New Condom Video: First Thoughts
The citizens advisory committee just watched the new condom video production. It is very light on information. Not bad on the eyes, production-wise.
If you actually used this in the schools, I'm afraid the effect on students would be the same frustrating fumble-fingered emergencies that I experienced in my younger days. I'm thinking of this version as a starting-point for the real thing.
The thing is this. It's simple. With proper use, a condom is 97 or 98 per cent effective. With "ordinary" use, it's more like 85 per cent effective.
So it should be worth our while to show the students exactly what proper use really is.
I understand the lawyers spent a couple of months studying this thing and carefully draining it of vitality. You can take the prurience out of it, fine with me, it's not supposed to be a porn movie. You can make it impersonal -- there are no faces, no music, just a swirling colored background in this version ... OK, it's not Hollywood.
But it'll have to have more information in it than this, at least a little more. Sadly, information may correlate with controversy -- well, you won't please everyone, and I certainly don't intend to allow fear of controversy to dominate the development of this new curriculum.
I'll see what I think after I've watched it a couple more times.
If you actually used this in the schools, I'm afraid the effect on students would be the same frustrating fumble-fingered emergencies that I experienced in my younger days. I'm thinking of this version as a starting-point for the real thing.
The thing is this. It's simple. With proper use, a condom is 97 or 98 per cent effective. With "ordinary" use, it's more like 85 per cent effective.
So it should be worth our while to show the students exactly what proper use really is.
I understand the lawyers spent a couple of months studying this thing and carefully draining it of vitality. You can take the prurience out of it, fine with me, it's not supposed to be a porn movie. You can make it impersonal -- there are no faces, no music, just a swirling colored background in this version ... OK, it's not Hollywood.
But it'll have to have more information in it than this, at least a little more. Sadly, information may correlate with controversy -- well, you won't please everyone, and I certainly don't intend to allow fear of controversy to dominate the development of this new curriculum.
I'll see what I think after I've watched it a couple more times.
posted by JimK at 10:14 PM
42 Comments:
Jim writes,
The citizens advisory committee just watched the new condom video production. It is very light on information. Not bad on the eyes, production-wise.
Did it have that silly young lady preaching the virtues of abstinence right before instructing the younglings how they can safely copulate? Goodness, the first time I saw that video I about fell out of my chair laughing...
If you actually used this in the schools, I'm afraid the effect on students would be the same frustrating fumble-fingered emergencies that I experienced in my younger days. I'm thinking of this version as a starting-point for the real thing.
Revealing...do tell more...no, I don't think we need to know any more. Little wonder you don't put much stock in abstinence...
What would the "real thing" show? Please...don't be shy...how about an animated video? By having an animated video the students could focus on "the action" from start to finish (of course, carefully instructing them on the proper disposal of their bodily fluids).
The thing is this. It's simple. With proper use, a condom is 97 or 98 per cent effective. With "ordinary" use, it's more like 85 per cent effective.
First off, you left out the part about the condom being consistently and correctly used. That is an important FACT...
Second, there is that part about the study showing that the higher logic and rationality functions of the brain only fully develop somewhere between 18 and 25 (the copy editor assigned this tagline: "Study Shows: Teens Not Reasonable"...this came out about 2 years ago). What does this mean for consistent and correct condom use? Well, lemme put it this way...it is not encouraging.
And finally, there is that teen mindset that sings the siren song to youth that nothing bad will ever happen to them...ever. Why? Well, because they are young and have their entire lives in front of them. So, why be cautious and use protection...err, I mean a condom?
Look...at some subconscious level teens know that in a few short years they will be expected to graduate from high school/college and take their place in the world with respectable jobs. Preaching to teens the virtues of "responsibility" (like in, you know..."Be Responsible: Use a Condom") is something that is quite likely to fall on mostly deaf ears. Being a teenager is all about evading responsibilty, not embracing it.
So it should be worth our while to show the students exactly what proper use really is.
Sure...why not? Show them. But please don't be surprised when this does not change their behavior. Don't be surprised when it also offends the sensibilities of those uptight parents concerned about the lessons their children are deriving from such graphic instruction (you know...that song about doing like those beasts do it on Animal Planet). But hey...what they think does not matter because they oppose FACTS, which is everything that is true and right.
I understand the lawyers spent a couple of months studying this thing and carefully draining it of vitality.
Could this be an example of the Law of Diminishing Returns? I will simply observe that the more one sees of something meant to be special, the less special that something will become. Yup...nothing like a group of lawyers to suck all the "fun" out of sex.
You can take the prurience out of it, fine with me, it's not supposed to be a porn movie.
Phew! You had me worried there for a minute.
