Great Letter in the Post
The other day we looked at the new government report showing that abstinence-only sex-ed doesn't work. The Washington Post had a pretty good story, I thought; I didn't write too much about it, and didn't mention the way the story was covered. A day or two later they had an editorial reinforcing the study's findings. It didn't seem to add anything to the debate, so I didn't mention the editorial here.
A guy wrote to the Post this morning to point out a distortion in the editorial, and actually, it was a distortion of our views -- I can't think of anybody else they'd mean by this. He makes a really good point.
Here's the letter:
Man, that's good; thanks, Jeffrey.
The fact is, the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum in particular have made it clear that they believe schools should teach that sex is something that married people do. Most people want their kids to wait, but almost nobody does wait till they're actually married -- as I recall, about one or two percent of the population are still virgins when they marry. I would say that most people -- definitely most people in our group -- believe that it is important to persuade teens to wait until they're mature enough for sex, without necessarily defining the criterion as the ceremony of marriage.
So the Post was correct in that there are two points of view. They did correctly characterize the first group, who think it's worthwhile to invest energy in trying to persuade students to wait until they're married to have sex.
The second group must be us, we're the "other side" in this debate. And none of us think that "it's-okay-as-long-as-you-use-contraception." I have never heard a private comment to this effect by any parent in our group, and it is certainly not our public position.
Activist parents like those in a group like Teach the Facts probably tend to have stronger views than the majority of people -- there is no evidence that any of us hold "extreme" views about sexual choices, we just hold our views strongly. The TTF parents that I've talked to seem generally to be of the sort that give their kids all the information as soon as they ask for it, which is not an extreme view, and it is usually part of a general attitude of respect and caring for our children as human beings that most TTF parents strongly believe is a positive family value.
It's not like we've choreographed this or anything, but it seems like families that associate themselves with our side of the issue tend to see sex as a part of nature and an expression of love, with the understanding that sexual feelings can be manipulated and exploited; the conclusion is that teenagers should be given all the facts, so they know the dangers -- not only the dangers of pregnancy and infection, but risks to their reputation, to their feelings, to the way they see themselves. The original "old new" curriculum, adopted in 2004 and thrown out in 2005, addressed these issues very clearly; the "new new" curriculum is very much reduced in scope, and doesn't get into these issues one way or the other.
As I think about it, there are lots of interesting questions about how "our side" and "the other side" interpret and judge sexual beliefs, behaviors and attitudes. I expect we'll be talking about some of those questions here as we move forward in time. It's more than a "culture war" of our time, there are questions since the dawn of time about the proper relationship between our socialized selves and our natural selves.
I don't really need to add anything to this letter. I think he totally nailed it with that last part, about inventing a position just to be balanced. There is no "it's-okay-as-long-as-you-use-contraception gang." The Post just made that up.
A guy wrote to the Post this morning to point out a distortion in the editorial, and actually, it was a distortion of our views -- I can't think of anybody else they'd mean by this. He makes a really good point.
Here's the letter:
Your sensible April 18 editorial "Let's Talk About Sex" included a pointless reference:
"Maybe this report will be a bridge between the two extremes of the sex-education debate: the unrealistic no-sex-until-you're-married-crowd and the untenable it's-okay-as-long-as-you-use-contraception gang."
Many groups fall into the former camp, but I am unaware of any in the latter. Certainly many people, and maybe even groups, believe that sex between unmarried consenting adults is "okay," but I have never seen or heard of any organization whose stand is that sex involving unmarried teens or pre-teens is "okay."
The editorial's incorrect characterization did a disservice to readers and misrepresented the views of those who advocate contraceptive-condom education in sex education curricula. Unless you have a specific group in mind, it's neither good journalism nor good public discourse to invent an extremist position just to be "balanced."
JEFFREY P. RUSSELL
Silver Spring Wrong Approaches to Sex Ed
Man, that's good; thanks, Jeffrey.
The fact is, the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum in particular have made it clear that they believe schools should teach that sex is something that married people do. Most people want their kids to wait, but almost nobody does wait till they're actually married -- as I recall, about one or two percent of the population are still virgins when they marry. I would say that most people -- definitely most people in our group -- believe that it is important to persuade teens to wait until they're mature enough for sex, without necessarily defining the criterion as the ceremony of marriage.
So the Post was correct in that there are two points of view. They did correctly characterize the first group, who think it's worthwhile to invest energy in trying to persuade students to wait until they're married to have sex.
The second group must be us, we're the "other side" in this debate. And none of us think that "it's-okay-as-long-as-you-use-contraception." I have never heard a private comment to this effect by any parent in our group, and it is certainly not our public position.
Activist parents like those in a group like Teach the Facts probably tend to have stronger views than the majority of people -- there is no evidence that any of us hold "extreme" views about sexual choices, we just hold our views strongly. The TTF parents that I've talked to seem generally to be of the sort that give their kids all the information as soon as they ask for it, which is not an extreme view, and it is usually part of a general attitude of respect and caring for our children as human beings that most TTF parents strongly believe is a positive family value.
