US Abstinence-only education programs mislead

[handisnak]

OK, are you really surprised?


(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html) 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.

Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen 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 teenagers 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 A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration 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 the efforts 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 regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.

Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:

• 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.

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.

(bold text my own)

Why stop at abstinence-only ecuation when you can throw in a few quick jabs about fetuses being thinking persons at 43 days?

Or even a little misogyny?


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."

Mhmm.

[Pilot]

I heard about this on the news. I don't think it's great that 12 year olds are out there having sex. Not at all. If they put that in, lack of education = ignorance = someone making a choice they might not otherwise make.

Sure, it's extremely idealistic to put that out there, but realistic? No..

[wb256]

Misinformation does NOTHING to scare kids away from sex and drugs. Youth arn't all stupid, and many will see through lies such as these. Drug prevention programs fall into the same problem.

If you tell a kid smoking pot will undoubtably lead to a life of failure and mysery, stupidity and lazyness...and then he goes out into the real world and witnesses intelligent and successful people smoking pot...it's going to cause him to question some things. Like, "did they lie about cocaine as well"?

I think the best option is teaching the WHOLE truth, which involves dispelling numerous lies taught in the past.

Same goes for sex education. We KNOW lots of people out there are having sex, pre-marital sex, etc. It's also clear that the majority of sexually active teens don't immediatly become single parents or die due to being completely devoured by pubic lice.

Telling kids lies and propaganda isn't going to accomplish anything. Actual education is the key.

[Juice]

I agree with Warren. I don't think that youth are given enough credit. Instead of trying to find an easy way out of having to educate the youth of society on the "uncomfortable to talk about openly" issues like sex, why can't the education system just roll up its sleeves and go in and do the job? or the parents? or both?

[Insane Power Pilot]

Wow, this thread gave me deja vu! Do you think it could have been from this thread (http://www.cadet-world.com/cwforums/showthread.php?t=4519) right at the bottom of page 2 of International Issues...you know, the one that went for 165 replies and ended only 3 weeks ago?

Really... :rolleyes:

[Lola]

You know, I was thinking the same thing. ;) :rolleyes:

[handisnak]

Wow, this thread gave me deja vu! Do you think it could have been from this thread (http://www.cadet-world.com/cwforums/showthread.php?t=4519) right at the bottom of page 2 of International Issues...you know, the one that went for 165 replies and ended only 3 weeks ago?

Really... :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but it's only been as of the last 3 weeks that I've been actively posting, so... don't assume? ;)

[Svejk]

Maybe you won't die of pubic lice but we could always use more fatherless or motherless children. You are falling for the Proganda yourselves... Got this of rense.com which normally leans to the Left. Surprising but sometimes the Truth is.

Opponents Attack
Successful Abstinence Programs
Christian Wire Service
12-3-4

GLENVIEW, Ill. -- In response to a report released on Wednesday by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) attacking abstinence programs, Project Reality says this is evidence of how afraid abstinence opponents are of the positive results of the Abstinence Education movement and assures the news media that Project Reality stands behind the information in its two main abstinence curricula that were referenced in the report, Game Plan and Navigator. "The information presented in Game Plan and Navigator is medically accurate, and all information presented is from data compiled by national sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, and the American Social Health Association," stated Libby Gray, Director of Project Reality.

Rep. Waxman stated that abstinence programs are driven by ideology. However, much of the content of the types of so-called "comprehensive" sex education programs that Waxman's report recommends is never scrutinized for accuracy or content and assumes that most teens will become sexually active. Two such programs funded under the Clinton administration, Be Proud! Be Responsible and Focus on Kids, encourages teens to imagine ways to "eroticize condom use with (their) partner" (page 78-79) and assigns teens to create a list of ways to be close to a person without having intercourse, including, "body massage, bathing together, masturbation, sensuous feeding, fantasizing, watching erotic movies, reading erotic books and magazines (page 137)." In contrast, Game Plan (page 10 and 35) and Navigator (page 29) define abstinence as avoiding "any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse."

