Abstence Based "education" ineffective propaganda

Fact-free teaching on sex

By ROBYN E. BLUMNER, [St. Petersburg] Times Perspective Columnist
Published December 12, 2004

The 1938 government antimarijuana propaganda film Reefer Madness is still watched today for its campy excesses. Dr. Carroll, the moralizing high school principal, warns parents that marijuana is more dangerous than opium and heroin. Those who smoke the drug are depicted as instantly addicted and crazed.

We laugh at these scare tactics today. But the government has not ended its efforts to modify behavior by using campaigns of exaggerations and lies. A new congressional report has found that the nation's most popular government-funded abstinence-only sex education programs are peppered with inaccuracies that misinform young people about the risks of sex, contraceptives and abortion. It's Reefer Madness all over again. Or, as one research group called it, "Scared Chaste."

One aspect of President Bush's continuing efforts to direct our tax money to religiously affiliated groups is the push for a massive expansion of federal funding for abstinence-only sex education. During the 2005 fiscal year, the federal government will spend $170-million to support programs that preach that sex is to be reserved for marriage only, and a number of the recipients of those dollars will be faith-based. That's more than double what was spent in 2001.

But unlike Bush's energetic concern over educational accountability and standards reflected in No Child Left Behind, the curricula for abstinence-only sex education programs are not vetted for accuracy. (There was an attempt by Democratic lawmakers in 2002 to require medical accuracy as a condition of receiving money for these programs, but that effort was voted down by Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.)

So rather than getting the tools they need to make sensible choices about their health and bodies, young people are being told outrageous lies, such as how 5 to 10 percent of women who have abortions will become sterile (when there's no correlation between elective abortions and sterility) or how condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission 31 percent of the time (when a study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that consistent condom use resulted in a zero transmission rate.)

The congressional study, conducted by the Special Investigations Division of the Committee on Government Reform at the behest of Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., found "false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health" in more than 80 percent of the most popular abstinence-only curricula.

The result is not that young people are scared off sex until marriage. (Even most of those who take virginity pledges engage in premarital sex.) It's that they don't bother taking precautions against sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy. They are led to believe that condoms are ineffective.

"We hear from kids all the time about the myths they've been fed," said Marilyn Anderson, director of education at Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida. "The whole idea is to scare kids and make them think they'll get HIV by having sex. But what's walking into our clinic says that kids are having sex, just without condoms."

Although the federal government has determinedly refused to study whether any correlation exists between teaching abstinence and actual abstinence, the social science that does exist demonstrates very little positive impact. The handful of states that have studied it found no long-term success in delaying sexual initiation. Instead, some state program evaluators said the programs' lack of information on pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases was leading to dangerous attitudes and behaviors.

Bush's push for abstinence-only education is a way to pander to his base. According to Adrienne Verrilli, director of communications at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, the purveyors of these programs are often connected to the antiabortion movement.

It's no surprise, then, that the curricula have also been found to mix religion and science in ways to promote an antiabortion agenda. One course described a blastocyst as a "tiny baby" that "snuggles" into the uterus. Another called a 43-day-old fetus a "thinking person."

In Louisiana, a state-sponsored Web site tells young people that withholding sex until marriage makes one "really, truly, "cool' in God's eyes." And in Florida, the Pinellas Pregnancy Center received more than $300,000 in 2003 and about $200,000 in 2004 in taxpayer money to spread an abstinence-only message in public school health classrooms. They reach between 5,000 and 6,000 students a year this way, according to program coordinator Linda Daniels. The center describes itself as "a faith-based organization that offers a Christian response to the issue of abortion."

Insanity has been described as doing the same thing under the same conditions and expecting differing results. The government is once again squandering its money on falsehoods, wild exaggerations and scare tactics that have young people either snickering or ignoring the message. Now that's madness.
http://sptimes.com/2004/12/12/Columns/Fact_free_teaching_on.shtml

 

Yeah, that's idiotic.

