In a column yesterday in the Christian Post, Chuck Colson points out that public school sex educators indoctrinate children into a radical ideology commonly called “sexual freedom.” The result? Twenty-five percent of American girls now have sexually transmitted diseases. Even so, sex educators ignore the scientific data. I say it’s time to reign in public school sex education. What do you say?
61 comments
Maybe we should make separate statistics:
I assume the percentage of kids with STDs among the group which only got abstinence ed won´t be lower than the percentage of those among the kids which got real sex ed ;)
Too bad, Chuck, that you don't want "sexual freedom".
If you had, I would have skull fucked your dumbass with a barbed wire wrapped cactus dipped in hydrochloric acid and sprinkled with caspaicin.
Actually, a study of the results of abstinence-only vs. standard sex education recently found that the abstinence-only kids did, on average, delay their first sexual experience by a few months but the trade-off was that when they did become sexually active, they were far more likely to catch STDs or get pregnant. So it's actually fundies who are most likely to have poxy daughters and boys with worrisome discharges.
I remember when I was in my Catholic high school, the fiancee and I didn't get sex ed, aside from the whole "Sex for pleasure is evil, no sex till married" crap.
About 10 girls in my class got pregnant during the four years I spent there. Four had abortions, five raised till full term (where three of the fathers where never seen again, one of which went across the border and is now somewhere in Canada last anyone heard from him, illegally I'm sure) and one miscarried. I don't know about the STD rate.
So in my experience absence only education isn't working worth a damn. If kids want sex, they'll have sex and if all they know about is absence then the odds of them using condoms are lower than those that know about them.
When the fiancee and I started dating in our senior year of high school it was my black sheep uncle, who's an atheist as well, was the one who taught me about condoms.
"Twenty-five percent of American girls now have sexually transmitted diseases."
[citation needed]
If it were really that high, it would be considered an epidemic. Even prostitutes in Bangkok probably don't carry that much risk.
> The result? Twenty-five percent of American girls now have sexually transmitted diseases.
Sounds awful! Back when I was at school, no one had sexually transmitted diseases! And our country has had very effective sex education programs!
> Even so, sex educators ignore the scientific data. I say it’s time to reign in public school sex education.
Translation:
We claim sex educators ignore the scientific data. It's high time we make sure everyone starts ignoring the data, too, and stop this sex education rubbish completely.
"Sexual Freedom". Hmmm...sounds like what was being promoted in the 60's. I guess it was called "free love" back then.
Perhaps your parents needed some guidance on condoms.....think about that a minute.....
You want to reign in Sex Ed? What, go around classes wearing a crown and commanding all the teenage girls to do your bidding? You warped bastard.
That's the kind of behaviour we need to rein in.
I say [Citation needed] on the STD thing.
ETA: The Watcher: They indeed do. My Sex Ed. teacher in grade nine taught us all about every kind of birth control method available, how to use it, even how to store condoms - but every class, sometimes more than once (if I recall correctly, it was even on our test) he said "The only 100% way to make sure you don't get pregnant or an STD is to not have sex."
If anyone is ignoring the data, it's abstinence-only advocates. Girls who aren't taught about contraception and safe sex are significantly more likely to become pregnant or develop STDs than those who receive a proper education. Likewise, males who are taught about safe sex are less likely to develop STDs.
This is a battle that the fundies can't win. It is not a conspiracy by the liberal left that wants to impregnate un-wed teenagers it is inevitable and unavoidable social forces at work.
100 years ago it was an economic necessity to marry young, much closer to the at which one becasme sexually mature, then to have as many kids as possible as quickly as possible so that you had more hands on the farm. Now it would be economic suicide to marry as a 15 year old and start pumping out kids. Kids are a huge drain economically now AND in order to become competitive in the modern economic marketplace one must get trained until at least their young 20's if not mid 20's.
If these stupid Family organizations think that it is reasonable to expect people to be sexually mature for 10+ years and not have sex then they are not operating anywhere near the realm of reality.
I can't remember any girl in my school (up to 12th year) getting pregnant before graduation. There might have been one or two, that I did not notice or knew of. But one or two, or even five, in a school with over 1000 pupils (of both genders), that's rather good, isn't it?
If you learn about STDs, how to spot them and what to do if you spot them, then you have a good chance of getting rid of it in time. If you only have abstinence-only education, you won't know what hit you, and it will have become too late by the time you dare to ask someone about it.
We also learned that the best way to not get pregnant, and to not get STDs, are to not have sex.
...um. Right. After my last comment...
I hate to be the wet blanket here, but this got me curious and so I looked into CDC's annual statistics using their Interactive Data site (http://wonder.cdc.gov/ ).
