:54 PM
You're really not qualified to judge me, Icky.
Posted by: Didac | October 6, 2008 3:55 PM
We are against teen pregnancies (too young mothers), againts forty-some pregnancies (too old mothers), against 20-30 mothers (not so young but not so old mothers) against out-of-wedlock pregnancies (too single mothers), against in-of-wedlock pregnancies (too married mothers) etc. Mmm. Perhaps, we should apply to the VHEMT.
Posted by: Mister Post | October 6, 2008 3:55 PM
@37:
Ok, we're listening. Do you have data to back up the claim that abstinence-only education is working?
By what measure are they "working"?
Haven't done my own formal study, but I'm on the side of the guys who say abstinence-only basically increases the stigma of the girls who do go ahead & have sex, which is not a good outcome.
Posted by: ffrancis | October 6, 2008 3:55 PM
Patricia (#29): if any "damned horrid flying moneys" come your way, just forward them on to me - or, of course, if there's billions and billions of them, start bailing out banks.
Posted by: Boomer | October 6, 2008 3:56 PM
John Knight
Control for race, ethnicity, income, parental education, family background (parents married, divorced, never married) and the true picture begins to emerge.
Source?
Until I see data that suggests abstinence-only sex education not only works, but works BETTER than comprehensive sex education including contraception, in reducing transmission of STDs and teen pregnancy, I remain unconvinced.
Posted by: Nibien | October 6, 2008 3:59 PM
Oh wow, you made an absolutely horrible attack-on-name "joke" (for lack of a better word) despite his name only starting with a whopping two letters.
Man, I better watch out before he starts starts moving up to third grade attacks.
Posted by: Jared | October 6, 2008 4:01 PM
If you block cookies from the following domains to vote early and often:
doubleclick.net
.parade.122.1o7.net
polls.polldaddy.com
quantserve.com
www.parade.com
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 6, 2008 4:03 PM
You're really not qualified to judge me, Icky.
well, apparently nobody here IS, Mr. Black Knight, so one wonders why you spend time here threatening to bite our legs off.
Posted by: mikespeir | October 6, 2008 4:03 PM
Abstinence education programs do work.Seriously, John, can you show us something that will back that up? My opinion on this matter isn't so set in stone that I couldn't change it if the evidence is really there. I'll bet I speak for others here, too. But your evidence had better be good, and you can expect us to pick it to pieces before we buy into it.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 6, 2008 4:04 PM
Evidence please, Mr. True Picture? Otherwise, I fail to see how you're any more qualified to blather on about either social science or biology.
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 6, 2008 4:07 PM
1. To reiterate Boomer: show the data. And numbers provided by The Heritage Foundation won't count as they are a pro-Repugnant think tank.
2. Where are these program's implemented? Is it even possible to make those controls?
3. Instituting these programs was, from the start, based upon bad biology. But there again the groups promoting at the local level abstinence ONLY programs have a religious agenda anyway and are indifferent to evidence. (No one is claiming that abstinence should not be taught.) Do you really expect teens whose bodies are being flooded with hormones and whose neocortex has only begun to develop and make neural connections to other parts of the brain to have a strong cognitive capacity to not engage in sexual activity of some kind? So should we be teaching masturbation and abstinence only? Here is a catch phrase, "Let your first girlfriend be Manuela."
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | October 6, 2008 4:10 PM
People's teenage daughters really ought to be left out of things, don't you think?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 6, 2008 4:11 PM
John Knight is just a polically conservative godbot. He has been pretending to talk philosophy and showing an "I am superior" on another thread that should have been closed weeks ago. He deserves to be treated in kind.
Posted by: Kobra | October 6, 2008 4:14 PM
Voted. I would have voted more than once, but my javascript:void(document.cookie="PD_poll_968945=;path="); trick didn't work. :(
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 6, 2008 4:15 PM
Still waiting for some data... any data that backs up this ignorant claim... any time now, John... waiting... waiting...
Posted by: SC | October 6, 2008 4:17 PM
Wrong. The evidence is in, as anyone who cares to look into the matter will find.
Ha! With few exceptions (Stiglitz, EPI,...), economics is pure ideology, even more divorced from social reality than it was a century ago. Actual empirical research on pressing issues is largely foreign to the field, as was lamented by economists in the Chronicle several years ago. The only ones who take your type seriously are the elites you serve. Unfortunately they have a lot of clout and funds to throw your way.
Without a hint of irony. Amazing.
(You may be interested in the interview with Peter Agre from which I just quoted on the Nobel thread.)
Posted by: Travis | October 6, 2008 4:17 PM
"You're really not qualified to judge me, Icky."
Since you know nothing about the qualifications or experience of anyone here, that's a statement of ludicrous arrogance.
I, for one, can judge you. I judge you either a poor thinker or a great comedian (economics is the only social science- man, keep those zingers coming, I nearly laughed out loud) and a mediocre troll.
