i don't tell you how to make tunics, do i?
[]
posted by tom / December 02, 2004 / 
Don't miss this story in today's Post. It explains the findings of a congressional report on abstinence education programs -- it's simultaneously astounding, hilarious and discouraging.
I've been reading a lot of blog debates about offering "intelligent design" curricula alongside discussions of evolutionary theory. I'm generally pretty averse to that idea, but these abstinence programs make the Creationist lobby look like Richard Feynman. Some sample study material:
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."
Comments
[insert screeches of rage and exasperation here].
It's obvious proponents of these peograms don't care, but I always feel the need to point out that the only statistically significant (read: REAL) effect abstinance-only programs have is to *increase* unwanted pregnancy and STD rates. That's real data, from real research, done by real scientists. And published in real journals.
Speaking of credible journalism, does it bother anyone else that the Post labels sex-ed proponents as Liberals?
Oh, this is rich:
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.
Apparently, our grandmothers are teaching sex ed to the nations youth. Excellent.
half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus
this is also one of my favorite bits from the article -- turns out the actual statistic is that half of the HIV+ teenagers in America contracted it through homosexual contact.
Some very, very stupid people wrote this stuff.
Speaking of credible journalism, does it bother anyone else that the Post labels sex-ed proponents as Liberals?
Not so much, but after all of these secular/fundamentalist education debates, I'm starting to just hear it as "rationalist". I guess that's not how the rest of the country does, though.
Damn! You beat me to posting it. I'm nearly convinced that we need to put an end to the federal government and de facto maintain two countries: One where there's science, health care, money, jobs, and entertainment, and one where there isn't. Sure, they make all our corn, but we can barter for all the agriculture we need just by distributing one to two movies per year.
I hate these motherfuckers!
Jesus, this story kills me. They may as well just start teaching kids that God will strike you down on the spot if you engage in pre-marital sex. The fact that this kind of disinformation is funded by the federal government just pisses me off to no end. I'm glad that these programs are not active in Virginia, or my cousins could get exposed to this iodiocy.
They should stick to reading, writing, math & science (proven science, no matter how gory, conflicts with your religous views or whatever). Leave out morals/values (the knight chose the maiden WTF????).
If they don't like it, stay at home. I'm so over this debate.
Have you heard about the Alabama initiative to outlaw any book from public libraries (including university libraries) that contain any gay characters portrayed in a positive light?
I want my taxes low. I want our shores defended. But I don't want our children dumb.
Post A Comment