I don't know if it's 25% of the population, but the fact that the reported instances of STDs has been rising over the last 10 years. Now, I'm not a statistician by any means, so I can't take into account population growth, increased awareness/decreased "hiding", but to the layman's eye, it's done nothing but increase in the female population. I wouldn't exactly blame sex ed either, but still...
Why is everything automatically "ideology," "doctrine," an "-ism," or "religion?" Are these people fundamentally unable to understand that it's possible for ideas to exist without a higher authority forcing them down your throat first? Or have they been told what to think their whole lives that they can't imagine other people living without someone forcing ideas on them? We all must have been indoctrinated into something, because they were too?
I have three kids, girl 14, 2 boys 18, 21. They went through all the sex ed starting in 5th grade, here in CT. I was all for it. They always brought home alot of worksheets that had to be done with your parents, which in turn got you talking to your kids, which is a good thing.
I was never embarassed to talk about sex with them, my husband is a little, not so much with the boys but with our daughter, but we all got through it.
Abstinence was bought up in each grade as well as birth control methods.
As far as know, none of them have STD's or babies. They know I am far to young to be a grandmother yet :P
Yes, you should teach children that sex is a dirty, dirty act, and is completely forbidden, and is something that only grown-ups should do.
THAT'll keep them from doing it.
Well I was taught extensive sexual education and the only time I ever caught an STD was from my pious Christian husband. And considering his absolute fear of public toilets, I doubt that's where he caught it.
Sure STDs have been on the rise, but so has abstinence only 'sex ed'. Gee, I wonder why those two go together, maybe I should ask my unwed teenage religious nieces.
This article http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-03-11-std_n.htm is the source of the 1 in 4 teen girls have STDs figure.
However, the fundies are wrong on this one. In the public school system I attended, sex ed courses are taught in 5th, 6th, and 8th grade. The first one focuses on your gender & puberty, the second on bother genders and puberty, and the third of STDs and pregnancy. They are also all abstinence only. In high school, you are required to take a health class that includes a REAL sex ed portion, with a power point on all the different contraceptive methods available. This is recommended to be taken in 10th grade, but can be taken at any time.
Mind you, sexual activity began (for some) in 8th grade and virginity really started flying out the door in 9th, so learning about contraceptives earlier might of been helpful.
As for the freshmen who will forever be known as Eiffel Tower girl (and not for going to France)...you can't fix stupid.
Norris wrote:
"As for the freshmen who will forever be known as Eiffel Tower girl (and not for going to France)...you can't fix stupid." Wait ... NOT for going to France?
Was she known as Eiffel Tower girl because she was wider at the bottom than she was at the top?
Darn it, I can't figure it out, man!
I say we expand sex education, and teach the very basics at grade-school level, beyond the current "this is what's happening to your body/will happen to your body around <age>, don't freak out."
If anything, comprehensive (and explicit) sex ed just might turn kids off the notion for a while.
Wait ... NOT for going to France?
Was she known as Eiffel Tower girl because she was wider at the bottom than she was at the top?
Darn it, I can't figure it out, man!
Do an UrbanDictionary.com search for "Eiffel Tower," mate. He's saying that she's a cabbie or town bike. "Everyone gets a ride with her," know what I mean? Know what I mean? Nudge nudge. Nudge nudge. Know what I mean? Say no more... know what I mean?
@Noir the Stable: The reason STD rates are rising is because of the myth that AIDS is a "gay disease" that only homosexuals get. Thus many young and foolish folks are under the impression they are invulnerable to this because they aren't gay, therefore they are less likely to use protection and BAM! STD rates rise.
You know, the funny thing about statistics...You can make them say whatever you want them to. Furthermore, if you really wanted to lower the STD rate, what you would support is sexual education. When you just say "God wants you to not have sex," people don't know about the dangers of having unprotected sex. What we should do is teach sex ed and abstinence side-by-side. You'd think that'd be something everyone can agree on.
The whole, complete, and unabridged sex talk from my Catholic mother:
"Don't have sex until you're married."
Didn't work.
Abstinence-only doesn't reduce the amount of sex. It only reduces the amount of safe sex. People who think condoms always fail aren't going to bother trying to use one.
I say that since it's you people who fucked up sex ed in the first place, you step aside and let people who actually know what they're talking about fix it.
Where do you think all those girls got the STDs? Why no comment on or statistics about how many boys have STDs? You also need to learn the difference between STIs (infections) and STDs. Not all STIs develop into STDs, but you wouldn't know that since you don't know anything about sex in the first place.
"Sex is dirty and disgusting and you should save it for the one you love."
Yes, STD rates are rising, so let's TAKE AWAY programs that educate the public about them. Because ignorance of the facts always makes the problem disappear! It's working so well in the Abstinence Only states, right?
Moron.
@Doubting Thomas
The whole, complete, and unabridged sex talk from my Presbyterian mother:
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