You take make it impersonal -- there are no faces, no music, just a swirling colored background in this version ... OK, it's not Hollywood.
Did you mean to say that they "can" make it impersonal?
But it'll have to have more information in it than this, at least a little more. Sadly, information may correlate with controversy -- well, you won't please everyone, and I certainly don't intend to allow fear of controversy to dominate the development of this new curriculum.
...or the residual moral sensitivities of a few religiously uptight parents either.
I'll see what I think after I've watched it a couple more times.
...can't wait.
Actually Orin, I'm not too worried about the opposition on this one. I sat right in front of two leaders of the CRC who had served on the Citizens Advisory Committee that approved the now tossed out revision as we watched the new video last night and when it was over, they asked if they could applaud! They thought it was great! And I agree it is a great start, but it is lacking some important details that had been in "Protect Yourself" (such as specifying the proper way to unroll a condom so its not inside out and therefore more likely to rupture) to help teens learn correct usage.
You'll be happy to know the young female educator has been replaced by an unidentified male (you never see his face) and the background music is gone. I should also mention that one of the student members on the committee found the video to be too drab and boring to get and hold students' attention.
You'll be happy to know the lesson plan that has been proposed to go along with the video addresses teens feelings of invincibility and a whole host of other issues that Jim's brief first thoughts didn't get into.
I think the teachers and doctors who wrote this single 45 minute condom demonstration lesson plan including the 8 minute video have done an excellent job, and I am not alone. Many of us here in Montgomery County want to make sure MCPS continues its tradition of excellence and want to extend that tradition to the sex education curriculum so that our teens will be able to protect themselves and their partners from unwanted pregnancy and STDs.
Christine
Well, Jim, since this video is worthless in your opinion, let me ask:
Can we just make everyone happy and scrap the whole idea? Really, kids already know about condoms- the only rationale for this was to teach them to use them correctly. If it doesn't do that, why have it?
"Revealing...do tell more...no, I don't think we need to know any more. Little wonder you don't put much stock in abstinence..."
Abstinence lessons are great for the half of teens who will stick to it, but additional lessons are needed for the other half of teens who won't.
"since this video is worthless in your opinion"
Please don't put words in people's mouths. The word "worthless" does not appear in Jim's blog anywhere. He said, "I'm thinking of this version as a starting-point for the real thing."
"the only rationale for this was to teach them to use them correctly"
If they add a few more facts to the video or the lesson plan, it will teach MCPS students to use condoms correctly.
Christine
California Reaches Deal to Cap Greenhouse Gas Emissions
By SAMANTHA YOUNG, AP
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Aug. 31) - California would become the first state to impose a limit on all greenhouse gas emissions, including those from industrial plants, under a landmark deal reached Wednesday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative Democrats.
The agreement marks a clear break with the Bush administration and puts California on a path to reducing its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by an estimated 25 percent by 2020.
The bill still needs lawmakers' approval, but that appears likely, given that Democrats control the Legislature.
The deal gives Schwarzenegger a key environmental victory as he seeks re-election this fall.
"The success of our system will be an example for other states and nations to follow as the fight against climate change continues," Schwarzenegger said in a statement.
The bill would require the state's major industries -- such as utility plants, oil and gas refineries, and cement kilns -- to reduce their emissions of the pollutants widely believed to contribute to global warming.
A key mechanism driving the reductions would be a market program allowing businesses to buy, sell and trade emission credits with other companies.
The agreement came after weeks of negotiations and was announced by the governor's office and Democratic leaders in the Senate and Assembly. The bill is expected to be sent quickly to the Senate floor.
The bill was praised by environmentalists as a step toward fighting global climate change but criticized by some business leaders, who say it would increase their costs and force them to scale back their California operations.
Republicans in the Legislature say climate change should be addressed at the national level, not on a state-by-state basis.
"Adopting costly and unattainable regulations will drive businesses and jobs out of California into other states and even into other countries with no commitment to improve air quality," said Assembly Republican leader George Plescia, a LaJolla Republican.
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature's Democratic leadership have embraced a cap on vehicle and industry emissions as a way to make California a trendsetter in fighting global warming.
The nation's most populous state is the world's 12th-largest emitter of greenhouse gases and could suffer dire consequences if global temperatures increase only a few degrees. Reports by state agencies indicate that a 2- to 3-degree rise in temperature could melt the Sierra Nevada snowpack earlier each year, leading to flooding in the Central Valley and threatening the state's long-term water supply for cities and farms.
The two sides overcame obstacles including election-year politics to make the deal happens, said Sen. Don Perata, an Oakland Democrat and the chamber's president pro tem.
