Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 26, 2007 13:44:05 GMT -4
What makes you think a program that emphasizes abstinence has to exclude any actual details about sex?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Dec 26, 2007 13:53:07 GMT -4
That is the basic difference between sex education and abstinence education. Sex education gives details, abstinence education is basically about not having sex - whatever that is. Abstinence education generally is not about birth control and so those kids who do not abstain from sex are much, MUCH more likely to spread disease or become pregnant when educated by such a program. Sex education, on the other hand, does not promote sex; what it does do is educate about sex and about birth control. Studies show actual sex education of this nature is far more effective than abstinence education. The study I linked to showed exactly that.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 26, 2007 14:01:33 GMT -4
I think what you think of as a sex education program that emphasizes abstinence and what I think or as such a program are two different things at the moment. I would agree that any program that doesn't actually give any details about sex would be pretty useless.
The difference in my mind would be the emphasis of the program. If you have a program that describes the basic mechanics of sex, birth control methods and their possibility of failure, and that points out that the only 100% method of avoiding STDs and unwanted pregnancies is abstinence, and the emotional and social advantages of waiting until you are in a serious committed relationship (i.e. married), and that doesn't actually hand out free condoms, then I think you have an abstinence-emphasized program. And I think they can be effective.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Dec 26, 2007 14:08:07 GMT -4
The problem is that abstinence education is not at all like that in this country.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 26, 2007 14:09:29 GMT -4
Well then it's time to change the program.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 26, 2007 14:18:36 GMT -4
Are you sure there are no programs in the country like what I described? I admit that I'm not fully up to speed on what is taught in most sex-ed classes these days.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 26, 2007 15:21:19 GMT -4
In fact, the article you cited earlier specifically excluded the actual content of the sex education programs being studied from consideration of their results. "The researchers did not evaluate the content of sex education programs, including whether students were taught about contraception or about abstinence only." In fact the increase of students practicing abstinence could have been the result of programs that emphasize abstinence and don't teach birth control methods at all - this study simply doesn't tell us either way.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 26, 2007 15:43:35 GMT -4
My best friend's younger half-brother received a "sex education" class in which they taught completely misleading and incorrect statistics about, for example, condom use in order to scare kids into not having sex. The education he got from school--as opposed to the correct one that he got from his parents--basically taught him that condoms are useless, so why bother with them? Now, this is a horrible message to send to kids. No, condoms are not foolproof. Kids shouldn't be taught that they are. However, they should be taught the accurate statistics, not--as he was--that they only have something like a 50-50 chance of preventing pregnancy and are all but useless in preventing disease.
And he was taught that, so far as anyone can tell, so he'd be too scared of the consequences to have sex. However, there's no evidence at all that it works and quite a lot to the contrary. Further, the point of education is to give you information you may need. I've never needed algebra outside of school, and I didn't need sex ed until after high school. Both are still valuable information to have received, and it wouldn't have made any more sense to teach me horribly incorrect algebra.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 26, 2007 16:08:29 GMT -4
I'm certainly not arguing on giving inaccurate information to kids.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 27, 2007 15:51:58 GMT -4
I've been thinking further about this. I don't consider myself "pro-abortion" at all. I don't think abortion is a very good idea. It's bad for the psychological and physical health of the woman on whom it's performed. That's without even getting into when a fetus becomes a viable life. It's bad for that, too, obviously, but it's bad for the woman as well.
This is why the term is pro-choice. I think other alternatives are a far better idea. Birth control, birth control, birth control. And as I'm monogamous by nature, I have a hard time sympathizing with women who can't figure out who the father of their child is, though I know it does happen--but then again, that's all the more reason to use proper birth control. (Heck, if I were promiscuous, I'd double up--the Pill or Depo-Provera and a condom, just to be as sure as one can be.) And I also believe that adoption should be made easier and cheaper. I think the system should be redesigned with considerable focus put on everyone's psychological health. And, yes, I'm a big fan of abstinence if you're not in a serious relationship, though I also know that other people disagree with me on that one. I will point out, though, that I knew quite a few people who had serious relationships in high school.
But there should still be a choice. Sometimes, birth control fails, and some women are not cut out to give up a child, even when it's in theirs and the child's best interests to do so. Some women are raped; some women are raped by family members. Some babies cannot survive; some women would not survive. There should be a choice, even if it's a last resort, as I believe it should be.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Dec 27, 2007 18:02:03 GMT -4
I completely missed that in the story. That renders the study somewhat useless, as it doesn't define what "sex education" means.
"Sex education" generally means actual education about reproduction and contraception and does not encourage sex. "Abstinence education" generally has involved telling kids not to have sex and not telling them too much else, for fear that they'll run out into the hallway and have sex right after class. Gillian's friend's half-brother's experience is common for "abstinence education."
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Dec 31, 2007 15:07:55 GMT -4
The former surgeon general had something to say about this: (Former Surgeon General Dr. Richard) Carmona said he believed the surgeon general should show leadership on health issues. But his speeches were edited by political appointees, and he was told not to talk about certain issues. For example, he supported comprehensive sex education that would include abstinence in the curriculum, rather than focusing solely on abstinence.
"However, there was already a policy in place that didn't want to hear the science, but wanted to quote, unquote preach abstinence, which I felt was scientifically incorrect," Carmona said.www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-10-carmona-testimony_n.htmThis GAO report details how abstinence-only programs are not are not reviewed in a scientifically acceptable manner: www.gao.gov/new.items/d0787.pdf
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 31, 2007 16:52:36 GMT -4
I am unimpressed about your first point. Has there ever been a time when the Surgeon General was not primarily a political appointment, rather than a scientific one?
The GAO report I will have to digest for a bit, since it's about sixty pages. But I will ask, is there evidence that non-abstinence only sex education programs have been reviewed scientifically?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 2, 2008 15:40:11 GMT -4
You never seem to be impressed with anyone except for those who are in lock-step with the Bush administration. That the former surgeon general says he was pressured to provide incorrect information is very disturbing. It is not at all surprising, however, from this administration. Political is one thing, this is something else.
The CDC study went out of its way to NOT try to correlate any differences between standard sex education and abstinence-only sex education. Hmmm. I do so wonder why they would do that....
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 2, 2008 15:50:33 GMT -4
|
|