Misinformation and Lies = Danger for our kids! - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-02-2004, 06:57 AM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shooboxx
Its a parents role to teach that type of information to the child but there are so many scared & lazy parents out there who cant deal with it, they lay the responsibility on schools and THEN no matter what they do - teach abstinence or teach how condoms taste (yes those are the extremes...but examples) people have complaints.
So incredibly true. If the parents don't want the school teaching their kids certain things regarding this subject, then perhaps they should start taking that responsiblity themselves. If they leave it up to the schools, then I think they've lost their room to be complaining later on when they hear something they don't like.

I also agree with this statement:

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
at the root of all these abstience program is fear: of the body, and of pleasure -- the shocking idea that we can responsibly enjoy our bodies as adults.
Exactly.

That's really sad and scary that there's so much misinformation being spread like that. My schools were never full-on frank about everything regarding sex, but at least they didn't spread a bunch of lies around and did give us information about safe sex as well as the idea of abstinence. So for that, I'm thankful.

There's a real world out there that us kids are going to enter someday-adults might as well start preparing us for it now so we actually have some sort of idea of what we're doing and what we're getting into.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-02-2004, 08:49 AM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
NB...Waxmen also highlighted two programs not filled with inaccuracies.
I realize this. The aim of the study, as reported, appears not to correct the inaccuracies, but to discredit all abstenence programs.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-02-2004, 08:59 AM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I realize this. The aim of the study, as reported, appears not to correct the inaccuracies, but to discredit all abstenence programs.

i just re-read the article, maybe i missed something, but i don't see where Waxman was trying to discredit all abstinence programs. it does mention that he has long pushed for comprehensive sex ed, which would necessarily include abstinence along with information about contraception and health.

the main objection that Waxman -- and millions of taxpayers have -- is that federal money is used to fund programs that are scientifically inaccurate. it's akin to a drug education class that would claim that heroin is non-addictive or that LSD has no long term side effects. these programs are scientifically inaccurate, and subsequently dangerous, and most likely the result of political pressure from groups like "Concerned Women for America" who wish to push an agenda with a specific worldview. which they're welcome to do. just not with my taxpayer $$$.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-02-2004, 09:34 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Jamila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,454
Local Time: 10:35 AM
thanks, Irvine511 -
__________________
Jamila is offline  
Old 12-02-2004, 09:59 AM   #20
Refugee
 
ImOuttaControl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,340
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
at the root of all these abstience program is fear: of the body, and of pleasure -- the shocking idea that we can responsibly enjoy our bodies as adults.
First off, let me say that I believe it's wrong to tell kids lies in these abstinence only programs; but I know everyone has an agenda so I'll need to read into the study more before I totally believe the guy.

The problem with your statement is that with these programs you aren't talking(in most cases) about adults; you're talking about kids. As a teacher, it's painful to see these 12,13,14 year old girls in counciling because their sexual activity at such a young age has given them such psychological damage. Why? Because these kids are usually "in love" and have their self-esteem shattered when they guy breaks up with them the next week. How about the 15 year old girls walking around pregnant? Yeah, lets teach them more about the "pleasure" of sex.

The fact is that many many teens aren't responsible to enjoy their bodies as "adults," which is why they need to be given the facts about their options. This means information on safe sex, std's and yes, abstinence. The good AND the bad. But to be telling these kids how much pleasure they'll find would encourage, which is not something we should do.

My advice when students ask me stuff about relationships/sex(because I'm a young teacher I get a lot of this) is usually these types of answers--"Don't do anything stupid- use your brain and think. There's no need to grow up too fast. Think about consequences. If you're ever in a situation whether it be alcohol, sexual...just be safe because you don't want to do something you'll regret." I try to be a role model as best I can. I don't tell them strait out "no you can't do this," but obviously I try to teach them to be smart about their choices.

It's just a pity that the most impressionable ages in regards to sex (12-16) don't have any decent role models anymore. Society is teaching girls to dress as sexy as they can and to be teases (thanks brittney spears and those types)--as a teacher I can't believe what I'm seeing sometimes, and I graduated high school in the late 90's! Things have certianly changed in a very short time. I just get the feeling that the people who make the most noise about sexuality/sex ed in schools are the people who don't see the consequences on a daily basis. And to clarify, I'm not a prude about sex/sexuality and never was one. Just ask the girlfriend
__________________
ImOuttaControl is online now  
Old 12-02-2004, 10:01 AM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Jamila
thanks, Irvine511 -
Indeed.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 12-02-2004, 10:04 AM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:35 AM
you've entirely missed my point. the root of these abstinence programs is fear of human sexuality. adults, teens, whoever. this was a broader philosophical point which you've taken in a very narrow context.