But I don't think it's the schools' responsibilty to teach sex-ed. Period. It should be the parents' responsibility. If the parents are too ignorant and self-absorbed to talk to their children about sex when the time becomes appropriate (depending on that particular child), then maybe they deserve a pregnant 13 yr. old daughter, or a son with a paternity suit.

I despise the neolib agenda of indoctrinating 11 and 12 yr. olds into the world of placing condoms on bananas as much as I hate the phony conservative agenda that pushes for "abstinence," which only avoids the subject altogether.

This is why I don't think sex-ed belongs in schools. And if it must be in schools, it should be the parents' choice whether their child is part of those teachings. Hopefully these parents would also have the audacity and common sense to explain to their children when the time becomes appropriate. But not every 11 and 12 yr old is concerned about getting laid. As a matter of fact, few are. I say, let kids have a childhood before you start pushing this shit on them. I think now, some states are teaching sex-ed as early as fouth grade, which is a little ridiculous, I think.

 

I do personally think schools should offer sex education, even if it isn't compulsory. Much though we would hope the parents will teach their kids, there are all sorts of situations where the parents won't: if they are ultra-religious, fucked in the head, or just plain lazy, for example. Through good sex education (and being a manslut), I could probably teach my parents more about sex than they could teach me!

I can fully appreciate why people do not want sex education in schools. However, I also know that a lot of parents are in denial about their kids growing up. Thinking hypothetically, we can all say an 18 year old kid is likely to be having sex. But when the kid is your son or daughter, who you've raised since they were the size of your hand, it's at best something you don't want to think about.

So the most obvious compromise that I can see is to have a counsellor who is trained to deal with sexual health issues. That way, kids who need to know stuff can get the information they need, and those who don't wish to know or whose parents to not wish to tell them can be at least appeased.

On an aside, I agree, teaching abstenance in place of contraception is completely pointless, naive about human nature or just plain spineless, and is doing far more damage than good. If you want proof, look at the massive impact made in the AIDS crisis by America's decision to use their aid money to promoto abstenance. You may have to squint a bit.

 

tell me, does the 13 year old deserve it? or the son in the paternity suit? or the partner and child of that son? or is it their responsibility to pay for their parents stupidity, or to just "know" the facts of life when their parent's won't talk about it and the schools aren't encouraged to teach it?

does a terrified young girl have a right to know why she is suddenly bleeding in intimate places once a month? does either child have a right to know anything about their own bodies?

perhaps we should leave it up to the parents to teach nutrition, too. just in case the kids get the idea that the junk food in the school vending machines might be unhealthy. hell, those kids have a *right* to be unhealthy. let's not interfere with that right by educating them. if a parent doesn't want to talk to their kids about their health, then the parent deserves a 12-year-old with high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes.

that's because you don't have kids, matt.

it's age-appropriate health education matt. the kids bodies are changing, and they have a right to know why. i'd love to see all parents make responsible choices about educating their kids about sex themselves. hell, as a homeschooler, i'd love to see parents taking responsibility for their kids' education period. but not every parent wants to be truthful and responsible. and it's the children that ultimately pay the price for the parents' body-fear and irresponsibility.

that's because (due to childhood obesity and environmental factors that mess with their hormones) children are hitting puberty earlier. it's true 11 & 12 year olds aren't thinking about getting laid, but they may be wondering why they're chests are swelling or they're bleeding every month. body-changes are terrifying for a child who doesn't know what's happening.

my oldest will be 12 in 5 short years. when he's ready to learn, i say hand him the damn banana.

 

I think that teaching children to use condoms is a good idea. My reasoning is that people who don't use condoms and engage in unsafe sexual practices are spreading alot of nasty diseases that then spread to you or me. I think that it should be the parents responsibility, but i know alot aren't responsible, and their kids will then pose a health hazard to me.
Oh, it's interseting to note that people who sign 'virginity pledges' are more likely to have unsafe sex because once you sign a pledge to jesus you are less likely to carry a condom on you just in case.

