A realistic alternative to abstinence-only
The WaPo reported the other day that at least 14 states have “either notified the federal government that they will no longer be requesting [sex education] funds or are not expected to apply,” because the Bush administration mandates abstinence-only lessons in public schools receiving the funding.
“We’re concerned about this,” said Stan Koutstaal of the Department of Health and Human Services, which runs the program. “My greatest concern about states dropping out is that these are valuable services and programs. It’s the youths in these states who are missing out.”
Actually, that’s backwards. The youths are better off with actual sex-ed.
Teenagers who have had formal sex education are far more likely to put off having sex, contradicting earlier studies on the effectiveness of such programs, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.
They found teenage boys who had sex education in school were 71 percent less likely to have intercourse before age 15, and teen girls who had sex education were 59 percent less likely to have sex before age 15.
Sex education also increased the likelihood that teen boys would use contraceptives the first time they had sex, according to the study by researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was published in the Journal of Adolescent Health.
Whaddaya know; giving young people reliable, accurate information about sexual health leads to safer, more responsible behavior. Maybe someone get pass word along to the Bush administration.
You could pass the word, but they're not listening. Their minds were made up 2000 years ago...
But Jeeesus doesn't like it, so we can't do it.
Huh?
Abstinence-only education is kinda like Driver's education where you only discuss what to do when the car isn't moving.
And in case anyone has forgotten -- when you're a teen, that car is MOVING!
Jesus LOOOOOVES dumbasses.
Of course they must be educated how to protect themselves. Just like teaching drivers ed. they must be told to wear their seat belts and how to drive responsibly. Same thing for sex ed. They need to know what to do to save their lives and be responsible. This is a sort of "duh" kind of thing. The bush administration knows this, but it keeps the base from going all squirrel -ie on the repubs. They will do anything, no matter how insane it sounds, to keep that 30% base cheering them on.
eastcoasty @ 4:
Great minds think alike and you and I just proved the not so great ones do too. ;)
I saw that report referenced yesterday and it said the study included people with real sex ed and those with abstinence only. If the research didn't break it out by type of sex ed than it is a worthless study for comparing whether abstinence didn't work.
Don't get me wrong, most studies have said abstinence only doesn't work. But, that doesn't change the fact that this study included students who only received abstinence education. The study didn't differentiate between the type of sex ed received. This study in no way proves what you claimed.
I can't believe many people are using the stats from this one incorrectly.
From Reuters:
The researchers did not evaluate the content of sex education programs, including whether students were taught about contraception or about abstinence only.
we here in the bush administration dont take too kindly to that devil science.
But...but...but, THINK of the MONEY, I mean...the children. Think of the children!
But if you tell teenagers not to do something they would never do it anyway right? This is just so stupid it is just really sad.
i am shocked that abstinence-only sex-ed failed. sh-sh-shocked, i say! i thought the 'war on being properly informed' would do as well as the 'war on drugs'! oh wait, nevermind...
I wish they had sex-ed when i was a kid. My dad had a hard time trying to tell me about it.
I told my kids (before sex-ed) these rules:
Boy:
1, you can't pull it out on time
2. you wont pull it out on time
Girl:
1. boys lie for sex
2. they wont pull it out on time
Both: babies are forever, not just a few years.
Realistic alternatives to Abstinence?
Fuc*ing and Masturbation.
Yet again, reality and facts have a liberal bias.
'Abstinence', itself, was a War on Fuc*ing.
Now we have a War on Abstinence.
Is this a world of Endless War?
We need a War on War.
Bush and his christian bible thumping base have all these issues with their private parts. I wouldn't care if they didn't try to foist those issues off on me. God give us a prez that doesn't think a blowjob is the end of civilization as we know it
Do you CrazyChristians realize that a successful War on Abstinence will result in only virgin births?
We'll become a nation of Jesuses.
That may sound good to you now, but wait'll there's one on every corner, watching what you really do.
Where congress in this? Have they said or done anything about this?
I suggest the Democratic congress should pass a law getting rid of this abstinence only crap. And if the Republicans try to prevent passage of that law, then hold the Republicans up to ridicule.