"When will "comprehensive sex" education programs, that actually encourage teen sexual activity, be subject to the same scrutiny as abstinence programs?" asked Gray. "Clearly, the motivation behind these attacks is the fact that abstinence programs are being supported by the Bush administration and are growing in number because of their cost-effective impact. This upsets groups who have been exclusively receiving federal funding for contraception promotion and education in the past and who to a great degree were the cause of many problems."

The Bush administration has supported increased funding for abstinence education as it has realized the positive benefits of the abstinence movement, which started 20 years ago and has greatly expanded since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. President Bush has recognized the success of abstinence education and knows that expanded funding of the abstinence message offers the most cost-effective way of guaranteeing adolescent health through the reduction of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and myriad emotional effects of early sexual activity. In contrast, despite decades of research, not a single "comprehensive sex-ed" program has been shown to lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), HIV, or pregnancy. "Most taxpayers would be shocked by visiting Planned Parenthood's Web site for teens (<http://www.teenwire.com/>www.teenwire.com) to see what "comprehensive" sex education is really all about," states Gray. "Groups such as Planned Parenthood, SIECUS and other promoters of the type of sex education advocated by Waxman's report are out of step with the mainstream American teen and parent."

Increased abstinence among youth has recently been credited with significantly contributing to a decline in teen births. A growing number of studies are also confirming that abstinence programs work. "It's no secret that sex education groups who opposed President Bush's support of increased funding for abstinence programs are upset by the irrefutable fact that abstinence is the safest, healthiest lifestyle for teens." Gray said. "If indeed our young people choose abstinence as THE healthiest lifestyle, there would be no need for all those programs that exist to repair the damage caused by adolescents being sexually involved."

[Lola]

And yet this article says that abstinence-only education has either very little effect and in some places it can't be proven that it's had any effect at all.

http://www.msmagazine.com/fall2004/virginterritory.asp

Of course, this is from a feminist website, so we shouldn't consider it, right Svejk?{!}

[Bright Eyes]

Abstinence is the safest lifestyle. You're correct. Kids should be taught that sex is not safe ... no matter how many precautions you take.

Give a kid car keys. Then say, "Don't drive this car. It's dangerous." How long will it be until they sneak out and actually drive the car? Remember ... this is a teenager. Without knowing the rules of the road and safe driving techniques they are sure to hurt themselves or someone else.

Seems ridiculous. Giving a kid a car without driving lessons. Then why would you let a teenager have free reign on their own sexuality without giving him instruction on how to properly control it.

[wb256]

Which is why sexual intercoarse should be illegal until marriage. I'm sure the government will have an easy time enforcing such a law.

While they're at it, they'd might as well make masturbation illegal as well. It's about as easy to control:p

[Chief Hoult]

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf

Incase anyone is interested in reading the actual report. I got a good laugh out of some of the stuff that the absitence programs are supposedly claiming...

CH

[Wood]

That's an interesting docment.

Even from an adult perpective that's startling. Hmmm, if condoms fail 31% of the time to stop HIV why use a condom? Especially if 1/7 times a pregnancy occurs. That means that if your going out with the same person for 2 months their statistically guaranteed to be get pregnant and if they have HIV I'm bound to get it. So why bother?

Further more if I'm just as likely to get HIV from working out at the gym as having sex, since HIV is transfered through sweat and tears. Then I should either be a fat slob or I should just have lots of unprotected sex because its inevitable.

Reading further I realized that even a virgin can become pregnant, so there is absolutely no point in staying one for anyone.

But these reports are obviously more advanced than the so called scientist who still think we only have 46 chromosomes unlike the 48 we actually have.

I would probably categorize this in the undefendable category. Its a good thing the Sue and the Sunday Night Sex show are exoanding into the states, they need it.

[Chief Hoult]

I really did enjoy the 48 chromosone teachings, lol, I was like wow...I feel inferior, with my measily 46....

