Comments on: The fallacy of the University of Pennsylvania’s abstinence study http://www.bigger-love.com/2010/03/the-fallacy-of-the-university-of-pennsylvanias-abstinence-study/ A blog about polyamory and other sexually and emotionally open relationships of all kinds Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:48:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: SFCuties http://www.bigger-love.com/2010/03/the-fallacy-of-the-university-of-pennsylvanias-abstinence-study/comment-page-1/#comment-98 SFCuties Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:55:07 +0000 http://www.bigger-love.com/?p=467#comment-98 I already helped to rip this "study" to shreds in other locations, but lets throw in a quick fact check on what this study was NOT about: Quote: "Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was self-report of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up." This was NOT about "unwanted pregnancy rates", "disease rates" or even "risky behavior", only "did you fuck or not?" From a scientific point of view, if we _assume_ that the study was executed correctly, without bias or manipulation, the only conclusion we could distill from the data would be "STI and condom training is not so useful for making kids have less sex." Any other "conclusion" is just projection. Isn't science fun? I already helped to rip this “study” to shreds in other locations, but lets throw in a quick fact check on what this study was NOT about:

Quote:
“Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was self-report of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up.”

This was NOT about “unwanted pregnancy rates”, “disease rates” or even “risky behavior”, only “did you fuck or not?”

From a scientific point of view, if we _assume_ that the study was executed correctly, without bias or manipulation, the only conclusion we could distill from the data would be

“STI and condom training is not so useful for making kids have less sex.”

Any other “conclusion” is just projection.

Isn’t science fun?

]]>