The problem is the Republicans have been getting away with pushing their social policies from the Middle ages. Its time to assertively teach them their nonsense has to stop now. Their feet need to be held to the fire.
Make that 'War on Fuc*ing'.
On the bright side, I no longer have to listen to this. I pointed out so much wrong with the curriculum that by this point, the teacher pulled me aside and said,
"Look, what you're saying is true, but you're confusing everyone else."
Sadly, this is the response. The adults that are supposed to protect us are harming us through giving us NO info on STDs, HIV, or AIDS. Just shoving everything but abstinence in the corner under the bed.
How sad is it when a few teens have to make sure the entire school gets sex ed comprehensively. Argh.
Levitical moralists get the bozack. Cage the rapture bunnies
I remember as a teenager the fastest way to get me to do something, was to hound me and tell me not to do it.
What the world needs is larger condoms, that we can pull over the heads of the abstinence-only folks, to shut them up.
Repressedlicans.
Preacher Boob @ 20:
That's all we need - another Fuc*ing war!
Angryteen @ 21:
"Look, what you're saying is true, but you're confusing everyone else."
That about covers the attitude of the whole bush administration. They don't allow the truth to confuse their base. No need encouraging or allowing people to think if the government and the church will do the thinking for them.
Wait a minute. Something is fishy here.
If sex education reduces male teen intercourse by 71% percent and female teen intercourse by 59% percent, that means it must be reducing overall teen intercourse by 130%, which is ridiculous.
Now, rather than let you correct my bogus math, I'm going to cut your mike and start screaming about teen sex while showing Paris Hilton eating a banana in a bikini.
Paris is in the bikini, not the banana.
I'm not a sicko like all you librawls.
Some one print up bumper stickers and lapel pins, and pass them out across the land.
Here is what they should say:
Contraception prevents Abortions.
...
JasonS @ 28:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
You want proof that abstinence only doesn't work? How many more Spears children having children do you need?
The little smilies don't look like they did in the preview. Bummer :(
Now, why would anyone in the Bush administration let facts orsense or data get in the way of their ideologies?!?
Sex education and birth control are the only realistic options. People are sexually mature long before they are emotionally mature, and marriage is not economically feasible until at later and later ages it seems. Let's get real.
The red necks/hicks/etc that breed faster typically vote republican ?
Reslugs only bury their heads when it comes to Sex education and that's really, really bad because the ignorant assholes are only conceiving more and more Reslugs.
Wait a minute you bong sucking hippies, don't you know that the drug companies profits will suffer with a reduction in STD's. Get real, abstinence is the only true way to increase profits, and gain control of the education system. Pull your heads out of reality.
In Bushs America every sperm counts, but not every vote.
Easy way to reduce teen sex: a beginning to end movie of childbirth, including sound, viewed by both girls & boys at the same time....
The same thing goes for drugs. Kids need to hear both sides, and if they did, they would do less drugs.
The thing I noticed about pot is that while it obviously, to me anyway,
has both positives and negatives, many people talk about it like its all
good or all bad. If you can't admit there are benefits, or that there
are risks, you can't even discuss risks vs benefits with any credibility.
If the government really wanted to prevent kids from trying pot, it
would really help if they would say "there are benefits but the risks
outweigh the benefits." But many politicians and policemen and schools can't even
admit there are ANY benefits. Right away, to most kids, that is nothing
but a bunch of propaganda. They are not going to listen to the warnings,
even if they are accurate, if they are obviously part of some blatantly
dishonest government propaganda.
Not only would discussing the benefits give the government more
credibility when they discuss the risks, it would also help prevent kids
from experimenting just to get SOME idea of why people smoke it. If they
had ever heard a credible description of the benefits of pot from a
credible source, they are much more likely to say, Nah, I don't need
that, than if they are totally in the dark and experimentation is the
only way to learn ANYTHING. They have no idea what it is they don't
need, its human nature for them to want to find out. It very similar to what's happening in sex education.
