Comments on: Abstinence-Only Education Endures

By: questor

questor — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:05:02 +0000

Okay, let's get in touch with reality…liberals like to take jabs at the abstinence-only camp, but it seems to be mostly ignored that the vast majority of teachers teach whatever they want to for sex ed anyway. Forget for a second that I send my kids to school to learn academics, not comprehensive sex ed, they learn it in the class, at school, regardless of what's on the curriculum, and I'm forced to pay them to do so no matter what I think of their misuse of authority. (Example: From a perfectly innoccuous curriculum came a rather lively define-and-discuss on mutual masturbation for my 12-year-old. Didn't need that, didn't think it was appropriate. Using that as a substitute for intercourse is unrealistic–about on par with putting chocolate in a dieting woman's hand and expecting her not to eat it.) And if you want to take a potshot at abstinence-only's ineffectiveness, try this on for size: schools WITH the most comprehensive sex ed programs have increases in STDs and teen pregnancies, while those with no program at all keep a fairly steady rate. It's not unreasonable to expect kids to delay sexual activity. It's our societal expectation that all “normal” kids will screw around in middle- and high-school that makes it easy to give into the natural impulse. It's hard enough to learn how to manage real relationships without adding sex into the mix. I say teach them basic facts, teach them what birth control methods there are, and encourage them toward abstinence, but don't pass out condoms at school and don't provide an exhaustive how-to; that's inappropriate in the school setting.

By: mpsemac

mpsemac — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:57:39 +0000

$113 million is a pretty big “drop in the bucket.” I think it would be better to call into question the “critical thinking” of conservative lawmakers who keep spending millions on a program that doesn't accomplish anything. Sounds more like “wishful thinking.” Plus, at least where I live, abstinence isn't being offered alongside other “principles and practices” of safety – it's being pushed as the only sex education that should be taught to high school students, which has been shown to leave teens and young adults woefully unprepared if and when they do eventually decide to become sexually active. Abstinence-only programs are counterproductive–unless their real goal is to punish young people for sexual activity, in which case they work very well.

By: colorep

colorep — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:24:28 +0000

What funding does sex ed in general get? Abstinence is likely a drop in the bucket. We should teach any and all principles and practices that keep kids safe and able to pursue their dreams.
You can like Virginia Foxx's statement or not, but it nonetheless, medically speaking, is a statement of fact, so to call it "smarmy" kind of leaves you lacking any credibility in the critical thinking category.

Liberal theology, which is espoused by 90+% of the public school system, teaches there is no right or wrong answer, there is no right or wrong choice, and that type of thinking (and the existing traditional non abstinence sex ed) has given us day care centers in high schools...not exactly a noble achievement or record of accountability.

Intelligent design is another issue...I'm assuming you believe you know everything, so I won't bother.

By: ajm8127

ajm8127 — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:13:51 +0000

Well, some public schools teach intelligent design, so whats another completely inaccurate program. We should also teach that babies come from storks, and that the tooth fairy has a D. M. D.

By: mpsemac

mpsemac — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:34:39 +0000

Marvelous smarmy-conservative quote from the article:

"There is no more scientific fact," said Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), "that abstinence is the only way to prevent STD's and pregnancy."

That's your abstinence-only take home lesson in a 17-word nutshell, and it's as inaccurate as it is dishonest. Condoms and contraceptives do a darn good job of preventing STDs and pregnancies, too. And while abstinence certainly does the trick, that doesn't change the "scientific fact" that abstinence-only education is a miserable failure - a $113 million Bush-ian pipe dream.

By: questor

questor — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Okay, let’s get in touch with reality…liberals like to take jabs at the abstinence-only camp, but it seems to be mostly ignored that the vast majority of teachers teach whatever they want to for sex ed anyway. Forget for a second that I send my kids to school to learn academics, not comprehensive sex ed, they learn it in the class, at school, regardless of what’s on the curriculum, and I’m forced to pay them to do so no matter what I think of their misuse of authority. (Example: From a perfectly innoccuous curriculum came a rather lively define-and-discuss on mutual masturbation for my 12-year-old. Didn’t need that, didn’t think it was appropriate. Using that as a substitute for intercourse is unrealistic–about on par with putting chocolate in a dieting woman’s hand and expecting her not to eat it.) And if you want to take a potshot at abstinence-only’s ineffectiveness, try this on for size: schools WITH the most comprehensive sex ed programs have increases in STDs and teen pregnancies, while those with no program at all keep a fairly steady rate. It’s not unreasonable to expect kids to delay sexual activity. It’s our societal expectation that all “normal” kids will screw around in middle- and high-school that makes it easy to give into the natural impulse. It’s hard enough to learn how to manage real relationships without adding sex into the mix. I say teach them basic facts, teach them what birth control methods there are, and encourage them toward abstinence, but don’t pass out condoms at school and don’t provide an exhaustive how-to; that’s inappropriate in the school setting.

By: mpsemac

mpsemac — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

$113 million is a pretty big “drop in the bucket.” I think it would be better to call into question the “critical thinking” of conservative lawmakers who keep spending millions on a program that doesn’t accomplish anything. Sounds more like “wishful thinking.” Plus, at least where I live, abstinence isn’t being offered alongside other “principles and practices” of safety – it’s being pushed as the only sex education that should be taught to high school students, which has been shown to leave teens and young adults woefully unprepared if and when they do eventually decide to become sexually active. Abstinence-only programs are counterproductive–unless their real goal is to punish young people for sexual activity, in which case they work very well.

By: colorep

colorep — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Liberal theology, which is espoused by 90+% of the public school system, teaches there is no right or wrong answer, there is no right or wrong choice, and that type of thinking (and the existing traditional non abstinence sex ed) has given us day care centers in high schools…not exactly a noble achievement or record of accountability.

Intelligent design is another issue…I’m assuming you believe you know everything, so I won’t bother.

By: ajm8127

ajm8127 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Well, some public schools teach intelligent design, so whats another completely inaccurate program. We should also teach that babies come from storks, and that the tooth fairy has a D. M. D.

By: mpsemac

mpsemac — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Marvelous smarmy-conservative quote from the article:

“There is no more scientific fact,” said Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), “that abstinence is the only way to prevent STD’s and pregnancy.”

That’s your abstinence-only take home lesson in a 17-word nutshell, and it’s as inaccurate as it is dishonest. Condoms and contraceptives do a darn good job of preventing STDs and pregnancies, too. And while abstinence certainly does the trick, that doesn’t change the “scientific fact” that abstinence-only education is a miserable failure – a $113 million Bush-ian pipe dream.