"Real meaning of life...stuff" - Daniel Jackson
Monday, September 17, 2007

Neil has an entry up about how abstinence-only education is the best option.

Naturally, the usual chorus of dittoheads is jumping on board with the usual thoughtless platitudes and pontifications.

But the fact of the matter is, no matter how many well-funded think tanks churn out results from carefully rigged studies;

It is better to tell kids the truth about how their bodies work, and about how reproduction works.  It is better to deal with them honestly, to tell them all the facts.

Comprehensive Sex Education is the way to go.  And incase anyone is in doubt about what "comprehensive" means...abstinance is an important part of comprehensive sex ed.

Telling them they can get HIV from tears and sweat, or that HIV can pass directly through condoms or that birthcontrol pills are poison, or that there is a link between abortions and breast cancer, or that birth control is genocide for the white race (or whatever the sound-bite of the day is) isn't going to help.

Teenagers have a seriously sensitive B.S. detector, and it is positivly dangerous to give them false information.  They WILL find out about it, and if there is one thing you do not want to do, it is cavalierly negate all influence and authority that you might have with a teenager by letting them catch you in a lie.

There's a reason that "reefer madness" became a cult classic amongst the drug sub-culture.  When you lie so outrageously, people catch on, and they mock your lie, and use it as an emblem and an object of fun, and a reason to not listen to ANYTHING you say.

Anyway, in 2001, the CDC said this:

America's teenagers were less likely to become pregnant in 1997 than at any time since 1976, when national data on pregnancy rates first became available, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which updates trends in pregnancy and births in the United States. The teen pregnancy rate fell 19 percent from its all time high in 1991 to reach a record low of 94.3 pregnancies per 1,000 women ages 15-19 in 1997.

"The fact that fewer teens are becoming pregnant is encouraging news," said Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, CDC Director. "Few teens are ready for the challenges of parenthood. When they delay this responsibility it enables them to gain the education and maturity they need to be good parents and good citizens," he said.

The teen pregnancy rate had risen from the mid-1980's and reached a peak in 1991; the 1997 rate is actually 10 percent lower than the 1986 rate when the upturn began.

Teenage pregnancy rates declined for all teenagers with the steepest declines among non-Hispanic black (down 23 percent) and white (down 26 percent) teenagers. The overall decline is attributable to both reduced rates of live births (down 13 percent) and abortions (down 32 percent). Teen birth rates are available through 1999 and show a continued decline, totaling 20 percent since 1991.

Among the factors believed to be driving this downturn in teen pregnancies are increases in condom use, the adoption of the effective injectable and implant contraceptives, and the leveling off of teen sexual activity.

OK, back to me again:  So, what this says to me is that comprehensive Sex ed was WORKING both to educate children in the proper and effective use of contraceptives, as well as getting the message through to them that abstinance was the best policy (it worked for me).

Monday, September 17, 2007 7:41:10 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [2] | #
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 12:01:29 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Trees,

I love my mother dearly, but I'll never forget what she said when she found my birth control pills. She didn't have a heart to heart, didn't ask me where I got them, how long I'd been on them, if I needed to talk, perhaps support me for being responsible... nope. She said, "Those things will make you fat." That was 1985.

Considering that pregnancy and old-fashioned STDs aren't the only bogie-man on the block and that you can now DIE from unprotected sex... and that this has been common knowledge for decades... makes this ostrich-with-it's-head-in-the-ground thinking all the more horrifying.
Kristi
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 12:40:50 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Kristi,

Thanks for the comment. I agree that we should be moving on from those old ways of looking at things already, and looking at what's best for the kids, and that would be covering ALL the bases.

Plus, what is up with all the rhetoric against the message of comprehensive sex ed that your body is your own and you can decide when you are ready for sex? It's such an important message that if you don't feel ready, you're not ready, and it's OK to say "no". No matter who is telling you that you are a "woman now" or a "man now". Wether it's the boyfriend, or an authority figure, no one has a right to pressure you.

Considering that the ONLY place I got the message that I could say "no" to an authority figure was at school in the comprehensive sex ed class, I'm all in favor of it.

Know who was preaching "abstenance only?" The child-molesting, wife-beating, serial adulterer pastor of a near-by church, that's who.

Maintaining social messages of ignorance and helplessness for women and children only benefit two consituancies: predators and those who equate ignorance with Godliness...and is of double benefit for those who are both.
Teresa
Comments are closed.
Search
Archive
Links
Categories
Admin Login
Sign In
Blogroll
Themes
Pick a theme: