 |
Hello:
Today, my state turned down $800,000 of federal money to fund Bush's abstinence only sex education program. My state wanted to add medically correct information to the presentations, but the feds wouldn't agree.
Are the people in my state served better with abstinence only sex education, or are we better off without it?
excon
I have never heard of such a hair brained scheme. Are you kidding ? I can see it being helpful if it was medically based, but to promote abstinence is ludricous. Sex is a big part of a person's existence. Although it isn't actually mentioned in Maslow's theory, it's there non the less as part of a need to make a person whole and complete.
To answer your question, they are better off without abstinence only sex education.
Considering the program contains basic biological errors (things we don't debate about, like the number of chromosomes), they are better off without it. Let's not forget the twisting of facts and rephrasing of "information" the program also uses to scare kids.
You can read more here:
http://oversight.house.gov/Documents...2153-50247.pdf
They're MUCH better off without it.
Ex,
Here's a little publicized fact, Bill Clinton in one of the things he actually deserves some credit for - the guy who wanted to "end welfare as we know it," who in 1993 "made a series of remarkable public statements about the links between social problems, welfare dependency and unwed childbearing" - signed the legislation in 1996 that began providing federal funds for exclusive abstinence based education. Yeah it was a GOP congress, but he still signed the bill.
Here's another fact, the money your state turned down was matching funds specifically for abstinence education, if they can't follow the rules for the match they don't get the funds. States can still teach what they want, they just don't get those matching federal funds. Here's a little perspective, the proposed budget for the school district in our little town of 175,000 is $212.5 million this school year. I'm sure $800,000 is a drop in the bucket for your state if they want to fund their brand of sex-ed.
More facts, the Democratic controlled congress overwhelmingly passed a $27.8 million increase in abstinence education funds in the $310.9 million appropriation for Title X family planning funding. That's $5,933,372,000 of taxpayer money in 36 years of funding "medically accurate sex-ed" and "reproductive health care."
I guess all taxpayer money should fund Planned Parenthood's vision of sex-ed, eh?
Well, Bush did OK an increase in Title X funding so we have reason to whine, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What "medically correct" information did your state want to include? I'd think that turning down almost $1 million of federal grant money would be hard to justify under any circumstances.
excon,
1) Define medically correct information.
2) Why is it that the Orthodox Jewish community has no problem with teen pregnancy or STDs? Could it have something to do with their abstinence-only education? And if it works for us, why wouldn't it work for anyone else? The fact is that it hasn't been tried since the 60s, when "free love" became the norm. But if we went back to that standard from the 1950s and earlier, STDs and teen preganancy would decrease significantly.
I don't think the people in your state are better served through sex-ed as it stands today. But let me know if the system you have in place decreases teen-preganancies and occurrence of STDs to pre-1960 levels. If it does, I'll be happy to endorse it.
Elliot
I couldn't give you a greenie,but I do agree with you... abstinence solves more problems wherever it is practised.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
It may work for some, such small groups as orthodox jews, but in a nationwide setting, I don't believe that abstinence only sex ed will work.
I grew up in a strict christian family, went to a private christian school, and lived in a relatively christian neighborhood, that taught "wait until you're married"... but most kids had sex by the time they were 20. Granted, they were smart about it, they used condoms, no pregnancies, no stds (that I knew of)... but I just don't think an abstinence only sex ed would work on a grand scale.
There IS a way to make abstinence-only work.
Pay each person $$ for every month he/she refrains from sex of any kind. This will help the economy and will fund college for many students. Of course, there will have to be a monitoring system put into place, but in this day and age that should be easy. Where will the money come from? Hmmmmm...
I'm starting to see your point, but to be honest with you, I'm not... too OK with someone "monitoring" my sexual (or the lack of) experiences...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Would they monitor my room? If so, would they monitor me when I go outside my room? (e.g. - my friend's place, a party, school, a library? (remember that one?))
What are they thinking? Do they realize where abstinence only programs are getting them now? A bunch of teenage girls who are knocked up, and aren't ready to be parents and a bunch of teenage boys who don't know what responisbilty is. The gov. is spending billions of dollars a year for medical aid to pregnant teens. Most teenage girls who get pregnant don't finish high school, nor do they even get a GED. And That's just getting the basics on the pregnancy subject, not even touching base on STD's.
A lot of the time, teenagers don't have access to, protection, or if they do manage to get it, have no idea about proper use, or anything like that.
So you tell me, do you think abstinece only is the best idea? Yeah its good to teach that too, but its better to not wait until its too late to teach them about contraceptives too.
There are, in my opinion, two reasons that abstinance-only sex ed doesn't work.
1) There is no stigma anymore to having sex before marriage. In fact, it is exatly the opposite... you are a pariah or need help if you've never had sex.
