 |
| |
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
Just say no ... to sex!
Posted: December 3, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Bill Press
© 2004 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
In one of his more enlightened moments, President Bush promised to cut government fat by getting rid of programs that don't work. Now there's a goal we can all applaud. So why is he still spending so much money on abstinence-only education?
You don't have to be a Harvard scholar to know that teaching abstinence alone doesn't work. You just have to be a normal, red-blooded teenager.
True, abstinence is the best answer. True, abstinence does work 100 percent of the time. If you never have sex, you will never get pregnant, become HIV-positive or contract any sexually transmitted disease. It's the one, sure, proven way to avoid all three. But expecting all teenagers to save their first sexual experience until their wedding night is like telling them not to get acne. They may want to say no, but their body wants to say yes.
The average American starts having sex at 17, while the average age for getting married is 25 to 27. That's a big gap to fill with wishful thinking. If we're really serious about preventing teen pregnancy, HIV or STDs, the only effective program is to teach kids abstinence, first – and safe sex, second. In other words, prepare them for sex, instead of trying to scare them out of it.
That's how we should we spending our money: on honest, complete sex education – beginning with a strong emphasis on abstinence. Instead, we're throwing money away on abstinence-only. Lots of it: $170 million in next year's budget, more than twice what was spent on abstinence programs in 2001. And here's the worst part: Not only have abstinence-only programs failed, they're telling our kids lies.
The Southern Baptist Convention claims that in the 10 years since launching its "True Love Waits" program, over 2.4 million teenagers have taken the virginity pledge. But, as reported by Esther Kaplan in her excellent new book, "With God On Their Side," that doesn't mean they keep the pledge.
Researchers from Columbia University interviewed a group of 12- to 18-year-olds when they first took the pledge and again six years later. They found that 88 percent of teenagers who had pledged virginity until marriage ended up having premarital sex and that their rates of sexually transmitted diseases were identical to those of teenagers who had not signed the pledge. Most troubling of all, the Columbia study found that virginity pledgers were less likely to use condoms, less likely to seek out medical care for an STD and less likely even to know they'd contracted one. They proved more irresponsible than kids who took no pledge at all.
No wonder such programs have failed. They don't tell teens the truth. A congressional investigation recently examined the curricula of 13 abstinence-only programs now receiving federal funding. Its report, released by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., shows that 11 out of 13 programs contain "major errors and distortions of public health data."
One text, for example, teaches that simply touching another person's genitals "can result in pregnancy." Others assert that sexual activity increases the risk of cervical cancer, that having an abortion means a woman is more prone to commit suicide, and that men need "little or no preparation for sex, while a woman often needs hours of mental and emotional preparation." None of this is supported by any scientific evidence.
Most of the misinformation is about the dreaded condom. By law, teachers in abstinence-only programs – funded by our tax dollars – aren't even allowed to mention the word "condom" except in talking about how often condoms fail. Abstinence-only programs dismiss the condom as useless in preventing pregnancy or AIDS, even though the Centers for Disease Control, the nation's prestigious medical laboratory, concludes: "Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS." Fortunately, our scientists haven't been muzzled – yet!
So, again, why is President Bush spending so much money on a failed, hopeless, fraudulent program? Because this is one more giveaway to his religious conservative political base. All abstinence-only government grants go to so-called "faith-based" or "church-based" organizations, which are more interested in preventing sex than preventing disease. It's religion over science, and our kids are suffering.
After 10 years, here's what we know about abstinence-only programs: They misrepresent the facts. They don't fully educate or prepare teenagers for the responsibilities of adulthood. They don't work. And they waste good taxpayer dollars. This is bad government.
*********
This repeats some information posted in the original article, but I thought it was worth posting because of a couple of points Press makes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Well, not quite. Comdoms, however, have a much better actual success rate than abstinence pledges: 70% to 15%. |
Its on thing to take an abstinence plegde when your 12, its quite another to keep it when your a 19 year old college student. Abstinence pledges are completely and utterly ridiculous. Rather than teaching abstinance, people should focus on telling theior sons and daoughters not to sleep around / randomly hook up with people at parties. After a certain age Abstinence is a pipe dream. It'd be better to tell people to try and build relationships before having sex.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wycoff
Its on thing to take an abstinence plegde when your 12, its quite another to keep it when your a 19 year old college student. Abstinence pledges are completely and utterly ridiculous. Rather than teaching abstinance, people should focus on telling theior sons and daoughters not to sleep around / randomly hook up with people at parties. After a certain age Abstinence is a pipe dream. It'd be better to tell people to try and build relationships before having sex. |
I'm not shure that american children are that much different from european children so the itch starts long before the age of 19. At 19 you at least have started to think rationally and had got over the worst part of changing from a child to an adult. At the age og 12 you probably thinks that the opposite sex is disgusting (not sexually, just : boys thinks girls are weird and girls thinks the same about boys) and then it is easy to give such a pledge because they don't know what it actually is they are pledging to. Two to three years later hormones start to work and now the pledge doesn't any more make sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackCat
At the age og 12 you probably thinks that the opposite sex is disgusting (not sexually, just : boys thinks girls are weird and girls thinks the same about boys) and then it is easy to give such a pledge because they don't know what it actually is they are pledging to. Two to three years later hormones start to work and now the pledge doesn't any more make sense. |
That's exactly the point that I was getting at in my post that you quoted. Its the whole reason I made that post. Its easy for a 12 year old to make that pledge, but its largely meaningless when their hormones start to kick in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MosesPresley
Just say no ... to sex!
Posted: December 3, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern |
This was a brilliant article. Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting it. I especially liked..
quote:
Researchers from Columbia University interviewed a group of 12- to 18-year-olds when they first took the pledge and again six years later. They found that 88 percent of teenagers who had pledged virginity until marriage ended up having premarital sex and that their rates of sexually transmitted diseases were identical to those of teenagers who had not signed the pledge. Most troubling of all, the Columbia study found that virginity pledgers were less likely to use condoms, less likely to seek out medical care for an STD and less likely even to know they'd contracted one. They proved more irresponsible than kids who took no pledge at all. |
So abstinence-only education is actually exacerbating the problem. Of course, this is an Administration that's never used clear, documented, abject failure as a reason to reconsider its policies. 
quote:
It's religion over science, and our kids are suffering. |
Exactly. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
I didn't at age 12. |
Most 12 year old boys don't yet have the equipment to act out on their fantasies. Most guys old enough to do anything with 12 year old girls understand how deeply in trouble they would be if they were caught helping 12 year old girls act out their fantasies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I deffinitely could
unfortunately (or fortunately more likely) I didn't have the body or personality that girls liked
but a lot of the 12 year-old girls were with 2+ yearolder guys, who could act out their fantasies
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:18
|
|
i think that a lot of problems with condoms is user error.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-12-2004 23:33
It was just your suggestion that it first hit at 19 i didn't agree with.
|