It's not like we've choreographed this or anything, but it seems like families that associate themselves with our side of the issue tend to see sex as a part of nature and an expression of love, with the understanding that sexual feelings can be manipulated and exploited; the conclusion is that teenagers should be given all the facts, so they know the dangers -- not only the dangers of pregnancy and infection, but risks to their reputation, to their feelings, to the way they see themselves. The original "old new" curriculum, adopted in 2004 and thrown out in 2005, addressed these issues very clearly; the "new new" curriculum is very much reduced in scope, and doesn't get into these issues one way or the other.
As I think about it, there are lots of interesting questions about how "our side" and "the other side" interpret and judge sexual beliefs, behaviors and attitudes. I expect we'll be talking about some of those questions here as we move forward in time. It's more than a "culture war" of our time, there are questions since the dawn of time about the proper relationship between our socialized selves and our natural selves.
I don't really need to add anything to this letter. I think he totally nailed it with that last part, about inventing a position just to be balanced. There is no "it's-okay-as-long-as-you-use-contraception gang." The Post just made that up.
posted by JimK at 10:03 AM
20 Comments:
"The other day we looked at the new government report showing that abstinence-only sex-ed doesn't work"
The study showed that programs to persuade teens to defer sexual activity until marriage are ineffective if they are based on making appeals to the teen's self-esteem. This is not really surprising since our mass media culture aggressively promotes the idea that sex is a normal part of relationships at any stage.
The study doesn't look at the effect of programs to persuade teens of the importance of social norms and moral codes.
What no one seems to mention either is that studies haven't found that any sexual education is very effective, at least concerning condom use. The study mentioned above found that of the kids studied, half of whom went through an ab-only program and half of whom had other sex-ed, presumably comprehensive, both groups were generally aware of condoms at similarly high rates and had similar low rates of condom usage.
Such inconvenient facts.
"there are lots of interesting questions about how "our side" and "the other side" interpret and judge sexual beliefs, behaviors and attitudes. I expect we'll be talking about some of those questions here as we move forward in time. It's more than a "culture war" of our time, there are questions since the dawn of time about the proper relationship between our socialized selves and our natural selves."
This is what TTF thinks?
What a surprise!
Who knew?
Anon, it's not obvious to me what it was in that sort of academic-sounding paragraph that set you off. I didn't say what TTF -- or anybody -- thinks, I merely remarked the obvious, that these questions arise constantly since the beginning of time.
JimK
"existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth"
This is Webster's defintion of "innate". It's interesting because Patricia O'Neill was ignorant enough to include "Webster's" definition in the curriculum as an insert with the statement that homosexuality is "innate". Scientists, however, have stated that it is PROBABLY a combination of factors both innate and external. Basically, she has wrongly included as a fact something that scientists don't agree on.
When will the PTA issue a resolution decrying this misuse of the county's education resources?
Anon, there is no disagreement among scientists about this. There is no disagreement among anybody. Sexual orientation is innate, obviously.
You will not be able to produce any scientific discussion with the word "external" in it. You may find something with the word "environment," which is a word that includes hormonal influences in the uterus.
JimK
old anon said The study mentioned above found that of the kids studied, half of whom went through an ab-only program and half of whom had other sex-ed, presumably comprehensive, both groups were generally aware of condoms at similarly high rates and had similar low rates of condom usage.
There's no need to "presume" anything when the study is available on line.
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf
This study was not designed to compare abstinence-only to comprehensive sex ed programs; it was designed to show the effectiveness of four different abstinence-only education programs at changing teen behavior. The four abstinence-only programs evaluated were the jewel crowns of the abstinence-only education crowd, and the fact that the study's results were released late in the day on Friday the 13th of April says it all. The study found abstinence-only education was INEFFECTIVE at changing teen behavior.
The FACTS are:
Through the study, more than 2,000 children were randomly assigned to groups that received abstinence-only counseling and those who received no counseling. Over the next four to six years, numerous surveys were done to determine the impact of these programs on the behavior of the kids.
Researchers found no evidence that these abstinence-only programs increased rates of sexual abstinence.
...Is 'Comprehensive' Any Better?
Proponents of abstinence-only sex education programs maintain that "comprehensive" sex-education programs — those that introduce ideas of safe sex in addition to abstinence — are untested and may not yield any better results.
"I don't think that this is quite true," Kempner says, adding that programs that go beyond abstinence have yet to receive the same federal funding and support enjoyed by their abstinence-only counterparts.
"We don't have any money," she says. "We need some money and some time like the abstinence-only people got."
Kempner adds that promising research backs up comprehensive programs.
"We have some good research suggesting that comprehensive programs are effective," she says. "I think that we will have much more support on comprehensive sex education, and I think this study will be a part of it."
Davidson argues that such programs could put more responsibility in the hands of the teens themselves, allowing them "make much better decisions" when it comes to sex.
"Abstinence-only education treats smart, thoughtful teens as if they are incapable of absorbing information or understanding themselves," she says.
"If government officials finally understand how important it is that young people receive complete and accurate sex information, whatever the cost of this study, it will have been worth it. It's time that people wake up."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=3048738&page=1
"We have some good research suggesting that comprehensive programs are effective,"
Well, by all means, let's see it.