Take movies like "Hitch" and "40 Year Old Virgin" for example. "Hitch" is about a guy giving people advice on how to get the women, and "40" is about a bunch of friends who help a 40-year-old virgin get a woman. The concept in both of these films is that it's not okay to NOT get a girl before marriage. And that idea pervaids society. Being a virgin has a stigma, but having sex does not. Our society clearly has it backwards.
2) Our media has pushed the bounderies of what is acceptable for kids to see to such a point that those kids are overwhelmed by media imagery. When countered by the newspapers, magazines, TV, movies, DVDs, books... even cartoons push the bounderies... how can parents hope to compete with that huge flow of sex-positive imagery?
Part of the reason that the Orthodox Jewish community has had such success in this area, in my opinion, is that TV and movies are limited. Most kids sit home on a Saturday and watch a DVD or cable TV. On Saturday, most Orthodox Jewish kids are in the Synagogue praying, and turning on a TV is prohibited by Jewish Sabbatical law. In addition, many Yeshivas actively work to keep TV out of the homes of their students, and parents are quite happy to comply. So the influence of media over our kids is less pervassive. The voices of the parents and teachers have a chance to get through over the din of media imagery. And there is a consistent message going to the kids from the schools and from the parents vis-à-vis sex before marriage.
Now... I don't expect the non-Orthodox-Jewish world to suddenly stop using media. TV, cable, DVDs, magazines, etc. are here to stay. So there is no way to limit the media influence.
My solution to this is to USE the media to push this agenda... the same way that media has actively helped in anti-teen smoking, anti-teen drug use, anti-teen drinking advertising campaigns. Statistics have shown that teen drug, smoking and alcohol use is down due to these ongoing ad campaigns... so it is demonstrable that media can influence kids' moral, ethical and legal behaviors.
So why not do the same thing with teen sex? Why not have an abstinance-only ad campaign that uses the same techniques as these anti-drug, anti-smoking campaigns? TV ads have stigmatized smoking, and so smoking has decreased in popularity among teens. TV ads have shown the horrors of drunk driving, and so kids are staying away from alcohol to a greater extent. TV has been helpful at showing kids who resist drugs as free-thinkers, and drug-users as peer-pressure dupes with no thoughts of their own, and so fewer kids have qualms about saying no to their peers. So do the same with teen sex on TV ads.
That way the media, instead of just pushing sexual imagery on teens, can also be a part of the solution of countering those images. Add to that parents who push abstinance-only behaviors, and schools that push abstinance-only behaviors, and we have everybody working together to counter the idea that teen sex is okay.
Suddenly parents don't have to try to fight the media in order to influence their kids, and kids are getting a consistent message, instead of one message from parents and another from the media.
If everyone (parents, teachers, media) were all pushing the same message that kids should not be having sex before marriage, the consistancy of that message would definitely have an effect on kids, who right now are getting mixed messages ("don't have sex" "having sex is cool, being a virgin is uncool" "don't have sex, but if you do, use protection"). It has woked before, and there is no reason to believe that it couldn't work again. It worked in the Orthodox Jewish community, it worked for drugs, alcohol and smoking. So why not give it a shot?
Elliot
ETW, the type of "abstinence only" education you are describing is very different from what the current program teaches.
From my link on the first page:
Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Scientific Errors. In numerous
instances, the abstinence-only curricula teach erroneous scientific
information. One curriculum incorrectly lists exposure to sweat and tears
as risk factors for HIV transmission. Another curriculum states that
“twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four
chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual”; the
correct number is 23.
Several curricula cite an erroneous 1993 study of condom effectiveness that has
been discredited by federal health officials. The 1993 study, by Dr. Susan Weller,
looked at a variety of condom effectiveness studies and concluded that condoms
reduce HIV transmission by 69%.27 Dr. Weller’s conclusions were rejected by
the Department of Health and Human Services, which issued a statement in 1997
informing the public that “FDA and CDC believe this analysis was flawed.”28
The Department cited numerous methodological problems, including the mixing
of data on consistent condom use with data on inconsistent condom use, and
found that Dr. Weller’s calculation of a 69% effectiveness rate was based on
“serious error.”29 In fact, CDC noted that “[o]ther studies of discordant couples
— more recent and larger than the ones Weller reviewed, and conducted overseveral years — have demonstrated that consistent condom use is highly effective
at preventing HIV infection.”30
Despite these findings, several curricula refer approvingly to the Weller study.
One curriculum teaches: “A meticulous review of condom effectiveness was
reported by Dr. Susan Weller in 1993. She found that condoms were even less
likely to protect people from HIV infection. Condoms appear to reduce the risk
of heterosexual HIV infection by only 69%.”31 Another curriculum that cites Dr.