"This is not anecdotal legislation; this is rooted in fact," he said at a news conference. "The facts are if we do not do something to stop carbon emissions in this world, we will see a diminution in the quality of life."
This is what's so sad. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that the slight global warming of the last few decades is caused by carbon emissions. Another in a string of abuses of science liberals.
"Please don't put words in people's mouths. The word "worthless" does not appear in Jim's blog anywhere."
Christine,
This verbatim fetish is one of the more foolish TTF tactics. Jim said this:
"If you actually used this in the schools, I'm afraid the effect on students would be the same frustrating fumble-fingered emergencies that I experienced in my younger days."
If saying the video wouldn't change behavior is not, in fact, saying it is worthless, then what "worth" is he saying it would have?
The video is not "worthless," and that's why I didn't say that. The video, as it is, is not complete. It's a great starting point, but as it is it does not include enough information for a student to use a condom properly, which is the goal.
I am confident that adjustments can be made to this video, so that it will actually meet the mark that it falls short of now.
JimK
PS, by the way, Orin pointed out a typo I had made, which I corrected.
JimK
"The video is not "worthless," and that's why I didn't say that. The video, as it is, is not complete. It's a great starting point, but as it is it does not include enough information for a student to use a condom properly, which is the goal.
I am confident that adjustments can be made to this video, so that it will actually meet the mark that it falls short of now."
Obviously it could be altered or completely redone, for that matter. Assuming for a moment that, because of legal or some other factor, no adjustments can be made, what "worth" do you think the video would have? Is it, as is, worthy or worthless?
"The thing is this. It's simple. With proper use, a condom is 97 or 98 per cent effective. With "ordinary" use, it's more like 85 per cent effective."
You know, with proper use, premarital abstinence is 100% effective. Let's make a video about it!
Is premarital abstinence realistic when age for most people marrying falls around age 27.
How many 27 year old virgins are there????
Anne
Abstinence failure rate is about 98 per cent.
Is it, as is, worthy or worthless?
As it is, I could accept it under those conditions.
The criterion is very simple. You want students to know enough to properly use the condom, so that it successfully prevents STI and pregnancy. That's the whole point. But I don't think this video -- yet -- gives enough information to achieve that result.
Look. If you start to put on a condom, and it's inside out, you have to throw it away -- otherwise you're going to end up with that first drop of semen on the outside, and you're going to push it right up to the cervix. That's not mentioned in the video -- it's not an especially lurid point, and doesn't even need any explanation, but your ordinary young person might not think of it.
It's things like that that need to be added.
What I want right now is that the discussion is not considered ended. We have to talk about this. MCPS produced a nice-enough video, but I think (and I don't expect I am alone in this) they may have paid a little too much attention to preventing controversy, and not quite enough to giving students the facts they need in order to use a condom correctly.
JimK
Anyone interested in resurrecting a term that was in use during my adolescence -- prude?
Anon said, "You know, with proper use, premarital abstinence is 100% effective. Let's make a video about it!"
You really ought to try reading the MCPS sex education curriculum sometime.
These films are available to all MCPS health teachers (From http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/curriculum/health/gr9a.htm):
"Real People: Teens Who Choose Abstinence," V4870
"Teenage Sex: Resisting the Pressure," V4975
"Sex, Lies and the Truth," V3925
"It Only Takes Once," V2559
"Saying No: A Few Words to Young Adults About Sex," V3431
"Sexual Responsibility: A Two-Way Street," V3782
"Hope is Not a Method," V4044
"Great Chastity Experiment," (abstinence) V1730
"Who Do You Listen To? Choosing Sexual Abstinence," V5544
"This Ain't No Dress Rehearsal: Abstinence and Teens," V6063
"Real People Relationships: When They Help, When They Hurt," V5895
Christine
Dana writes,
Anyone interested in resurrecting a term that was in use during my adolescence -- prude?
A term for those of us reluctant to sign off on the ever increasing sexualization of our children?
You bet! I would wear that label as a badge of honor...along with the label my then 15 year old gave me: boring (and rather than be insulted I let her know that I would wear that label with pride as it gets the mortgage paid, keeps the untilities on, and so forth).
"As it is, I could accept it under those conditions.
The criterion is very simple. You want students to know enough to properly use the condom, so that it successfully prevents STI and pregnancy. That's the whole point. But I don't think this video -- yet -- gives enough information to achieve that result."
Then, in what sense is it acceptable? Why do you prefer to have a video that doesn't meet the objectives to having none at all?
It goes some direction toward meeting the objectives, and is better than Hope Is Not A Method.
JimK
"It goes some direction toward meeting the objectives"
"But I don't think this video -- yet -- gives enough information to achieve that result."
