A congressionally-ordered study has revealed that federally-funded abstinence-only programs do absolutely nothing at all. The study even tracked kids who had 2.5 hours of abstinence training every day for five years, and even that did nothing. Kids behave the same whether or not they take the classes. Let’s all pretend to be shocked that sex is more compelling than school work. That’s $176M that we can presumably slice right out of the federal budget now.
Comments are closed.
One would think that reasonable people could look at this issue and agree that anything-only education is unwise. It is unwise to shake your finger at teens and tell them pre-marital sex is bad, and it’s unwise to hand them a bunch of condoms and say, “Now you’re safe, have at it!”
Like with most things, a balanced approach seems the way to go. That said, I will certainly counsel my kids that there is only one way to be 100% safe from the various undesirable consequences of sex.
Good point Jon.
I’d have to disagree. My abstinence from this site has been 100% effective.
Well, more to the point actually, not this site per say. Moreso, the aggregator.
I gave up VA Political blogs and consequentially it’s been STD free…. So how can you argue the method doesn’t work?
Who, beyond drunken uncles that kids shouldn’t be around, says this? No one. And yet that’s all you hear from these dolts that oppose sex ed.
“My abstinence from this site has been 100% effective.”
No Maxfield, this post puts your abstinence from the site at something less than 100%. Would you like shame and humiliation, or a handful of condoms?
Before you jump to conclusions, consider what we are discussing. We are talking about the effectiveness of Federal Government sponsored program, one designed to protect people from themselves. With respect to welfare, Federal Government sponsored education and job training programs have not been particularly effective. In fact, it would seem the most effective way to change the behavior of welfare recipients (encourage them to get a job) is explain to them that the money will eventually run out.
Don’t we all believe that parents are responsible for instilling values their children? Don’t we believe that parents provide the example their children will most likely follow? Why then should we be surprised by the results of this study? Won’t the effectiveness of ANY KIND of sex education program most likely be determined by what the children’s parents think of the program?
Thus this study poses a crisis for both conservative and liberal viewpoints. Both camps have values that they wish to impose upon future generations. Yet in many respects, children seem impervious. While conservatives have complained more bitterly about the loss of traditional values, it remains to be seen what liberals have gained. After all, it is because of an increase in irresponsible sexual activity that liberals created their own version of sex education.
Perhaps it would be best if both camps conceded that trying to inculcate values in other people’s children is, at best, a dubious enterprise. Both camps should be more concerned about the welfare of their own children. They should be wondering why we are doing this at all. Is government fixing a problem or getting in the way of a solution?
Each side should also be concerned about what should be an obvious hypocrisy. Why, in a society where freedom of religion means something, is it legal for the government to have any role in the indoctrination of children?
Man, I love that Republicans have to type Democratic to post here. Brilliant move, Waldo.
Did you hear about the children who were expelled for having sex in the classroom when their teacher wasn’t present? Truly disgusting. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/203339/5th_graders_charged_with_having_sex.html
phriendlyjaime — Yes, it was brilliant. Each time I type Democratic, I am reminded that Waldo typed Republican first. So I am heartened to forgive Waldo for his impertinent choice.
I think what Jaime is referring to is that many Republicans, out of ignorance or rudeness, call the Democratic Party the “Democrat Party.” (This is a practice that you don’t engage in, I’ve noticed.) The reason that I selected the term “Democratic Party” as the CAPTCHA term is precisely for the purpose of training Republicans to refer to the party by its proper name; those people unwilling to do are not people that I want posting comments to my blog.
What about kids having “protected” sex? Does the study include them?
[…Whatever the study purports to show, I still support abstinence education over sex education; however, I do not trust the public school system to implement either program well….]
I think the Communications Director of the RPV might be able to tell us just how effective abstinence only is…
And if he was being honest, he might even be able to tell us why it DOESN’T work.
(Yes, I am feeling particularly snarky today…especially when it comes to sanctimonious republicans.)
So even if this study is accurate — even if abstinence-only education does absolutely nothing — you favor continuing to spend $176M / year on this?
And sex education does work? To what end?
If I have to choose between the lesser of evils, then I will choose the lesser evil.
As I said before, each side should be concerned about an obvious hypocrisy. Why, in a society where freedom of religion means something, is it legal for the government to have any role in the indoctrination of children?
Because their parents demand it. Their parents don’t want to be embarrassed in front of their own children. Believe me, this was a case of supply and demand. Parents demanded they not do their job as a parent, and the school systems had to supply it. Simple.
My mom has courage; I learned where a penis went when I was very young through a book with pictures and a LOT of uncomfortable questions. I remain very educated about sex, bc it doesn’t scare me. I have an open mind.
phriendlyjaime – In a republic, we protect civil rights. One of those rights is freedom of religion. Just because some “parents demanded they not do their job as a parent” does not justify school systems supplying sex education. Moreover, why on earth would anybody want to put politicians in charge of such of program. Why depend upon the whims of the voters? If you are a Democrat, you want Bush in charge? If you are a Republican, you want Clinton in charge.
The freedom of future generations depends upon the quality of our education system. Aside from the fact that there are some conflicts of interest (government-run schools provide too tempting an opportunity), such a task is too important for government.
Citizen Tom: Sex ed classes are incredibly important. If you’re interested in lower abortion and STD rates, then let kids know exactly how sex and pregnancy works.
Ideally, this should be taught by the parents. But when the parents are too chicken or ignorant (because of their own upbringing), as so often happens, then we must rely on the school system.
Incidentally, I received excellent sex education at my church, which was far more explicit and informative than the school system. Sad, isn’t it, when the churches have to pick up the slack on teaching biology.
Since when is sex religious in nature?
For those who, on the basis of religious beliefs, have objections to the teaching of sexual facts, there is a very easy option they may exercise. It is called opt-out. Every year, at the beginning of the school year, you receive oodles of forms. In that batch that we all read and sign is the form that opts your child out of sex ed (or in some cases lets you opt-in).