 

Obviously I was speaking figuratively. Of course a 13 yr. old doesn't deserve to become pregnant. But I think parents need to have responsibility over their children, and be prepared to suffer the consequences that might result from any lack of parenting. It doesn't necessarily have to involve pregnancy.

Most parents are content on letting the system raise their kids, then they wonder why they turn out the way they do when they become older.

Teaching about sexual development in school is different from what I was referring to in my thread. It's more of a physiological issue than a "sexual" one. It's not dealing with intercourse.

You were talking about hormones in food, coupled with obesity, having an affect on children's precocious puberty and overall sexual development. I agree! I am sure that has a lot to do with it! American society is as physically ill as it is mentally.

But let's also talk about the media -- how it has an affect not on precocious puberty, but precocious sexualization. I don't think it's "prude" or "conservative" to say we live in a sick society that pushes sex on kids, and lots of greedy people profit from it. What happened with letting kids grow up without being fed a bunch of garbage? It was never this way when I was growing up ten years ago.

Sure, things change! Shit evolves! Right. That doesn't mean I have to go along with it because it's the "hip" thing to do in today's heartless, mindless, soulless world.

Kids today are relentlessly bombarded with propaganda and mind control every time they watch TV, or step foot out of the house for that matter.

It's a pretty sad world, I think, when 10 yr. old girls are more concerned about how thin they are than being 10 yr. old girls. I think it's pretty sick when the de rigueur of dress among 10 yr. old girls are low-cut, tight-fitting jeans and a belly shirt that reads "nasty." It's just a sign of how dumbed-down, sick and polluted we are as a society.

I am going off topic now, as this really has nothing to do with the aforementioned "sex ed." I am just sick of all the bullshit and propaganda, coming not only from the media, but the system as well. Period. Kids are fed with so many mixed messages that it's just disgusting beyond comprehension.

I feel bad for young teen girls growing up right now who don't fit the media standard of attractiveness and sex appeal. It's like girls are pariahs if they don't conform to the right degree of slutiness and dress like Britney Spears, or have the perfect body. It's just sad.

This is part of the reason why I am against public schooling.

 

I agree with what Pressed_Rat said. I agree with Kitty too that puberty must be explained to teens. That is more of a biology lesson though. I really do think it's awful how kids are striving to be seen as "sexy" at an earlier age all the time! WTF. It's so messed up. We shouldn't have to teach kids about safe sex so early, but due to the way society encourages kids thru advertising etc. to be overly concerned about their physical appearance, it seems to be necessary. I don't know if 12 year olds need to be taught how to put on a condom correctly...that seems a bit young to me.
If you don't hate Britney Spears for her awful voice and lack of talent, you should hate her for her influence on teens.

 

The sex education curriculum does not modules on Dressing Like Britney Speares or Giving Head. It is intended to teach kids to use contraception rather than not do it, to know if they have an STD, and why they're getting hair on their balls.

It is sad that kids are being sexualised at such a young age, but one has to be pragmatic: until legislature is introduced to prevent it, this is going to carry on happening. The fact is, a lot of kids are having sex, or at least experimenting, before they are 12. Teaching abstenance to someone who has already had sex isn't going to work. Again, we know this from Africa. Teaching abstenance is in denial of human nature. In the long run, it's better to teach your kids to have safe sex than try to teach them not to have any sex, because even if the majority aren't doing it at 12, they soon will be. It is just better if they learn to do it right.

 

"False, misleading, and distorted" is an apt description of Waxman's report:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm615.cfm

 

Nothing that contains the words "yet another attempt" in the opening lines can really be considered objective either. Can't they just check, see if people are lying to the kids or not, and leave it at that?

 

No, false and misleading is what you can count on from anything emerging from the Heritage Foundation, dear Huck. These neocon "think tanks" (Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, et al.) are the driving engine behind the blindly ideological policymaking of this administration.