Seems contradictory. It either does it or not. You can't have partial STDs and pregnancy, can you?
Don't be an idiot, Anon.
JimK
"Anyone interested in resurrecting a term that was in use during my adolescence -- prude?"
Wouldn't be prudent. Not at this juncture.
The 90% of Americans who believe that students should be taught that premarital promiscuity is immoral are not prudes.
I think it's idiotic to support a video just to say we're cool. If it doesn't meet the objectives, give the idea the heave-ho. It was a stupid idea to begin with.
Teaching teenagers proper use of condoms to increase their effectiveness at preventing unplanned pregnancy and STDs while stressing abstinence as the best choice is not "a stupid idea." The purpose of human sexuality health education is to teach all students, those who are sexually active and those who are not, how to protect themselves.
MCPS Mom
"This verbatim fetish is one of the more foolish TTF tactics."
If you want to be fair and balanced you should go tell Biblical literalists what you think of people who use "this verbatim fetish...tactic."
Dana Beyer, M.D. said...
Anyone interested in resurrecting a term that was in use during my adolescence -- prude?
You got me I am a prude. anything else you whant to share about your adolescence? I hope not.
Anon,
If you're not interested in all of us sharing, then why are you still here?
Orin, you know full well I don't approve of the sexualization of our culture. I just don't believe sexual relations are dirty, or should generally be avoided before marriage, when marriage is even possible. As has been pointed out ad nauseum here, teaching or promoting abstinence before marriage when the age of marriage is 27 rather than 13 is simply lunacy. So in that respect you are truly a prude. I'm glad you like the title. However, I would disagree that you are boring.
"Teaching teenagers proper use of condoms to increase their effectiveness at preventing unplanned pregnancy and STDs while stressing abstinence as the best choice is not "a stupid idea." The purpose of human sexuality health education is to teach all students, those who are sexually active and those who are not, how to protect themselves.
MCPS Mom"
Teaching teens that they should be using condoms because we expect them to be promiscuous will do more harm than good in the long run. Historical fact is: the advent of valueless sex ed in America brought a torrent of teen pregancies in the 70s and 80s that only subsided with the introduction of abstinence programs in the 90s. If we go back, history repeats itself. That's stupid. Most Moms know that.
"If you want to be fair and balanced you should go tell Biblical literalists what you think of people who use "this verbatim fetish...tactic.""
You're misinformed. The Bible has been translated and paraphrased more than any other book in history.
Meanwhile, are you suggesting a biblical-type inerrancy for Jim's postings?
To wrap this session up, it's unbelievable that a CAC member is admitting publicly that the condom demonstration video won't have any effect but say it's in the "right direction". Ineffectiveness is OK, presumably, because the goal was never what stated anyway. Apparently, TTF members have been in a bad mood for five years and somehow think a video corrupting the youth without effect on STD or teen preganacy prevention is a way to somehow get revenge for Al Gore's defeat. I repeat: unbelievable.
Anon, this video is a starting point. MCPS has developed a production style we can keep. They have decided to use a wooden phallus to model the behavior. They have decided to make the video as boring as possible, and seem to have decided to convey the impression that sex is impersonal, faceless, and that it's something men do.
That's not necessarily the way I would've done it, but if that's how it is, we can work with it. It does show somebody opening the packet and unrolling the thing on the stick, and if you've never used a condom before, you will find that educational.
Your misconstrual of my words will be noted by all readers here. Right now, the video is better than nothing, but not good enough. Somehow it appears you can't fathom that kind of thinking, like everything has to be all or nothing. I think the citizens committee should suggest improvements to the video, and I expect they will, and I think that MCPS will consider the suggestions seriously, and in the end, I think we will have a video that is boring, impersonal, but conveys enough of the right information to increase the effectiveness of condom use by Montgomery County young people. I'm sorry if this is too complicated for you to follow.
JimK
"I'm sorry if this is too complicated for you to follow."
Well, now you're saying it is effective when you said it wasn't before. That's not real complicated. You're just changing your story.
Everyone agreed that the film had the potential to corrupt youth by tacitly implying that society expects them to be promiscuous. The whole argument was that the good outweighed the bad because a small percentage of the aimless kids might listen and be protected from the consequences of their actions. That's the best case scenario. Now, when the video is seen as not quite as effective, it's a legitimate question whether the good outweighs the bad.
Meanwhile,public schools take one more whirl around the drainpipe before going down.
Anon, everything you just sid was intentionally wrong. You are a mediocre and ignorable troll.
PB
Jim first said this:
"If you actually used this in the schools, I'm afraid the effect on students would be the same frustrating fumble-fingered emergencies that I experienced in my younger days."