CH

[wb256]

i wish my comp would read pdf files...damn

[Svejk]

You are abusing the Stats. 1 chance in 7 is always 1 in 7: it doesn't matter how many times you repeat the Experiment. The Odd of getting a Tails on a fair coin toss are always 1 in 2: it doesn't matter how many times you flip the Coin. That's the Same as thinking that by bringing a bomb (not set to go off of course) onto an airplane, you will be safer because the Chances of 2 bombs being put on an airplane are very small. They are independent events and don't effect each other.

Many HIV stats are misleading since they do not screen out the High Risk groups: homo/bi sexual males and IV drug users. For hetero/no users engaging exclusively with hetero/no users ( well, as best as you can guess) you have other more important things to worry about than HIV.

Sex isn't safe for kids. Most adults can't handle it either. Abstinence for teens is the Best Answer for the Most Teens.

While most sexually active teens may not end up paying the Piper, by playing you increase your chances of paying. And these consequences are serious and many are for life. It's just not worth it.

As a side note. Our current preoccupation with sexuality is really to distract ourselves from the Reality that surrounds us: our government steals from us and people are trying to enslave us.

[Chief Hoult]

Maybe it's not worth it, but by teaching absitence only, and teaching false stats, and ESPECIALLY since it's been proven that it doesn't really have that much of an effect (abstience only ed).

I can remember in SexEd I was taught about numerous forms of protection, but it was also said that the only 100% safe method was abstinence. With that knowledge, we're free to go off and do what we please...if people wish to take a certain risk, then they are also aware of the consequences.

It's like say we should ban casinos because some people loose money. Well, the 100% way to make sure you don't is not to gamble. But people still do. They're adults, and they make informed decision, balance the cost-benefit, and decide.

CH

[wb256]

As a side note. Our current preoccupation with sexuality is really to distract ourselves from the Reality that surrounds us: our government steals from us and people are trying to enslave us.

That's an interesting theory. Another one is that humans are naturally sexual beings and that we merely have the freedom to express this now.

People have been complaining since the roman empire that civilization is "in decay due to sexual immorality". We need to go back to the good old days of chastity. Those never existed - it's a myth. People, young and old, have always had sex, they've always masturbated and they've always loved it. For a long time they didn't talk about it...but that can hardly be viewed as healthy psycologically.

You're going to have to realize that no matter what you tell kids, they're going to do it. It's exciting, and it feels damned good. Say what you want, they'll do it anyways. Lie and exaggerate the facts, they'll still do it.

Possibly...JUST possibly a better solution would be to teach them ways of making it safER. Notice how all sex ed programs call it safer sex, not safe sex? They openly tell you that the only safe method is abstinence. However, they admit that teenagers are damned friskey, so maybe teaching alternative methods would be better. Hence education on condoms, birth control, etc.

The combination of SPERMICIDAL condoms (rather than the regular ones for which your statistics are created...and likely based upon poor quality condoms you get from a machine...possibly based upon misused condoms) and the birth control pill is actually quite effective.

Do you REALLY think all of these scientists trying to start family planning programs in africa, asia, etc are doing this to help promote sex and "pull the wool" over their collective eyes? Half of these programs speak out against premiscuous sex.

Also, one in seven times a condom fails? I'm sorry dude, but that statistic is dead wrong. I know SO many people having sex on a daily basis relying purely on condoms.

Ok, I know at least 20 people who make love daily and rely upon condoms for protection. That means in one day 2 of them should be impregnated. By the end of a month, they should definatly have all became pregnate?

Funny, these couples have all been together for years...and no morning sickness yet:p

[Bright Eyes]

For hetero/no users engaging exclusively with hetero/no users ( well, as best as you can guess) you have other more important things to worry about than HIV.
Right. Like the myriad of other sexual diseases that plague hetero/no users. Condoms help to protect against that. That being said, the risks are rising in these groups. Teenagers, women and the elderly are now very much at risk for getting sexually transmitted diseases. Increased uninformed promiscuity is to blame for the higher occurances of diseases in these categories. Safer sex is not just for sex ed classes in junior high anymore.