Posted by: Zach | October 6, 2008 4:17 PM
No is now 69%
Posted by: Nephmon | October 6, 2008 4:18 PM
What's with all this "Leave Bristol alone!!!" crap? Is she or isn't she the one who parted her legs like the Red Sea and got up the duff in the first place?
Posted by: SC | October 6, 2008 4:22 PM
http://www.slate.com/id/2164742/
Posted by: normalityrelief | October 6, 2008 4:26 PM
Wow, this poll's been killed. 20 minutes after posting, it's not up to Yes 30%, No 70%!
Posted by: SASnSA | October 6, 2008 4:27 PM
I noticed. It seems just about any crackpot can post here, can't you they?Here's a suggestion for for frequent voters. Instead of just clicking on the link and voting, copy the link location into a blank browser or tab and voting from there. This should make it less obvious to the admins on the site that they've been Pharyngulized. When these sites see a bunch of votes coming from one site, especially one like ours, they tend to discount our opinions.
Posted by: Roger the Shrubber | October 6, 2008 4:27 PM
My browsers added 5 to the 'No'.
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 6, 2008 4:30 PM
"Why don't you cut the crap with trashing these polls?"
Who's trashing? Why do we have less of a right to vote in polls than anyone else?
Posted by: ggab | October 6, 2008 4:30 PM
Fighting the good fight, but I'm a little torn.
Turns out abstinence only sex ed makes kids 4 times as likely to have oral or anal sex. That way they can keep their babyshutes pure for marriage.
I can get (ahem) behind that.
Where can I get me some of that abstinence only sex ed for my wife?
Posted by: Faith Minus | October 6, 2008 4:32 PM
Yes 28% No 72%
bwwwwhahhahaahahahah
Posted by: Johnny Vector | October 6, 2008 4:32 PM
John Knight is cleverer than we think.
Very tricksy, Mr. Knight. Very tricksy.
You may actually be correct, that they reduce teen pregnancy and STD rates, but relative to what? Relative to no education at all? That's not too hard to believe. How about relative to comprehensive sex ed programs? Cause that's the alternative the reality-based segment of society is promoting.
Note: To be the better choice, comprehensive programs only have to be no worse than abstinence-only in reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates. If they come in equal by those measures, then the one which does not include lying to children is the better program. Wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 6, 2008 4:32 PM
That's actually one of the goals of these little exercises, SASnSA. The whole point is that these polls are completely useless on their face because they are so easily manipulated. The primary point of poll crashing is to make this statement, with a secondary goal of letting our viewpoints be known in the process. At least that's my take on these little poll-crashing exercises.
Posted by: Desert Son | October 6, 2008 4:34 PM
Checked no at 71%
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Jared | October 6, 2008 4:35 PM
@68
Even THAT is hard to believe...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080916143912.htm
Posted by: Nephmon | October 6, 2008 4:36 PM
@ggap: 4 time more likely to have oral and anal? Where does that leave John Knight and his reduction of STDs? Seems as though that's at least as risky behavior as vaginal sex to me, and you know just know they're not using condoms for their fudge-tunnel furloughs.
Posted by: Patricia | October 6, 2008 4:39 PM
Threatening to crash the site, what are you going to do eric? Go tell Big Bad Bill, been tried. Tattle to gawd. That I want to see.
Thank You for the gracious remark ffrancis!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 6, 2008 4:39 PM
# 72 - "fudge-tunnel furloughs".
And I thought I had already heard every possible euphemism for anal sex...
Posted by: Hairhead | October 6, 2008 4:40 PM
"Fudge-tunnel-furloughs"=(coffee spew). Hah! I've heard of "up the ol' dirt road", and, "crusin' the Hersey Highway", but that's a new one on me!
Posted by: SC | October 6, 2008 4:40 PM
Here's the report from the Mathematica study. Note (page xvi) that the teens were randomly assigned to the program and control groups:
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf
Posted by: ggab | October 6, 2008 4:41 PM
Nephmon
I was worried my joke would be a little crude for some on here but...
"fudge-tunnel furloughs"???
I LOVE IT!
Posted by: The Dancing Kid | October 6, 2008 4:42 PM
Vote, Pharyngulaniaks, vote!
Posted by: SC | October 6, 2008 4:45 PM
Bill Maher on the abstinence pledge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e24fYOXzk1I
Posted by: James B. Webb | October 6, 2008 4:47 PM
A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for this kind of stupid policy; check out the Daily Show clip of RNC Republicans squirming when asked about choice: http://brainrageblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/voting-with-little-hood.html
Posted by: Erdrick | October 6, 2008 4:48 PM
Can we get some links from the majority here? Obviously sources we trust say "abstinence only sex-ed doesn't work," and "comprehensive sex ed is the best way to reduce teen pregnancies and STDs," and I believe them. But demanding that dissenters provide evidence for their position isn't quite like saying "You're the one who believes in God, you have to prove he exists." Both sides are making claims.
Instead of just saying "go away until you show evidence supporting your position," why not say "here's the evidence we're basing our position on, show me something contrary." If I had such links, I would provide them, and I admit I'm interested in what you guys can produce.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 6, 2008 4:50 PM
Somebody is proposing sending hordes of commenting godbots to crash this site? Please do. I get paid by the page view.
