Many others have remarked on this story already, but the stupefying nature of the report demands my immediate harrumphing:
Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.
Well, some of that is sort of accurate. Touching another person's genitals certainly can lead to pregnancy. If you touch them with your genitals, that is.
In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.
Medically inaccurate information? Pfft. That's where your buddies come in. Who else is going to tell you that you can't get pregnant your first time, or if the woman's on top (just to take a few examples from my own childhood)? Only nerds need "comprehensive sex education."
The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.
Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:
Oh man, this is going to be good.
• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
Cute trick for something without an actual brain. And yet even at 43 days, a fetus can exert exactly as much mental effort as Bush did when he approved funding for these programs.
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
And spinning wheels.
Actually, "scientists" with the Medical Institute of Sexual Health (which developed much of the material in dispute) have now confirmed that HIV is transmitted by a tiny demon that lives in your pancreas and shoots the virus out through your navel.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
Again, as long as you're wearing them properly (over your navel), you won't have any problems.
Congress first allocated money for abstinence-only programs in 1999, setting aside $80 million in grants, which go to a variety of religious, civic and medical organizations. To be eligible, groups must limit discussion of contraception to failure rates.
President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years.
Now the agenda is clear, by teaching both creationism and sex for procreation, the government is hoping to create legions of breeders that will produce similarly ignorant offspring, who will of course vote Republican.
In order to rake in some of that funding for ourselves, APCB is going abstinence-only, starting today. Our days of meaningless, non-procreative sex with other blogs is over, which should be good enough for a $500K grant.
Some course materials cited in Waxman's report 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."
It's also scientific fact that you should never ask, "Is in it yet?"
I don't know about you, but a princess who could tell me how to slay dragons would be quite the catch. Bet the prenup would be a bitch, though.
Here's my two cents on the subject (not that anyone asked).
I wouldn't mind abstinence only programs so much if they were offered as an "alternative" to traditional sex ed. I think parents have a right to have their kids educated however they see fit. If parents what to bury their kids’ heads in the sand when it comes to the subject of sex and hope than no one is going to have sex before they are married that’s their right. On the other hand, if some parents want their kids’ sex ed to be based on science and objective research that should be available, too. However, the subject matter taught (in either scenario) should still have to factually accurate. If an algebra text got the quadratic equation wrong parents would flip their lids if teachers knowingly kept teach it if they knew the equation to be incorrect. I don't see why the same standard of accuracy shouldn't apply to any subject taught, including sex ed.
Course, that might render some uber-conservative propaganda less effect. I mean, why tell the truth when a lie serves your purposes more effectively, right? And tolerating "choices" when it comes to reproductive issues isn't exactly the religious right's bailiwick, so neither of my ideas will likely ever be implemented. At least not in the Lone Star State.
Oh yeah! That explains why the twins were jumping up and down everytime they came home from a date! They were preventing pregnancy!
Pezidnt Geoger Bush
"too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess"'
Wow... they're teaching that kind of thing about sex when they say they shouldn't have it???
To be fair, this IS true for a good portion of the male population when it comes to sex.
Men are notorious for not liking any pointers when it comes to sex, and often get self-conscious and defensive and run away from the women who come right out and say what they like in bed... Because usually it means they have to confront the possibility that all their previous lovers were faking their orgasms. haha. Much easier to move on to another woman who at least seems more easily pleased. heh.
But I don't doubt more right-wingers than liberals react this way. So, really, yeah, it's probably a good thing for the chauvanist conservatives to be teaching their daughters, since they're expected to marry chauvanist conservatives.
That said, I don't think any of that belongs in public schools. Anything beyond just the scientific facts seems to be venturing out of the realm of 'education'.
And if they can't even get physical facts right, they shouldn't be messing with the psychological & sociological ones.
I still remember this one teacher I had for sex-ed at one Catholic high school I attended. He had an air of perv about him, I swear.
I think I was the only student in the class who didn't bother putting a question in the anonymous box. My older sister (a nurse 11 years older than me) had already explained it all to me.
Except for the use of Neosporin, I only heard about that one recently...
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/52/24-mcdonald.php
hahahaha.