The elderly, for example, are becoming a very much at risk group. With the increase of life spans, the rate of remarriage and the development of treatments like Viagara, the elderly are now getting back into the sexual scene. The problem being that there have been significant changes to sexual dynamics since they were young. Older people don't know about sexually transmitted diseases, believe in outdated myths, and do not know how to properly protect themselves.

So, Svejk, how would you propose we better protect our elderly from the risks associated with sex? Should we tell these people in their autumn years that sex is dangerous and that they shouldn't enjoy themselves, many times rediscovering sexual pleasures and experiences that they have never had before?

Should what we tell these people reentering a completely different sexual world be different from those that have never experienced it before?

None of us are saying that abstinence is bad. Abstinence is, unarguably, the best option to avoid all the complications that sex offers both physically and psychologically. However, limiting the scope of a teen's education does not guarantee that they will follow that advice to the letter since that's all that they have been told in the classroom. You are forgetting the influence of the media, the schoolyard and other kids on the mind of a child. It's all well and good to tell Timmy and Jane in school that sex is dangerous ... but then they go and see a racy movie or show on TV. Once a child is given a conflicting opinion, they are forced to choose which they will follow. If they don't know the whole story, their decision is going to be flawed. The rationale of wholistic sex education is that you make the choice easier for a child by giving them all the information necessary.


As a side note. Our current preoccupation with sexuality is really to distract ourselves from the Reality that surrounds us: our government steals from us and people are trying to enslave us.
Aliens? Masons? Capitalists/Communists? :rolleyes:

[Svejk]

Bright eyes, you are seeing my point of view.

"We" should do nothing. It is an individual's responsiblity to know what they are doing and to keep themselves healthy. Now given that we have a socialist health care system, it does become my problem. Yes, STDs other than HIV/AIDS is rising. Why? All the Money being spent to treat a disease that is fully preventable and that STILL is a male homosexual disease. How many benefits are there for other diseases?

Education is needed but the Nanny State shouldn't be teaching my kids (and won't) these things in order to desensitize them and sell them on perversities like homosexuality. And, they should be stealing my money (taxes) to do so.

[wb256]

Bright eyes, you are seeing my point of view.

"We" should do nothing. It is an individual's responsiblity to know what they are doing and to keep themselves healthy. Now given that we have a socialist health care system, it does become my problem. Yes, STDs other than HIV/AIDS is rising. Why? All the Money being spent to treat a disease that is fully preventable and that STILL is a male homosexual disease. How many benefits are there for other diseases?

Education is needed but the Nanny State shouldn't be teaching my kids (and won't) these things in order to desensitize them and sell them on perversities like homosexuality. And, they should be stealing my money (taxes) to do so.

um, I almost want to delete that post because it's so prejudice and misguided.

No, it's not a "gay disease". Have you looked at african and asian rates of AIDS lately?

Oh wait, brown and black people arn't real people are they?

The only reason why we should care about someone else's health, or make information available to them is because of our socialist healthcare system? Do you have any understandings of how epidemics work, why they could spread to you or your friends or the workings of our economy?

[DMCorrigan]

Many HIV stats are misleading since they do not screen out the High Risk groups: homo/bi sexual males and IV drug users. For hetero/no users engaging exclusively with hetero/no users ( well, as best as you can guess) you have other more important things to worry about than HIV.


That flies in the face of medical fact...

[Nighthawk]

A quick trip to the Health Canada website brings us some statistics in the form of an annual report. It can be found here:-click me- (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/aids-sida/haic-vsac0604/index.html)

a few snipits...

The annual number of reports has increased from 2,112 in 2000 to 2,499 in 2003 (Table 1). In addition, in the first six months of 2004, there were 155 more positive HIV tests reported compared with the first six months of 2003.

Females represent a growing proportion of positive HIV test reports, reaching 26.6% in the first half of 2004. This increasing trend is being observed particularly among younger women

Men who have sex with men continue to represent the largest number and proportion of positive HIV tests reports. [but annual trends demonstrate a decreasing proportion, from 78.0% prior to 1994 to 34.6% in 2003] Injecting drug use was the second exposure category up until 1998, showing a peak over 33% in 1996 and 1997 and decreasing to 18% in 2003 and the first six months of 2004. Starting in 1999, the heterosexual category became the second largest exposure category, increasing from 7.5% prior to 1995 and reaching over 30% by 2001 (Figure 2).

