Teen pregnancy is lower than it has been since this data was tracked. (cite)
On preview, I see that cher3 has additional information related to that.
Anyways, I’m not expecting to see abstinence only proponents doing a 180 now that there’s some evidence suggesting that they’re wrong. I’m well aware that in modern politics, no one ever admits that they were wrong. However, I’m sure that those who believe in abstinence only sex-ed will still support their plan. I’m curious what they will base this support on now.
Define “conventional”, first off; what’s conventional depends a lot on region. What I experienced was a semi-opt-in (parental permission required) couple of days about puberty, with essentially no discussion of sex or contraception at all. I don’t recall hearing the word “condom” in that class, and we certainly didn’t put one on a banana. All my “sex ed” in that sense came from a couple of books my parents gave me.
Let’s see.
Adolescent Pregnancy and Childbearing covers the decline in teen pregnancies in the 90s while noting that the US’s pregnancy rate is much higher than that of other industrialised nations. (European nations tend to have fairly comprehensive sex-education programs, and in fact the Netherlands has a negligible teen pregnancy rate with a program that includes no abstinence promotion at all.) Teaching about contraception increases the odds that it will be used. I can’t find the article titled “Do Abstinence Lessons Lessen Sex?” with google; the author is Lantier (in case someone’s more ept than I). A trend study. Virginity pledges are effective, but only as long as they’re popular (and I’ve seen somewhere a study that suggests that kids who fall off this wagon are less likely to use contraception).
(Cites pulled by googling the footnotes in Judith Levine’s Harmful to Minors, for those folks who want slant information.)
Money. Effective or not, they’re still getting almost $200 million for 2005, which will bring the total for the five years to around $900 million. Hey, at least it’s not a billion, right?
The funny thing is, what that $900 million will get is a few more candidates for the job of posing on the covers of porno videos with genitals coming out of the orifices and a “Hi, Mom!” look on their faces when they find out how thoroughly they’ve been hosed about sex.
You did notice that the story originated in Texas, didn’t you? You do know what political party controls Texas politics, don’t you? You do know who promotes this kind of insanity, don’t you?
Jeezus, don’t go and tell them how stupid it is or they’re going to breed even more! Fuck, dude, let 'em keep trying, fercryinoutloud! They might succeed! Hell, Paul said it was best to stay celibate in all circumstances, so maybe they could be worked up to that through early indoctrination into cold showers and dates with Rosy Palms and her Five Sisters. Give it a chance!
elfkin:Yeah, it’s a goddamn shame that parents aren’t allowed to give their kids this valuable information on their own.
So what? Parents can teach their kids to drive too, and can give them information about Home Economics and Business Math, for that matter. Nonetheless, schools undertake to teach those subjects because they’re important parts of a general curriculum to help students prepare for adult life. The fact that their parents could provide the information on their own doesn’t keep the schools from teaching it.
Given that sex is, by any reasonable standard, a far more crucial, universal, and influential component of adult life, it’s ridiculous to argue that schools shouldn’t give students accurate and comprehensive information about it.
Yes this is a stupid program. It’s every bit as stupid as the program that was being dished out in the late 60’s when I was in school. It’s equally as stupid as the war on drugs-another misbegotten “just say no” venture. Politicos on boths sides of thie aisle have thrown their names behind this ill-fated endeavor for several decades.
In other news, tomorrow morning the sun is expected to rise in the east…
An interesting corrollary to the abstinence only sex-ed programs was brought up in a Larry Niven book whose title I’ve conveniently forgotten. The point was made about the Zero Population Growth movement, but I think it applies here as well. The problem with asking people not to have sex / breed, is that only those who are respectful of authority will comply with it. Fast forward several generations and you will find that the majority of the population is descended from people who didn’t comply with the suggested course of (in)action.
I find it highly amusing that the government is funding a program which will ultimately result in a population that will be more difficult to govern. A perfect example of being hoist by one’s own petard, wouldn’t you say?
I took something called Recordkeeping in High School, and we had to keep a record of our hypothetical business’ debits and credits and act like a real business. it was invaluable.
As for abstinance, it hardly seems like a class, it only says don’t have sex efore marriage; that hardly takes 45 minutes of a class time.
Birth control is vital to teach-because something is taught, doesn’t mean everyone is going to go out and do it!
Yeah. Let’s make abortion illegal AND not teach kids anything about birth control. The Republican party platform is so damned dumb when it comes to sex.
Because that’s just what the world needs – more teenaged parents. :rolleyes:
I saw a documentary about abstinent teens in Texas. One scene amused me; the boys were painstakingly rationalizing how it was true that they weren’t getting any sex, but that at least they were getting a lot of oral sex.
If the Jesus sauce only creates little Bill Clintons within their midst, I say, keep pushing it.
You know how Texas Conservatives always bitch about how Them God Damed Libruls are always trying to solve problems by raising taxes and throwing more money at problems?
