I'm sure we're all aware of the Bush administration's absolute embrace of facts and reality. They don't do nothin' until they've checked their facts, then checked them again. Right?

Well, now they're in charge of our educational system, and here's what they're teaching kids:

• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."

• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.

• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

Hint: the real number is close to 3%.

[Joe] McIlhaney [who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health] acknowledged that his group, which publishes "Sexual Health Today" instruction manuals, made a mistake in describing the relationship between a rare type of infection caused by chlamydia bacteria and heart failure. Chlamydia also causes a common type of sexually transmitted infection, but that is not linked to heart disease.

And the creme de la creme:

Some course materials...present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."

But since conservatives are soooooo careful about govt programs and govt spending, one would imagine that their desire for increased funding of this federal program would mean that it has provided real and documented results that would justify violating their "smaller govt" principles. Right?

Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model. Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex.

Your tax dollars at work.

*shakes head in disgust*

wow, what is this, 1950

Thankfully both my Bio and Bio teachers went ahead and taught sex ed, you know that was actually factual, even though they were technically not allowed to teach sex ed.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I think this is one of the most abused amendments in the Bill of Rights.

You mean ignored, right?

Yes, I do. I guess 'abused' puts the opposite meaning on what I was trying to say

How can they teach biased things that are not true?

I call that 'agenda-driven education'. It's a shame, really, because I, personally, don't find anything wrong with abstinence-only education, but you've gotta be honest with the children about it.

Are you ok with, teaching about birth control methods?

Yes, I'm OK with both systems, as long as they're taught in honest way.

Niiiice.

That makes sense. I think its a little ridiculous to think that teens won't have sex. Actually, very ridiculous

From Victorian anxieties about syphilis to the current hysteria over herpes and AIDS, the history of venereal disease in America forces us to examine social attitudes as well as purely medical concerns. In No Magic Bullet, Allan M. Brandt recounts the various medical, military, and public health responses that have arisen over the years--a broad spectrum that ranges from the incarceration of prostitutes during World War I to the establishment of required premarital blood tests.

Brandt demonstrates that Americans' concerns about venereal disease have centered around a set of social and cultural values related to sexuality, gender, ethnicity, and class. At the heart of our efforts to combat these infections, he argues, has been the tendency to view venereal disease as both a punishment for sexual misconduct and an index of social decay. This tension between medical and moral approaches has significantly impeded efforts to develop "magic bullets"--drugs that would rid us of the disease--as well as effective policies for controlling the infections' spread.

Well, even the article that Megamoze posted talks about studies that have shown that with abstinence-only education, teens wait longer to have sex.

Nah. They're just too afraid to tell anyone when they do, so their parents, school teacher, and doctors, etc, just think they're waiting out longer. In fact I've read articles where they are more likely to have unprotected sex when they finally do have sex because they haven't been informed of their options and are afraid to discuss it with people that have clearly set forward an unsympathetic envirnment to sexual self-awareness.

Well actually you can spread AIDS through sweat and tears. If you drink a gallon of a person's. Or wait was that just saliva?

That's a play on the stereotype and is not necessarily the case.

After all, even in abstinence programs, children are beign informed of other options, however they're told that those options aren't as effective, as they would like them to be.

There IS a case to be made for teaching children that the best way not to get pregnant or to get an STD is not to have sex in the first place. There's nothing wrong with that. In the end, though, it still depends on the parents for the most part.

Don't give anybody ideas about thirst-only education.

Not all abstinance programs disucss other options, some of them only discuss abstianance.

If they are telling people that condoms are ineffective 30% of the time, that's just blatant lying. You cannot tell a teenager condoms are ineffective and expect them to use them.

I'm not familiar with the studies, so I can't pass a judgement. If they are indeed lying in the classrom, then like I said, that should be addressed.

That, however, does not make abstinence education bad, per se.

Of course not, any good sex education program shoudl address everything, and they only way to be a 100% safe is to not have sex.

I ad the luxury of being in a good sex education class, wo actualyl one in 9th grade and one in 12th grade, where the teacher was honest withotu advocating either option as right or wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... Found=true

Another Washington Post article (from February, 2003)

Russians Feel Abortion's Complications
Used as Birth Control in Soviet Times, Practice Has Led to Widespread Infertility

The Waxman report says that "fertility is not affected by elective abortion".

Interesting.

The point of the abstinence-only education is for kids to wait until they're married. The program has an 88% failure rate according to this report, even from kids who wait longer than those not in the program.

And Bush and conservatives want to put hundreds of millions of dollars MORE into this program.



MOST health education I'm aware of include abstinence and make a point of the fact that abstinence is the only 100% method to preventing STDs and pregnancy.

The difference is that it includes safe sex education as well. Abstinence-only education does not. That's why it's called abstinence-only.

I guess I don't know much about these programs, since I've never been in either one

I thought they did talk about condoms and such, but pushed the point that they're not very effective.

As far as the goals, I'm not sure about what you're saying. The goal of having children wait longer is valid in and of itself, from the educational standpoint (meaning, if we remove ourselves from the moral aspect of it). The longer one waits to have sex, the more responsible they are when they do have sex.

The WHO has found that teens in comprehensive sex education programs ALSO wait longer to have sex.



And that claim is based on what exactly? That report shows that teens wait longer. It says nothing about how long they wait or whether or not they are any safer when they do decide to have sex.

What I find really amusing, is that these same people who are pushing abstiance only programs are the exact ones who are AGAINST abortion....hmmm WOuldnt birth control, reduce abortions?
Man, the far right sure knows how to think eh?