A total of 19,468 AIDS diagnoses have been reported to CIDPC up to June 30, 2004 (Table 13). The proportion of females among reported AIDS diagnoses has increased from 6.1% during the period between 1979 and 1994 to 25.2% in 2003 (Table 15). This increasing trend is being seen particularly in the 15-29- year age group, in which female youth represented 9.8% of all AIDS diagnoses in this group prior to 1994 and 41.0% in 2003

The proportion of females among reported AIDS diagnoses has increased from 6.1% during the period between 1979 and 1994 to 25.2% in 2003 (Table 15). This increasing trend is being seen particularly in the 15-29- year age group, in which female youth represented 9.8% of all AIDS diagnoses in this group prior to 1994 and 41.0% in 2003 (Tables 16B and 16C).

[There is a rising trend in the proportion of positive HIV test results among females in each age group. This is especially true in younger age groups who are soon to represent half of the positive test reports among all young Canadians]

Originally Posted by Svejk
For hetero/no users engaging exclusively with hetero/no users ( well, as best as you can guess) you have other more important things to worry about than HIV.

---------
"We" should do nothing. It is an individual's responsiblity to know what they are doing and to keep themselves healthy. Now given that we have a socialist health care system, it does become my problem. Yes, STDs other than HIV/AIDS is rising. Why? All the Money being spent to treat a disease that is fully preventable and that STILL is a male homosexual disease. How many benefits are there for other diseases?

Education is needed but the Nanny State shouldn't be teaching my kids (and won't) these things in order to desensitize them and sell them on perversities like homosexuality. And, they should be stealing my money (taxes) to do so.

HIV infection is rising among young women these days too. AIDS is no longer a homo disease... its an everyone disease that attacks without discrimination. The Health Canada numbers show that Homosexual infection is on the decline, while hetero infection is rising. One reason for that might be the misconception that it is a homo disease. Being ignorant to the facts will not keep a person safe from the rising hetero numbers. It will make them more at risk.

Absitnence only education is not going to help these highschool age girls out at all in my opinion or anyone being taught this program for that matter. The 'theres the keys but dont drive the car' method just doesnt work for much more than the few kids who are so scared out of their minds and already have no idea about the facts of life. They are the ones who take everything they are told to be the truth. The reality of it is, once the time comes, they will be the ones having no idea about actually being safe.

When I was in highschool we were taught about safer sex. I credit my health towards that education. We learned the facts, and were able to come up with educated decisions towards situations such as condom use and ways to avoid pregnancy and infection. We were taught both the numbers on different contraceptives as well as being taught about abstinence being the only 100% effective solution. The other numbers, however, gave us something to work with should we chose not to abstain... which i believe that modern figures show that youth are having sex at a younger age these days.

One other benefit of learning more than 'dont do it' is that if you do, and make a mistake and happen to contract a disease, you will have a better chance of recognising the symptoms and getting the issue resolved. For example, a burning sensation while going to the washroom that only happens once in a while might just be dismissed as something thats 'always been there.. or might be strange but not worth checking up on cause it might just go away on its own' if you wernt educated on the subject; however, if you are taught that it is a symptom of disease you will probably be much quicker to react to this sign.

Infection is on the rise in those who are uneducated in the facts. Homosexual people are the target of much advertising and have had the facts thrown at them for many years. Heterosexual people have not had the additional push to take a look at the facts and their infection rates are on the rise. For an individual to be educated and to 'know what theyre doing' I dont believe that the abstinence only program works. It may be helping, but that is not enough.

[DMCorrigan]

Hear, hear. Good post, Mister Watson.

[Bright Eyes]

You're not a new user.

This thread has been dead for more than a month. You should know that we don't tolerate people digging up and rehashing old arguments.

Your input about Svejk should have been sent in a PM to him instead of embarassing both of you in public with the slander.