The great cracker incident paid for a 42" flat-screen TV, for instance. Send me enough viewers, maybe I'll even be able to pay my daughter's tuition. Woo hoo!
Posted by: Johnny Vector | October 6, 2008 4:51 PM
Thanks Jared. So, looks like Mr. Knight is reaching even just to get numbers that show his preferred plan working better than nothing at all.
Hang on, let me roll for surprise.
*clatter-clatter*... Six.
Posted by: SC | October 6, 2008 4:51 PM
Erdrick,
See, e.g., the link in my comment @ #76. This was the study done for the government.
Posted by: Patricia | October 6, 2008 4:52 PM
Where the hell did I leave my ?'s. That's what I get for flinging pooh all morning at Rev. BigDumbChimp.
Posted by: JackC | October 6, 2008 4:52 PM
Done and done, Bwanna
Where was it that I heard the wonderful line: "Abstinance only education has failed, The war on drugs has failed, we should get them right to work on something like how to kill endangered animals...."
Something like that anyway.
JC
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | October 6, 2008 4:53 PM
Sarah Palin is an imbecile and a liar, but I don't see the need to bring the kid into it. Yeah, I know that she, and her pregnancy, have been used as political pawns, and in some sense that might open the door, but shouldn't we attack Sarah Palin for using her pregnant teenage daughter as a political pawn, rather than the teenager herself?
The comparison to Crocker/Spears is inept. Spears voluntarily made herself a target of public interest for personal gain, and nobody's having a tearful hissy-fit, merely suggesting that attacking a teenager as a proxy for her parent is highly questionable.
Classy. Very classy. And without a hint of sexism or misogyny.
Posted by: Nephmon | October 6, 2008 4:53 PM
@ggab et al. Just made it up for that post. Amazing what a little alliteration can accomplish :D
PS ggab, get some of that lube that's infused with novocain. She'll never know what hit her, so to speak.
Posted by: Shannon | October 6, 2008 4:53 PM
I was just reading an article yesterday that said that although American and European teenagers are having sex at the same rate, American girls are 2-4 times higher to get pregnant. What's the only difference between us and them? Sex education that focuses on delivering REAL information and a focus on the use of contraceptives.
Wake UP, America!!!
Posted by: Shannon | October 6, 2008 4:55 PM
Oh.... maybe I should have clicked the link before commenting... it's the same article. D'oh!
Posted by: SC | October 6, 2008 4:57 PM
Erdrick,
See also Jared's link @ #71.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | October 6, 2008 4:58 PM
ummm... Shannon @ #89... do you mean the article that this post links to? Because it pretty much states exactly that...
From the linked article:
"American girls are far more likely to get pregnant than teens in other developed nations. The U.S. teen-pregnancy rate is about 7.5%. According to figures from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, that's almost twice as high as Britain and four times higher than Sweden or France. Why? "American adolescents are as likely to have sex as European teenagers but less likely to use contraception,"
Posted by: raven | October 6, 2008 4:58 PM
That is a flat out lie. The US CDC has studied this all along and rates of teen age pregnancies and STDs, which were going down, have started back up again. The lowest rates of teen age pregnancy by a lot are in normal education states and the highest are, like most social problems, in fundie states of the DFN.
You live in a thought free fantasy world like all fundies. No big deal but trying to force the rest of the world into the same nightmare isn't going to work.
And BTW, anyone can form an opinion of someone else. You are clearly a mentally ill, stupid, christofascist troll.
Posted by: Kobra | October 6, 2008 4:58 PM
#82: Should I fire up the auto-refresher then?
Posted by: Prof MTH | October 6, 2008 4:58 PM
Here is a list of secondary/tertiary sources to compliment those already provided (prior to you even asking).
Posted by: Robert J. Grieve | October 6, 2008 4:59 PM
Just cast my vote. "YES" 27% "NO" 73% Pharyngula Potentates do it again.
Posted by: Carlie | October 6, 2008 5:01 PM
What's with all this "Leave Bristol alone!!!" crap? Is she or isn't she the one who parted her legs like the Red Sea and got up the duff in the first place?
Yep, nice dose of slut-shaming you've got going on there. Go right ahead and pick on a 17 year-old. That'll show everyone just how smart you are.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 6, 2008 5:08 PM
Mmm. Cuttlefish nature videos in HD. Tentacular cephalopodian goodness....
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | October 6, 2008 5:08 PM
That article has an important factual mistake. Yes, the federal gov't spends $175 million/year on abstinence-only programs, but that's not counting the vast amounts of additional money being pumped at abstinence-alternative via the "faith based and community programs" office. As much as $400 million per year in 2007, according to the FBCP program office's own literature.
Posted by: Lana | October 6, 2008 5:12 PM
Even if it did work in the sense it reduced STD's and unwanted pregnancies, abstinence before marriage is a really bad idea. You wouldn't know if you're sexually compatible before it was too late.