Thanks, Giraffe–and you even got the crappy link coding fixed, too! You’re the best!
Daniel
Okay, here’s some fuel for the fire:
I was surprised to read that U.S. per capita alcohol consumption actually did go down significantly after Prohibition. If that’s your metric, then Prohibition was a rousing success. Yes, it caused ordinary citizens to become lawbreakers, thereby spawning disregard for legal authority. It enriched criminals and encouraged criminal activity. It made the US look extremely stupid and reactionary in the eyes of the world. But it did curb to some degree the US consumption of alcohol, which had been prodigious. I don’t recall the references, but I think they’re in one of Schenckman’s books.
The question really is “Is it worth it?” Was Prohibition worth it? I suspect not. Ireally diasagree with this official policy on abstinence (entirely independent of the issue of teaching it or accepting government funds for it).
(emphasis added)
From their page about the program:
And what is the specific factual problem that you’re highlighting here?
If you want me to make the inference that “other sexually arousing activities” includes French kissing, I don’t agree with you. Intercourse, genital contact, and other sexually arousing activities to me would include giving and receiving oral sex, but not French kissing, or looking at nude pics of Helen Hunt, even though French kissing and looking at nude pics of Helen Hunt are certainly sexually arousing.
None. See below.
You previously said:
So I dug up some of that material. They’re clearly not teaching simply the defensible claim that you mention here: they’re teaching something admittedly vague, but something that goes beyond sexual intercourse.
I suspect you’re right, that fe people bring up French kissing in the course of their abstinence programs. But it’s implied by the material. Even if we leave it out, something like heavy petting is almost certainly covered by the material I’ve cited, wouldn’t you agree? And would you agree that there’s no evidence showing that sexual activity like heavy petting, when performed outside of marriage, is likely to lead to psychological and/or physical problems?
I can tell you from my own adolescence that the lack of heavy petting is what caused the serious psychological problems. And I don’t think that I’m an outlier.
Daniel
My understanding was simply that the changes in actual consumption had indeed gone down, but not enough to justify criminalizing manufacture and distribution and swelling the coffers of bootleggers and other shady elements. This hence led me to perhaps mistakenly conclude that alcohol consumption hadn’t decreased substantially (and anyway it was not itself outlawed, nor was some amount of private brewing). I’ve always read over and over that Prohibition was a bust. People still drank, the product could often be poisonous or lethal, mobsters got rich, addicts went blind, and the US was made a laughingstock.
What’s that I hear about masturbation again? something about hairy palms and vision difficulties?
Sounds like Prohibition and abstinence only education have more in common than we thought!
From a public health standpoint, this is a sham and a shame. I got chills from reading all about my “honor” and “purity” from that link provided. I was supposed to train my BF, now husband? WTF? and if he strays–then it’s MY fault?
Very misogynistic bit of policy there. Hope GOP doesn’t adopt that before midterms.
(and frankly, I don’t care who started the AE program–I dont’ care if Clinton himself signed it while getting a blowjob–it is a horrible policy and bad law).
I agree that it’s icky, but I’m not sure that it’s misogynist so much as misanthropic altogether. At least women are the trainers in their scenario: men are the animals to be trained.
Daniel
Let me be clearer: before condeming this program on the basis that it is teaching demonstrable falsehoods, I would want to see a cite showing that they teach a demonstrable falsehood.
I agree that heavy petting is not likely to lead to psychological and/or physical problems. I disagree – or, more accurately, I am unconvinced, as yet – that heavy petting is covered by material you mention. You say it’s implied. I disagree. Surely the course material would make explcitly clear what behavior is condoned and what is condemned, would it not?
:dubious: Dunno. I think the availability of heavy petting with a lack of a satisfactory conclusion caused me plenty of serious psychological problems in high school. If you’re out there somewhere… thanks for nothing, Karen D______.
I can’t recall exactly where, but I read somewhere that alcohol consumption initially dropped drastically, but climbed slowly back up every year, and was approaching the pre-Prohibition level when Prohibition was repealed. I’ll have to look around and see if I can find where I read that.
Honestly, I doubt it would. How do you think they would do this: a chart, with the “OK” column filled with things like:
and the “Not OK” column filled with things like
I really don’t know what you think this explicit clarity would look like; can you elaborate?
What I would expect is exactly what we see: nonexplicit definitions that allow the student to evaluate activities without actually suggesting the activities to be evaluated. According to the definitions we see, many innocuous activities qualify.
