Pretty damn much.

Social conservatives always conveniently forget that abstinence isn't 100% fool proof.

Just ask the virgin Mary!

Maybe we should only discuss abstinence programs in the context of their "failure rates". What always annoys me is when these statistics seem to be making out that contraception is a problem for women to solve...

http://cruellablog.blogspot.com/2005/10/pointless-out-of-context-science-fact.html

So, kids, if you forget to use your abstinence, put a condom on.

Exactly! :)

Oh my gosh. I think abstinence is unnatural. I love the humorous spin you women put on it. I think that's why it's so hard for people. It's because sexuality is so totally natural that to deny it ultimately means failure. I think maybe people need to start teaching responsible sexuality, rather than abstinence.

Actually, if the author of the article is relying on the data from the 2001 study from which he cites numbers--he is confusing "periodic abstinence" (the 'rhythm method') with "abstinence."

But looking at the "failure rate" of abstinence is an *excellent* way to reframe the debate.

Ugh, did you see the replies?

Yeah, that reply made no sense. The paper hate abstinence only sex ed and loves Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is racist and wants blacks to stop having kids . . . but apparently still wants them to have sex? What? And I guess that they promote white babies being born by handing out condoms to white people?

Uh, yeah. Someone is off his rocker. Also, I don't know how difficult it is to comprehend that just because an organization's founder had some unfortunate views, that doesn't mean they'll still the views of that organization 90 years later.

Duh. The failure rate for condom is considerably higher if kids are careless/uninformed about its usage. And what's the solution to that? EDUCATING THEM ON HOW TO USE IT.

My school's health book doesn't even MENTION contraceptives. ain't that dandy...

Failure rates for condoms and other birth control methods are calculated the same way—that is, they include failure to use the method, as well as when usage fails. This is the best way to do so, because it's what happens in the real world. Abstinence should be measured in the same way, of course, just as others are, such as the rhythm method and withdrawal.

It's absurd that the abstinence advocates will promulgate this version of the condom failure rate data while claiming that, of course, the failure rate of abstinence must be 0 by definition. But they really have no choice: the ideal rates of the pill and condoms are spectacularly high, while the actual failure rates for abstinence are spectacularly low. Dishonesty is their only option as long as they are trying to make the utilitarian argument.

And they're forced to make the utilitarian argument because if they were honest and stayed within the context of values, then they wouldn't be able to muscle their way into most textbooks and similar.

Amen to that article!

( And, I must admit... picking on those commenters was just too fun to pass up: http://aguitar8me.livejournal.com/133874.html )

Actually, if the author of the article is relying on the data from the 2001 study from which he cites numbers--he is confusing "periodic abstinence" (the 'rhythm method') with "abstinence."

I was just going to say that!

But looking at the "failure rate" of abstinence is an *excellent* way to reframe the debate.

Definitely. It's also hard to find statistics on what the failure rate actually is.

My high school textbook had a listing of contraceptive failure rates "when used properly" and mentioned that in practice, rates are higher because methods are not always used properly. The chapter questions included one that said that asked students to speculate about the failure rate of abstinence when those who use the method "improperly" are included. (The book didn't provide an answer.)

I am curious. Does engaging in buttsex count as abstinence? How about lesbian sex? Hetero oral sex? For purposes of pregnancy prevention, each is quite effective (unless combined with penile/vaginal sex).

For those who advocate teaching the failure rates of condoms (a good idea, if presented accurately), should the message include the relative failure rates with or without a lubricant? What about the difference between water based and other types of lubricants?

Is that sound in the distance that of the fundamentalists' heads exploding?

I am curious. Does engaging in buttsex count as abstinence? How about lesbian sex? Hetero oral sex? For purposes of pregnancy prevention, each is quite effective (unless combined with penile/vaginal sex).

For those who advocate teaching the failure rates of condoms (a good idea, if presented accurately), should the message include the relative failure rates with or without a lubricant? What about the difference between water based and other types of lubricants?

Is that sound in the distance that of the fundamentalists' heads exploding?

I am curious. Does engaging in buttsex count as abstinence? How about lesbian sex? Hetero oral sex? For purposes of pregnancy prevention, each is quite effective (unless combined with penile/vaginal sex).

For those who advocate teaching the failure rates of condoms (a good idea, if presented accurately), should the message include the relative failure rates with or without a lubricant? What about the difference between water based and other types of lubricants?

Is that sound in the distance that of the fundamentalists' heads exploding?

I am curious. Does engaging in buttsex count as abstinence? How about lesbian sex? Hetero oral sex? For purposes of pregnancy prevention, each is quite effective (unless combined with penile/vaginal sex).

For those who advocate teaching the failure rates of condoms (a good idea, if presented accurately), should the message include the relative failure rates with or without a lubricant? What about the difference between water based and other types of lubricants?

Is that sound in the distance that of the fundamentalists' heads exploding?

Sorry for the multiple posts.