Then he said:
"That's not necessarily the way I would've done it, but if that's how it is, we can work with it."
All he is saying is : it's not good but since they made something, we can try to change it. Big deal. You could have said that no matter what they made.
The question is: if this is the final product, will TTF accept it? if it's not effective, why do they?
why do they?
We accept a lot of things that don't meet our approval. If the committee votes, and the majority likes the video, then that's the procedure we decided on, and I will abide by it.
That's the difference between us and the CRC. Go back and look at the votes on the previous curriculum -- they weren't even close, even with representatives from the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Peoples Community Baptist Church, the Archdiocese of Washington, Parents Against X-rated and R-rated Books, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), Maryland Coalition Against Pornography, and the person who is now President of CRC; the committee voted decisively in favor of the materials and the curriculum content.
But some members couldn't follow the rules. They had to whine and complain, lie and sue.
There is a curriculum to develop here, yes, but the world-famous controversy isn't about that. It is about the attempted undermining of a civil process by a radical cell who thought they were above the rules, who thought that because God himself told them what to do, it didn't matter what the citizens of the county wanted.
I'm not going to act like that. There are fifteen people on the committee. We'll discuss, we'll vote, and I will do what I agreed to do, that is, I will follow the procedures established by our group.
JimK
"But some members couldn't follow the rules. They had to whine and complain, lie and sue."
Whining and complaining are against what rules? The CAC isn't an authority unto itself. We have a system of checks and balances in our government. The Fishback revisions didn't pass the constitutional test.
If a new condom video has no positive effect but is passed on anyway, the process is broken.
"There is a curriculum to develop here, yes, but the world-famous controversy isn't about that. It is about the attempted undermining of a civil process by a radical cell who thought they were above the rules,"
Could you be specific? What rule or rules did they break?
"who thought that because God himself told them what to do, it didn't matter what the citizens of the county wanted."
This is the biggest laugh of all. The citizens of the county could care less about this. Their stance is basically apathy. They long ago decided that the teachers union is too hard to fight and there is another way to fight the effects.
"I'm not going to act like that. There are fifteen people on the committee. We'll discuss, we'll vote, and I will do what I agreed to do, that is, I will follow the procedures established by our group."
But you can, under the rules, dissent. At least, publicly state your position. That's what you seem to do initially here and then, inexplicably, lost your nerve.
We can say, truthfully, that at least one member of the CAC has deemed the video, in its current state, as ineffective. We can make the case that, given that an effective video doesn't seem politically or constitutionally possible the idea should be scrapped.
Of course that was what was said from the beginning.
We can say, truthfully, that at least one member of the CAC has deemed the video, in its current state, as ineffective.
I hadn't heard about that -- who was it?
JimK
Here's what he said:
"If you actually used this in the schools, I'm afraid the effect on students would be the same frustrating fumble-fingered emergencies that I experienced in my younger days."
Anon, the video doesn't contain very much information. A guy using a condom for the first time after seeing this movie will still have to figure a lot of stuff out. I think the committee will be able to make recommendations to make it better.
You want to paint everything in black and white, and I refuse to go along with it. The school district sweated over this thing, I think mainly the school district's lawyers, and they were very careful not to offend. In their carefulness, they forgot to include some necessary information, in my opinion.
Now, you may portray my view as saying that it's "ineffective," or that it's no good, but I'm not saying that. In my opinion, it needs to be improved. Like everything else.
Again ... the committee has a job to do, and it is more important to accomplish our goals as a team than to force my opinions on everybody. If they think this is good enough, then, OK, we'll move on to more interesting topics. But they will hear my opinion, and I will hear theirs.
JimK
"Again ... the committee has a job to do, and it is more important to accomplish our goals as a team than to force my opinions on everybody."
I don't think Anon ever suggested that you force your opinions on anyone. They simply suggested that given your evaluation, it might be better to drop the video since it won't do any good and might do some harm. You can have an opinion without forcing it on anyone.
Suze
The school district is not going to "drop the video" just because I give it a tepid review, and I do not consider my opinion on the matter to be a statement of fact. The committee will vote. If they vote to drop the video, then fine; MCPS staff will take that vote into account in their decision-making. But I think we will first want to discuss how to improve the video.
And ... I never said either "it won't do any good" or it "might do some harm." That may be your opinion, but I have not said it.
JimK
Well, do you think it will do any good? If so, what good will it do?
Suze
It gives students some familiarity with the topic, shows them that you roll it on, gives some advice about choosing a condom and opening the packet. Maybe makes it a little less mysterious and scary.
JimK
Post a Comment
<< Home