I think the propot people are at fault too, because they often can't
admit the risks, and also because when they discuss the benefits, they
are effected by the "It good for me so it must be good for everyone
syndrome" . Its the same thing that happens with diet fads. It might be
good for you, but for some people, its the last thing they need........
This could give ignorance, stupidity and superstition a bad name.
Why don't we compromise and teach them how to do mutual masturbation and how to play with toys and what not?
Is that more like saying "a realistic alternative to setting yourself on fire" or "a realistic alternative to learning how to bend things with just the power of your mind"?
Either way, I think the headline here abuses the word "alternative."
Rob J @ 43:
Exactly, it's like insisting "We must consider both sides of the question", when one 'side' is obviously irrational. (Hear that, Huckabee?)
what a joke.
when will the anti-theists stop falling for the bait that divides us?
Bush isn't a christian, and neither are his policies.
You mock your own ignorance to fall for this divisive tactic.
The sex-ed programs that so many liberals love are run by Jay Rockefeller and his Rockefeller ilk.
Planned Parenthood used to be a NAZI eugenics front, called "the american birth control league", eventually
headed by eugenist Margret Sanger. They helped the Nazi sympathizers in this country, like the Rockefellers, Bushes (prescott), and Du Ponts, implement forces sterilization programs. Wake up.
Ignorant libs are just as bad as ignorant right wingers: infact there is no difference, it is false divisiveness.
We are divided and conquered by such social stigmas,
and unable to mobilized on purely political reasons.
That is their plan. That is why the Bush-Clinton-Rockefeller-Bilderburg team keeps pissing off both sides of the social spectrum. Bush pretends to be a christian so that the anti-theists will hate theists all the more.
The bloggers on this website fall for it, hook line and sinker.
Hillary is inevitable because of our collective ignorance.
craig @ 45:
As well as apathy in general, as well as apathy to change that ignorance.
Perhaps they should put it like: It's going to happen one day. One day you're going to feel like this, and because of that you'll get the urge to do this (but whenever that happens is up to you), and in the case of this you should do like this to protect yourself from this... that's education.
Today's "education" says something like: Whatever that eeeeeeevil thing you'll be doing (that is to say, an act strictly forbidden for anyone under X aged and X sexual orientation), you should only do it under X guidance without any protection at all.
Did you ever listen to your elders because they "sed so"? Not. Youngsters listen to reason - as adults should.
The religious right's approach to sex ed only creates perverts. Maybe not while the students are kids, but later on down the line when healthy sexual activity is possible, but old Church-taught beliefs get in the way. The subconscious looks for other ways to receive sexual gratification, like MOLESTING ALTAR BOYS.....
Well, instead of worrying so much about sex and teh evilness of it, why not just educate teenagers? Give them the knowledge and the tools they need to make the right decisions. Some will fail and make the wrong decisions, sure, that's only normal, but the majority will do just fine. That is to say that if sex weren't viewed as some sinister act, then perhaps we'd have a healthier society. But, who the fuck am I kidding? I'm not holding my breath.
craig @ 45:
Right, and the Bavarian Illuminati controls the Boy Scouts via the Followers of Cthulhu.
A lot of people had a lot of fucked up ideas in the early part of the century. Ford was a Nazi sympathizer, doesn't mean the entire automobile industry is bent on global fascism.
I don't care if Bush is a "real" Christian or not. Everyone proclaims themselves to be a "real" Christian and everyone else to be one manner or another of apostate. For my money, you can all sit at the bottom of a DEEEEEP barrel and debate the topic to your heart's content.
I am a product of reasonable sex education. I was not forcibly (or unforcibly) sterilized. I was informed and have managed as a result to have a healthy, responsible and rewarding sex live lo these many years.
And I didn't wait to get married. I didn't wait to graduate high school. And I don't regret it. And I'd do substantially the same thing again given the choice. And if any fool told me that "abstinence" would have been more rewarding, I'd seriously wonder if that person had had any good sex in their life.
Fundamentally, either you trust people to make choices for their life or you don't.
If you do, then the responsible thing to do is to give them all the relevant information and some perspective from experience.
If you don't, then keep screaming at them to just follow orders and see how far that gets you.
