Misinformation and Lies = Danger for our kids!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
[Q]Kids get dose of false data with abstinence programs, congressional report says
Ceci Connolly, Washington Post
December 2, 2004 ABST1202



WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Many 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.

Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis released Wednesday. The analysis reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen popular projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

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 teen-agers 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 Waxman, D-Calif., an administration critic who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.

Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since they began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.

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.

Among the misconceptions Waxman's investigators cited:

• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."

• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.

• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

Condoms, used properly and consistently, fail less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say.

Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Health and Human Services Department, said in a statement that the Waxman report was a political document that did a "disservice to our children." [/Q]
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5114860.html
 
So Waxman conducted a "study" to support his position. I'm sure he has highlighted a couple of erroneous statements in an effort to derail all abstinence education.
 
Dangerous indeed. It's completely irresponsible social policy.
 
NB...Waxmen also highlighted two programs not filled with inaccuracies.
 
This is really sad. These kids are going to have a lot problems when they get older.
 
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.

battling sexual urges is almost as difficult as battling hunger or thirst. yes, we don't have to act upon every single urge we have, but i think equipping people to make safe, responsible decisions is far better both for mental and physical health than equating sex with death.

from what i've read, abstinence-only education does delay the age at which sexual intercourse first occurs, but when it inevitably does occur -- outside of marriage, when the participants are still teenagers -- they are far less likely to protect themselves and subsequently place themselves at a far greater risk for pregnancy and STDs.
 
Irvine511 said:

battling sexual urges is almost as difficult as battling hunger or thirst

1) :eyebrow: I never thought I'd read that sexual urges are as strong as the need for food and water! I feel like I should feel like I've led an empty, unfulfilling life...and yet.....I don't feel that way at all! :shrug: The root of my abstinence is not fear or denial, I just don't see any good reason to be having sex. It's not a protection thing either 'cus I'm already on the pill. Oh, and if people are so worried about kids fearing pleasure and being in denial of their sexuality or whatever, why don't sex-ed programs deal with masturbation instead of treating sex like it's totally casual and OK for kids who aren't even old enough to drive yet? I'm not saying I'm ready to go on a pro-masturbation crusade, but I think there's still a lot of stigma there b/c it's not even TALKED about AT ALL.

2) I think it can really depend on how/where you grow up and who you surround yourself with. I don't really know how I'd classify my sex-ed.....we learned about everything but sex was very very strongly discouraged and honestly, I didn't learn much in sex ed that was or will ever be useful b/c I have family and friends who set a good example w/ good information and THOSE are the people I listen to. None of my closest friends have ever had any sexual "trouble" or whatever and no, not all of my friends are virgins. I know most people aren't as fortunate, but I really do think your social network is WAY more influential than sex ed. I could compare myself and my little brother, but I don't really want to think about that............
 
Last edited:
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


1) :eyebrow: I never thought I'd read that sexual urges are as strong as the need for food and water! I feel like I should feel like I've led an empty, unfulfilling life...and yet.....I don't feel that way at all! :shrug: The root of my abstinence is not fear or denial, I just don't see any good reason to be having sex. It's not a protection thing either 'cus I'm already on the pill. Oh, and if people are so worried about kids fearing pleasure and being in denial of their sexuality or whatever, why don't sex-ed programs deal with masturbation instead of treating sex like it's totally casual and OK for kids who aren't even old enough to drive yet? I'm not saying I'm ready to go on a pro-masturbation crusade, but I think there's still a lot of stigma there b/c it's not even TALKED about AT ALL.

2) I think it can really depend on how/where you grow up and who you surround yourself with. I don't really know how I'd classify my sex-ed.....we learned about everything but sex was very very strongly discouraged and honestly, I didn't learn much in sex ed that was or will ever be useful b/c I have family and friends who set a good example w/ good information and THOSE are the people I listen to. None of my closest friends have ever had any sexual "trouble" or whatever and no, not all of my friends are virgins. I know most people aren't as fortunate, but I really do think your social network is WAY more influential than sex ed. I could compare myself and my little brother, but I don't really want to think about that............

#2 -- i pretty much agree with you. my sex ed had discussion went through all sorts of contraception, followed with it's assumed success rate (usually 98% for condoms and the like) followed by the refrain, "but the only 100% way is abstience." i thought that was reasonable. and i didn't have sex in high school. but that's a different story.

#1 -- let's not forget Jocelyn Elders. masturbation is 100% normal, healthy, and a good way to relieve sexual tension. and if you think about the amount of time teenage boys spend thinking about sex, or popping unwanted erections, it's *way* more frequent than they get hungry or thirsty. we are hardwired to be sexual (so we'll do it more often, and produce more babies, and populate the earth, etc.) i also have never, ever heard of any sex ed class in the US that treats sex as casual and normal for 14 and 15 year olds. but 14 adn 15 year olds should absolutely know how to have safe sex. knowing how to have safe sex is not tantamount to conding sexual activity between 14 year olds.

it's as consistent as saying to your 17 year old, "i don't want you drinking, but if you are drinking, i don't want you to drive; if you are too drunk to drive you are to call me, i will pick you up, and you will not get in trouble because, while choosing to drink was a bad decision, your judgement not to drive was a great decision."
 
Irvine511 said:


#1 -- let's not forget Jocelyn Elders. masturbation is 100% normal, healthy, and a good way to relieve sexual tension. and if you think about the amount of time teenage boys spend thinking about sex, or popping unwanted erections, it's *way* more frequent than they get hungry or thirsty. we are hardwired to be sexual (so we'll do it more often, and produce more babies, and populate the earth, etc.)

So, maybe like I said in the other thread, boys and girls have WAY different needs as far as sex ed goes.
 
I don't want our kids to be taught blatant fallacies in the schools, and it looks like some people are really careless about fact and fantasy as per sexual behavior is concerned just to promote a far right-wing agenda. This is not cool. It's been going on in my state and my part of the country all along. Now it's going to be introduced elsewhere.
 
You know this really annoys me because imo sex ed shouldn’t even be part of public schooling. 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 now my tax money is going to promote a religious based sex ed program and a study to find out if it’s an accurate program or not. Great. I didn’t need that money for my own family anyway.
 
I agree that it's the parents' role, but of course so many parents don't do it.

This kind of misinformation is very dangerous for kids.

Ideally kids should get accurate information AND the encouragement and reinforcement that it's OK to abstain from sex until they're ready emotionally.
 
shooboxx said:
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:

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
 
Dreadsox said:
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 said:


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 said:
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. :eyebrow:

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 :wink:
 
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.
 
ImOuttaControl said:
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 :shrug:.

Angela
 
nbcrusader said:


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.
 
nbcrusader said:


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."
 
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. :shrug:

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.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
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. :shrug:

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. :evil:
 
Back
Top Bottom