If you believe that programs exist with more explicit information about what’s allowed and what’s not, it’d be interesting for you to dig such programs up. I don’t expect they’ll ever get any clearer than the ones I listed, though.
There’s gotta be an appropriate proverb, but the closest I can think of is the Land of the Blind etc.
Daniel
Not just psychological problems – didn’t Cecil himself once say that “prolonged stimulation without orgasm” can cause big prostate problems, like, say, cancer?
Ah, yes, here we go. He doesn’t use those words, the letter-writer does, but he basically says it could be Big Trouble.
Cool, thanks!
Just a bit of advice to the kids: “But baby, I’ll get the cancer!” probably won’t get you laid. Sorry. Girls may already know you’re masturbating like a motherfuck, so they’ll just offer you the sort of advice you probably don’t want.
There must be something - teachers’ guides, suggested discussion topics, SOMETHING. I admit I don’t really know how or where to track this down; still, I don’t accept your invitation to infer that vague terms in the program description constitute absolute proof of the teaching of inaccurate information, such that we can per se condemn the program on that basis.
So remove “French kissing.”
The phrase “heavy petting is likely to result in psychological and/or physical harm” is false.
Well, I’ve shown you a specific website funded, as near as I can tell, with money from this program. This is a website designed for teenagers. If there’s going to be explicit information, wouldn’t it be there?
Can you describe what you think this explicit information might look like? As I said, I can’t imagine how it could appear. These programs are promoted by folks who got Donna Shalala fired for recommending mutual masturbation for teenagers. I don’t think they’re going to have ANY list of “Okay” activities for kids to engage in.
Daniel
Hold the phone.
Here’s a critique of The Navigator, a curriculum used by some of the federally funded abstinence programs:
http://www.communityactionkit.org/reviews/Navigator.html (search for the phrase ‘deep kissing’).
They recommend stopping at kissing and not going to ‘deep kissing.’
The ads are for “meet Republican singles”
Beautiful. 
I think the shoe is rather on the other foot–where is the evidence that teaching abstinence only is a viable, pro-public health way to go? Where is the evidence that AOE is dropping the level of STDs or the teen pregnancy rate? Show me the figures that state that the nuclear family is stronger due to this approach. We know that informed teens are less likely to get pregnant (not sure about the STDs), are UN-informed teens the same?
Would you accept a report titled, “THE CONTENT OF FEDERALLY FUNDED ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION PROGRAMS” that was prepared by the Minority Staff Special Investigation Division for the United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform? Even if it was prepared for a Democrat? Here’s the relevant portion of the report’s Table of Contents (bolding mine):
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/abstinenceonlycontent.pdf
III. FINDINGS…7
[list=A]
[li] Eleven of Thirteen Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Errors and Distortions …7[/li][li] Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False and Misleading Information about the [/li]Effectiveness of contraceptives…8
[ol][li] HIV Prevention…8[/li][li] Prevention of Other STDs…10[/li][li] Condoms and Pregnancy Prevention…11[/ol][/li][li] Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False and Misleading Information about the [/li]Risks of Abortion …13
[li] Abstinence-Only Curricula Blur Religion and Science …15[/li][li] Abstinence-Only Curricula Treat Stereotypes about Girls and Boys as Scientific[/li]Fact… 16[ol]
[li] Stereotypes that Undermine Girls’ Achievement…16[/li][li] Stereotypes that Girls Are Weak and Need Protection …17[/li][li] Stereotypes that Reinforce Male Sexual Aggressiveness …18[/ol][/li][li] Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False and Misleading Information about the[/li]Risks of Sexual Activity …18
[ol][li] Cervical Cancer Prevention …18[/li][li] HIV Risk Behaviors…19[/li][li] Chlamydia …20[/li][li] Mental Health …20[/ol][/li][*] Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Scientific Errors…21[/list]
Great find, and talk about my failure of imagination!
Yes, they do list specific activities:
To be fair, the chart does show “Holding hands > Hugging > Kissing > Deep Kissing > Sexual Activity > Sexual Intercourse,” demonstrating that they think Deep Kissing isn’t as bad as (and therefore isn’t the same as) Sexual Activity. But yeah, they recommend that teachers
The excellent review demonstrates a fair amount of distortion that occurs, distortion that appears mandated by this program.
Daniel