I never worry if teens are fucking. Teens fuck. I fucked as a teen and I'd do it again. Fucking is a teen biological imperative (with other teens...us old pervs should fuck each other and leave the young ones to themselves.)
It would be the height of hypocrisy for me to recommend that any teen stay away from sex and drugs. Those are two of the great pleasures in life. But it's precisely because we have a one-size-fits-all "it's all sin" view of the world that we screw these pleasures up.
To wit: there's a difference between enjoying a spleef after a hard day's work and mainlining H in abandoned alleyways as a lifestyle.
To wit: there's a difference between enjoying the company of a sexual companion of your choice in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect and allowing the vicar to bugger you because at least you'll still be a virgin.
Teach a man what to think and he'll be wise for a day.
Teach a man how to think and he'll be wise for life.
Reliable, accurate information leading to safer, more responsible behavior?
Yep, sounds just like the governing philosophy of the Bush administration...
For some reason, the (close snark) tag was deleted from my post. Doh!
A bit off-topic, but Romney now claims that it was he who marched with Martin Luther King.
'The reason for the confusion about me saying my father marched with MLK, is because Martin Luther King was my father', Romney said.
Boy, don't you bet that MLK wished he had believed in 'abstinence only'?
Preacher Boob @ 53:
Well, we all know that MLK enjoyed dining out as much as his wife's cooking and all, but I seriously doubt he ever stopped in at Mrs. Romney's bar and grill.
JasonS @ 54:
Mitt didn't mention who his mother was.
"reliable, accurate information".
Bush Administration.
They rhyme, but they don't go together.
He may be saving that for when he tells us about sitting in the back of the bus with Mama Rosa.
From Reuters:
The researchers did not evaluate the content of sex education programs, including whether students were taught about contraception or about abstinence only.
For laymen that means what this blog claims the study said is 100% not true. It's sad to know every reader was misinformed by this piece. See my previous comment. Your not the first one to do it, but it has to stop.
We progressives need to be honest in every debate we have, or we can't expect the other side to.
I think this diary does more harm then good, by perpetuating false conclusions that a study never reached. Since they didn't differentiate abstinence from true sex education, you are basically lying to your readers. YOu ought to post an update.
AGAIN, I DON"T THINK ABSTINENCE EDUCATION WORKS. But, that is a different argument from saying this study proved it. It's like the Joe Klein FISA thing, you owe a correction.
JC @ 58:
Well, I think it's fair to say that when you have one study (released last week) that shows that abstinence-only education is correlated to an increase in teen sexual behavior and another that shows that overall sex education is correlated to a decrease, it's not unreasonable to conclude that traditional sex education is carrying the whole load, decreasewise.
What else could one expect from the Christian version of Taliban that has been running the US since 1776?
Time for the religious retards making policy and pronouncements to leave the WH and go back to their caves.
It's not about sex ed. The Bush admin doesn't give a shit about sex ed. It's about siphoning federal money away from our schools. It is part of the neocon plan to shrink government so "it can be drowned in a bathtub."
Schools can get $$ for sex ed from the government.. but it has to be abstinence only..
This is like offering starving people rancid meat.
Sex sells everything
Sex Kills
I swear sex is going to be the downfall of mankind if we don't start putting it in it's proper perspective. The planet is falling apart and everyones to busy chasing after each other to get laid.
When you got the media devoting more time and space to 16 year old Jamie Spears getting knocked up and how she's getting rewarded with a million dollar book deal for it instead of climate change issues you know were in trouble.
Great artical Steve, how did we all get here?....sex...but lets not talk about it. Birth control...oh my. Grow up America, it's our bodys and we have the right to control them.
As a Christian I recognize abstinence only sex education as a dangerous fundamentalist' idea.
HOW MANY IN AFRICA ARE WITH AIDS NOW BECAUSE BUSH IS AN IDIOT ?