as someone who has been a teacher and a coach, and also as someone who has had teenagers ask me frank questions about sexuality, my advice was *exactly* the same as yours. almost word-for-word. no responsible educator would ever speak glowingly about the pleasure of sex and that it's a good idea for 15 year olds to have sex if they are in love.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-02-2004, 11:07 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ImOuttaControl
It's just a pity that the most impressionable ages in regards to sex (12-16) don't have any decent role models anymore. Society is teaching girls to dress as sexy as they can and to be teases (thanks brittney spears and those types)
I think it's kinda unfair to blame them for this whole thing. I was a big Britney Spears fan when I was 13 years old, and I'm 20 now and still a virgin. If a young girl really wants to have sex, she'll have it regardless of what Britney does or dresses like (and just 'cause a girl dresses sexy doesn't mean that she automatically will have sex or wants to have sex). It's not Britney Spears' job to be a role model for kids, so I fail to understand why people keep expecting people like her to be one.

Meh. That's just my take on it all .

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-02-2004, 11:41 AM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
the root of these abstinence programs is fear of human sexuality.
No. The root of of abstinence programs is maturity and the ability to understand sex beyond a simple physical act.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-02-2004, 11:48 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


No. The root of of abstinence programs is maturity and the ability to understand sex beyond a simple physical act.
Thanks Doug. I disagreed with that statement as well. Maybe SOME are like that, but the abstinence campaigns I've seen in grade school and church had nothing to do with fear or denial of sexuality.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 12-02-2004, 12:07 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


No. The root of of abstinence programs is maturity and the ability to understand sex beyond a simple physical act.

or to push a specific kind of understanding of sexuality. i don't see how comprehensive sex education, which inculdes abstinence, would be at all offensive to anyone who wishes to remain a virgin (or for their children to remain virgins). where does the perceived need for this specific kind of education come from? i would think those who promote abstinence do so because they want their children to remain safe, happy, and healthy. studies show that comprehensive sex ed does a better job than abstinence.

also, when it comes to the gross distortion of facts at the root of most of these programs, what else but fear could motivate these things. here's more of the article:


One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.

"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," Waxman said. "I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."

When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say, and it is not known how many gay teenagers are HIV-positive. The assertion regarding gay teenagers may be a misinterpretation of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found that 59 percent of HIV-infected males ages 13 to 19 contracted the virus through homosexual relations.

Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the material that was surveyed, said he is "saddened" that Waxman chose to "blast" well-intentioned abstinence educators when there is much the two sides could agree on.

McIlhaney 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. But McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk of pregnancy in mutual masturbation.

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. It does not appear that the abstinence-only curricula are being taught in the Washington area.

Waxman and other liberal sex-education proponents argue that adolescents who take abstinence-only programs are ill-equipped to protect themselves if they become sexually active. According to the latest CDC data, 61 percent of graduating high school seniors have had sex.

Supporters of the abstinence approach, also called abstinence until marriage, counter that teaching young people about "safer sex" is an invitation to have sex.

Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that Waxman's report is a political document that does a "disservice to our children." Speaking as a pediatrician, Golden said, she knows "abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."

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.

Bill Smith, vice president of public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a comprehensive sex education group that also receives federal funding, said the Waxman report underscored the need for closer monitoring of what he called the "shame-based, fear-based, medically inaccurate messages" being disseminated with tax money. He said the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information.

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."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-02-2004, 12:08 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:35 AM
one more thing: not just fear of sex, but using fear as a weapon against sex.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-02-2004, 12:54 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 11:35 AM
Only the crazy stuff makes the news. So, you'll never read about an normal, pro-abstinence program that provides acurate information b/c that's just standard, not interesting news.

No one's saying abstinence only is the best teaching method, all we're saying is that your statement that abstinence programs use fear and denial really only applies to those few crazy programs that make the news b/c they're passing out incorrect information.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 12-02-2004, 12:55 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 04:35 PM
dang Irvine you're good.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 12-02-2004, 01:30 PM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
Only the crazy stuff makes the news. So, you'll never read about an normal, pro-abstinence program that provides acurate information b/c that's just standard, not interesting news.

No one's saying abstinence only is the best teaching method, all we're saying is that your statement that abstinence programs use fear and denial really only applies to those few crazy programs that make the news b/c they're passing out incorrect information.

direct quote from the article: "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."

that, to me, is just plain crazy.

the Bush administration (not you, LLABM) are clearly stating that abstinence is the best teaching method, and they're using our tax $$ to say so.

but, hey, if there's one way to drive up condom failure rates, it's to never show anyone how to use them correctly. maybe then they'll reach their 30% failure goal.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com