Perfect. bup has found exactly what I was picturing:
A second activity further depicts the “steps to physical intimacy;” students are instructed to put the following ten cards, color-coded according to the level of caution required, in order:
Green: Yellow: Orange: Red:
Eye to body Hand to hand Hand to head Hand to body (intimate
touching)
Eye to eye Hand to shoulder Face to face Sexual intercourse
Voice to voice Hand to waist
But this curriculum does NOT say that these activities are physically harmful.
They go on to offer the same criticisms that have been broached above:
Notwithstanding, Navigator apparently never makes the direct claim that masturbation in front of a partner, petting with clothes on, or a particularly good foot massage is a vector for STD transmission. Since we see that the curriculum DOES mention specifics, it’s hard for me to accept that the mere inference you want me to make is solid. The curriculum does not want us to believe that a foot massage can transmit STDs, does it? Yet that, too, falls into a broad reading of the ‘sexual stimulation’ phrase, as the cite itself points out. Sorry - if you want to condemn this program for teaching absolute inaccuracy, then you need more than this inference: you need to point to a statement that is itself unquestionably wrong.
Did you catch the Hershey’s Kiss lesson plan, in which they suggest that once you start, you can’t stop? That’s the method they use for condemning deep kissing: it’s likely to lead to jigginess, and jigginess is likely to lead to problems.
Shayna’s cite is also very relevant, listing specific inaccuracies in these programs, including a program that suggests that mutual masturbation can get you pregnant.
So the curricula relies on a published report - one with which other published reports disagree. I don’t see a flat-out falsehood here. The curriculum reports Weller’s study correctly. This curriculum is obviously not presenting an unbiased and neutral report of all available data. BUT NEITHER ARE THEY LYING.
I’d say yes, it is. It’s a lie by omission. If you use government money to tell folks about a controversial study, one which the federal government itself says is seriously flawed, and you don’t tell them that the study is controversial, that’s intentionally misleading. And it’s outrageous that tax dollars are going toward teaching children intentionally misleading information.
They are relying on the Weller study. A legitimate criticism is that the curricula is biased. But if they are truthfully reporting the Weller study, then they’re truthfully reporting the Weller study.
And are the curricula discussing only abortions in the United States?
Well, you got me there.
But I’m willing to bet the authors would be agreeable to amending their materials to reflect 23 chromosones. Still, I agree that this is an outright falsehood.
Bricker, LHoD already addressed your first point to me, and you agreed with him, so I’ll leave it at that.
You aren’t seriously asking that question, are you? They aren’t “discussing” abortions, period. They’re scaring impressionable young children who live in the United States, and who, if they were to ever consider an abortion, would likely seek one in the United States, with outright falsehoods about what could happen to them if they do so, knowing full well that they’d be getting one in the United States, not some Third World country without modern medical techniques. Besides which, I only quoted the condensed summary for that section. If you read further to page 17 of the .pdf (page 13 of the report), you’ll see that they’re misusing information that is more than 30 years outdated. Yet another lie by omission that you conceded above was outrageous to use tax dollars to teach.
You and your betting. No thanks. How about I pull a Bricker and ask you to demonstrate that since this report was issued over a year ago, which grant recipients who use that particular curricula have actually changed it.
But it’s not just that they made a typo or a simple, correctable error. They give further scientifically inacurate information such as
Want some more?
You don’t find that outrageous?
I won’t even get into all the bullshit stereotypes they teach, but there’s more factually incorrect information as well, such as. . .
This is really, really dangerous misinformation to poison children’s minds with. It’s not just that they lie to children that sex can cause heart disease and stroke, which is in itself false, but children who take this course now believe they won’t be at risk for chlamydia-related heart disease or strokes if they simply avoid sexual intercourse. That’s a contemptible lie to tell!
You may have lost track of what was being contended. Did their comments cross into outright falsehood? If you have to posit what they “know full well,” then it doesn’t. It’s a sleazy trick worthy of a used-car salesman, sure.
And I agree that such tactics are also an inappropriate and unwise use of tax dollars.
Perhaps they are worried that a child will accidentally suffocate themselves with the improper use of a condom?
I’m surprised nobody brought up my favourite. HIV can be spread by sweat and tears, well, at least according to Bill Frist. He sorta backpedalled on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos though.
It was my favourite Daily Show topic, and also my favourite Lewis Black rant. I think it outlines just how rediculous some of the “facts” that come out of Abstinence Only Education can be.
Some STD’s up (Chlamydia up 100%!) 1995-2005, some down
I can’t determine if STD rates overall have gone up. I’m really surprised, though, I have to admit. I thought there’d be a very direct correlation evident, even if incidence of sex has increased too.