 

I can see no reason why abstinence education would ever work...you might as well tell people not to eat, its supressing an extremely powerful drive.

You've got to educate kids and let them know whats going on no matter what.

Its not like the technical way they teach sex is going to make anyone horny.

 

What a surprise! Attack the messenger, ignore the message . . .

The sophomoric sneering that passes for "debate" on this forum is truly pathetic.

 

...and yet you are here nearly every single day debating the same 2 or 3 issues that you seem to have any sort of opinion on with people who think you are an asshole.

 

Sophomoric is not bothering to consider the agenda of the source you so readily buy into. When the issue pertains to a matter of policy advocacy, the agenda of the messenger indeed becomes a relevant feature for debate. None of these neocon think tanks are objective in any sense of the term and that is what you fail to grasp. Sophmoric is your understanding of just what constitutes critical analysis and proper research.

Of course, your silent consent to PBs routine attacks on anyone who dares dig into the background of lies for which these very sort of foundations provide an "intellectual" smokescreen as "conspiracy theorists", makes your retort above just another laughable denial ridden example of the lack of credibility eminating from your preferred circle of fundamentalist reactionism.

 

Liberal Democrats in Congress would never have a political agenda . . .

If the article I cited is so entirely bogus, it should be easily refuted. As usual, though, no one even bothers trying.

 

but the reality is matt, that a lack of sex education does result in pregnant teenagers. and maybe the parents "deserve" to "deal with the consequences" but it's the children - and there children - that end up paying the price of those "consequences".

as a parent and as a sex educator i say you can't separate the changes going on in the body from the biological function involving those changes. i'm not talking about teaching sexual technique (they can learn that from their passion parties consultant when they're over 18 ) i'm talking about teaching what's going on in their bodies, and why, how to understand the feelings that accompany those changes, and how to be safe about it. i think that abstinence should be included as an option, but that sex education should not be limited to abstinence.

which is why children need realistic, accurate education about what's going on with their bodies, and how real, normal bodies change. teaching a child to be safe with their body is not encouraging them to abuse it. i'd say it's quite the opposite. and i think that teaching positive body image - rather than implying that the body is something that is either sculpted into the false ideal of the media, or else something that is dirty, ugly, shameful and dangerous - should be part of sex education. i am not talking about teaching them to dress like brittney whats-her-name, i am talking about teaching healthy love and respect for the body and the self, and an understanding of its changes and the feelings and urges that accompany those changes. much of the sexual "acting out" that teens - especially teen girls - do is seeking a form of acceptance and comes from a lack of self-respect. it is one reason why we need sex education in public schools.

oh hell, matt, you know that going along with the "hip" thing just because everyone else is doing it is the last thing anyone would ever expect of you. we like you the way you are. but i will leave my rant about everything that's wrong with the social structure in public schools for another thread on another day. suffice it to say that you already know i am a rabid, frothing, fanatical supporter of educational and social alternatives, and that as a parent i have huge issue with mainstream media and corporate manipulation in schools. however, i also accept the fact that there is a need for some type of public education. "punishing" the parent by "making them deal with the consequences" of their irresponsibility doesn't affect the parent anywhere near to the extent it hurts the kids. and not every parent is capable of home schooling.

btw, matt, check your messages. i'm working on some projects i need your help with/opinions on. i know i can always count on you for an opinion, matt. you got enough opinion for all of us! j/k

 

Umm... Huck, did you notice that you started off by attacking the source of this report, instead of joining us in the debate of whether or not sex ed should be taught or when or how you just attacked the source. Then when someone pointed out that the heritage foundation isn't quite an ubiased source you accused them of attacking the messenger......

 

I didn't merely "attack the source" of the Waxman report; I provided a link to a detailed rebuttal of its content.

 

Why not just say what you actually think, instead of pissing about citing other people's opinions?