Weller’s data claims: “In heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV
approximately 31% of the time.”32
The parent guide for one curriculum understates condom effectiveness by
falsely describing “actual use” as “scrupulous.” It states: “When used by
real people in real- life situations, research confirms that 14 percent of the
women who use condoms scrupulously for birth control become pregnant
within a year.”49 In fact, for couples who use condoms “scrupulously,”
the 2% to 3% failure rate applies.
Although religions and moral codes offer different answers to the question of
when life begins, some abstinence-only curricula present specific religious views
on this question as scientific fact. One curriculum teaches: “Conception, also
known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper
third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins.”68 Another states:
“Fertilization (or conception) occurs when one of the father’s sperm unites with
the mother’s ovum (egg). At this instant a new human life is formed.”69
One curriculum that describes fetuses as “babies” describes the blastocyst,
technically a ball of 107 to 256 cells at the beginning of uterine implantation, 70 as
“snuggling” into the uterus:
Instead, some of the curricula provide distorted information on cervical cancer,
suggesting that it is a common conseque nce of premarital sex.
the curriculum misleadingly puts the CDC data in a new chart called
“Percent HIV Infected” and scrambles the CDC data in a way that suggests
greatly exaggerated HIV rates among teenagers. For example, where the CDC
chart showed that 41% of female teens with HIV reportedly acquired it through
heterosexual contact, the curriculum’s chart suggests that 41% of heterosexual
female teens have HIV. 95 It similarly implies that 50% of homosexual male teens
have HIV.96
Puberty. One curriculum tells instructors: “Reassure students that small
lumps in breast tissue is common in both boys and girls during puberty.
This condition is called gynecomastia and is a normal sign of hormonal
changes.”106 This definition is incorrect. In adolescent medicine,
gynecomastia refers to a general increase in breast tissue in boys.107
Those are just the highlights...
Why should government have its hand in the matter? Keep government out of it.
Well, of course we each would have an RFID chip embedded under our skin that would track us no matter where we are and there could even be a little webcam or audio device included so the screener could be "right there". And we'd sign a contract that there wouldn't be any critiquing of our behavior, just a yes or no report on sexual activity (for the $$ payment part of the deal). The chip would be removed on our wedding day. Maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by ISneezeFunny
(My parents did something like this without a real chip. The fantasy chip was called responsibility. There was a second chip called guilt. The monitoring was that they knew where I went every time I went somewhere, and I called in to report to them if it got to be after 11 or past curfew. It worked. They removed the chips after I had been married for three years. I got pregnant soon after.)
But just think of the money you could be awarded for good behavior, i.e. abstinence!
Sorry, I laughed out loud when I read that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
My parents tried something like this. 1st one was called... fear of a beating. 2nd one was called... fear of a beating. 3rd one... you get my drift.
For some reason, however, it just works... only... sometimes... on some kids. Out of a 100 kids that were raised "properly"... which nowadays, you don't have a clue as to what "raising a child properly" really means... out of 100 of them, maybe 10 will end up in jail, maybe 10 will have kids out of wedlock, maybe 30 will go to ivy league schools and be a professional... and about 50 of them will simply get regular jobs. However, out of them, most will have sex before marriage. Is it wrong? Who knows.. if sex is "done right"... monogamous in a relationship... two young healthy people who love one another... using protection... is it still wrong?
I wrote it hoping it would give you a chuckle.Quote:
Originally Posted by ISneezeFunny
I grew up before civil rights, was the oldest child and first daughter of a minister. I was the example for the rural community we lived in. I didn't have a chance.
How do they know it's a real, committed love that will last? Of course, how do any of us know that? Maybe that "piece of paper" somewhat ensures that the couple will at least make an effort to stay together permanently.Quote:
if sex is "done right"... monogamous in a relationship... two young healthy people who love one another... using protection... is it still wrong?
To shoot a gun, you need a firearms license and you can't shoot it just anywhere. For many jobs, you need training and education and perhaps even a license or certification. For something so important as raising a child, there are no requirements for training, education, obtaining a license or certification. We go into it blind and stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by ISneezeFunny
My mother always used to tell me that she wished she could throw out the first kid, and start over with the second, now that she knew what she was doing. Since I was the first kid, I really didn't like to hear that. I thought I was turning out very well, a total pleaser.
Very very true. What I meant by "two people that love one another" was simply... just love. Not true love... not "i'm going to marry you and spend the rest of my life with you" love... but just love.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
For example: two students in college or grad school... who have been together for some time. They truly respect one another and enjoy their time with one another, and they would like to express their love through sex, hoping that it will bring them closer physically and emotionally.
They communicate with one another about it, use protection, and take all precautions. They may or may not marry one another. Is that still wrong?
Side note: recently there was an article stating that some (correct me if I'm wrong here with the number) 90+% of people in the U.S. have had pre-marital sex, and about 65% of teens between ages 18 - 20 have had sex.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:59 PM. |