Yes, let's not teach kids about sex because what the planet need is MORE overpopulation and teen pregnancies. Good show.
bob @ 5:
Now wait a minute. No, actually I guess you're right. I see a lot of stuff in there where he's hanging out with lepers, poor people, and the mentally not-so-gifted. But Jesus didn't really seem to care all that much about sex. Out of the entire bible, there are only 4 phrases that have anything AT ALL to do with sex, as summarized on this nifty site:
Or as I see them 1. No trophy wives, or cabana boys in marriage (to "put away your wife"), 2. Don't do your boss'/buddy's/brother's/neighbor's wife, or attempt to, 3. If you've been married 5 times before you're 30 and are working on #6 (who may be married) then Jesus might call you a slut.
See? All pretty obvious, and mostly the same thing. No objections to condoms OR the pill! Jesus could care less about sex ed. He didn't even mention masturbation despite rumors to the contrary (though it seems he took a dim view on ritual orgies with prostitutes in pagan temples -- or he may have meant donkey-fuckers. Sadly, it isn't clear in the translation. I Corinthians 6).
This prudish crap has nothing to do with Christianity, I can tell that. Of course, personally I don't believe in 3 gods for the price of one, virgin births (talk about someone needing sex ed) or magic tricks. But the guy seemed to have some interesting ideas if you strip away all the smoke and mirrors added on later by "priests" and "theologians".
I of course mean that out of the entire bible there are only 4 places where Jesus says anything about sex -- not in the whole thing. I'm not familiar with Judaism, so I don't venture into that "old testament" thing. Lot of confusing contradictions in there, and the English is apparently nothing like the original Hebrew. Plus, Moses was obviously wound way too tight.
My wife's idiot-ass evangelical cousin, home-schooled her seven children. Apparently, she did this so she could protect them from the evils of living outside her nut-job, church-centered universe bubble. Sex education and evolution were the last straw for her. Can't talk about those things in front of children!
As it turns out, everyone of the girls got pregnant and had illegitimate babies by the age of 17. I kid you not. You can't make this shit up!
I really feel sorry for the kids. But this is a woman who has no trouble sitting down with an M.D., and preaching to them that intelligent design (creationism) should be taught in Universities as well as the public schools. Did I mention she barely made it out of high school?
I wanted to ask her if their "Christian Curriculum" covered "reproduction," but my wife told me to keep my mouth shut.
Those poor kids, they never had a chance being raised 24/7 by that lunatic.
JasonS @ 59:
A good question is: Why didn't the researchers go the extra mile and inquire about the type of sexual education? It would have only taken one, maybe two, extra questions on the survey. Since there is such a serious debate about the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex-ed compared with actual sex-ed, I would think at least someone could perform a study that actually answers the question.
There have been countless studies over the last 25 years proving that comprehensive sexuality education (which includes abstinence) works to reduce initiation of sex and increase use of contraception. It's the abstinence-only programs that have been proven totally ineffective.
I can say that from the perspective of a nearly 40 year career as a health and sex educator, and a mother and grandmother of three. The abstinence-only not only doesn't work but may actually increase sexual behavior in teens because of the basic nature of adolescents. - when given strict limitations on behavior, about 40% of teens will have the strong urge to test those limits -(shown conclusively by Jessor's research on adolescent risk-taking behavior). But it's also basic common sense to anyone who has raised teenagers - when you tell then Don't Do It - it's like a red flag - they immediately try it on! But of course, common sense has never been a characteristic of the Bush administration!
To my knowledge, the rest of the industrialized world doesn't have any government funded abstinence only programs. Yet, they are the ones with a lower teen pregnancy rate and lower abortion. And, the US is also the most religious of any industrialized nation. How does the religious right explain this?
The right wing of the GOP uses a different metric to measure the success of a sex-ed program. It doesn't matter how many fewer teens have sex or how many more use contraception. It matters only that abstinence is the "moral" choice. Anything that happens to teens who make "immoral" choices (like having sex) is fitting punishment for their immoral actions.
The same mindset is at work regarding the abortion debate. For many far right Christian fundamentalists, abortion is murder. Therefore, women should be forced to carry the foetus to term. Thereafter, the child is the parents' responsibility. It is certainly not the responsibility of the state. If the child is not looked after by its parents, then the parents should be punished for their immoral ways.
Comments are closed on this entry