"Sexual orientation is innate, obviously."
Why do you think that is so obvious when no one has yet determined what causes this abnormality? Scientific literature always qualifies their theories with "probably" or some equivalent. And the "probably" has sseemed to shift to biological bases only as societal fashion has shifted.
First, science searches for the answers to questions. There is no question here, and scientists have not asked for funding to investigate the obvious.
Second, causality is only proven through the experimental method. There are no independent variables that can be manipulated to test the hypothesis, which nobody has proposed, that sexual orientation is ... what? learned? Is that what you would like to distract us with -- the idea that sexual orientation is something you acquire?
Third, it doesn't matter. Most people are straight, some are gay, get over it.
JimK
"First, science searches for the answers to questions. There is no question here, and scientists have not asked for funding to investigate the obvious."
There is a question. Is this a tendenecy toward this behavior wired into a human or is it developed by experiences? Real scientists regard few things as simply "obvious".
"Second, causality is only proven through the experimental method. There are no independent variables that can be manipulated to test the hypothesis,"
Untrue.
"which nobody has proposed, that sexual orientation is ... what? learned? Is that what you would like to distract us with -- the idea that sexual orientation is something you acquire?"
Yes, that abnormal orientation results from some influences. Those without ADHD will likely remain undistracted.
"Third, it doesn't matter. Most people are straight, some are gay, get over it."
If it doesn't matter, than why did PFLAG puppet O'Neill slide it into the curriculum at the last moment?
Andrea-not anon-said
Anon, did your experiences make you straight? I was born straight; just like people are born gay. Whose puppet are you- CRC, PFOX or FOTF?
Andrea
"Anon, did your experiences make you straight? I was born straight; just like people are born gay."
Andy
You may just be suffering from a false dichotomy. Straight and gay aren't equal alternatives. Homosexuality is obviously a corruption of the normal way humans are supposed to interact. It's clear that homosexual practices are nothing more than a parody of heterosexuality. The desire to engage in this parody may just be caused by faulty adjustment to certain stresses. For some reason, likely experiential, some people have not acquired the ability to deal with these stresses in a rational manner.
"Whose puppet are you- CRC, PFOX or FOTF?"
Slave to the truth, my friend.
Anonymous said "You may just be suffering from a false dichotomy. Straight and gay aren't equal alternatives. Homosexuality is obviously a corruption of the normal way humans are supposed to interact. It's clear that homosexual practices are nothing more than a parody of heterosexuality. The desire to engage in this parody may just be caused by faulty adjustment to certain stresses. For some reason, likely experiential, some people have not acquired the ability to deal with these stresses in a rational manner.".
Anonymous, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Unlike you, I speak from experience and I have loved women deeply and now a man. The two experiences are most definitely equal alternatives. We know being gay is innate in the same way that we know handedness is innate. Just because the majority is straight and right handed doesn't mean that everyone was supposed to be that way and the existence of gays across all time and in all societies shows it to be normal for a minority of the population. Just like with straight people gay people report that their sexuality simply appeared and wasn't in anyway chosen or the result of "stresses".
It has been hypothesized that absent fathers create gay sons but such hypothesi have been shown to be nonsense by the fact that there was no boom in the population of gays caused by all the absent fathers during world war II for example.
Before Jeffrey Russell fires off another letter to the editor of the Washington Post he might want to better familiarize himself with many of the most popularly "medically accurate and factual" sex ed curriculums.
http://www.heritage.org/Research
/Welfare/upload/67539_1.pdf
I know, I know...it is (GASP!) research from The Heritage Foundation, though Table A on page 8 is either correct, or it is not. When the percentage of abstinence material is less than 5% in a so called abstinence based comprehensive sex education curriculum versus over 50% in an abstinence-only curriculum then an observer can reasonably conclude that all the talk of abstinence in the former is merely a thin veneer to give cover to what is at its core a contraceptive message.
Jim writes,
but almost nobody does wait till they're actually married -- as I recall, about one or two percent of the population are still virgins when they marry.
...
and then writes,
It's not like we've choreographed this or anything, but it seems like families that associate themselves with our side of the issue tend to see sex as a part of nature and an expression of love, with the understanding that sexual feelings can be manipulated and exploited; the conclusion is that teenagers should be given all the facts, so they know the dangers -- not only the dangers of pregnancy and infection, but risks to their reputation, to their feelings, to the way they see themselves.
Wow Jim, with such an understanding of what abstinence education is all about it is little wonder anyone believes it at all.
Face the Facts: You don't believe in it, TTF does not believe in it, Planned Parenthood (or for that matter AFY, SIECUS, et al) doesn't believe. And you expect cynical, know-it-all teenagers to take you seriously??? Well, the study of film has a term for that: suspension of disbelief.
Orin, it doesn't appear that you know what position it is that you're arguing against.
JimK
After a quick review of random portions of it, here are some interesting twists I found in this Heritage Foundation review.
The Heritage Foundation states:
The actual authors and distributors of the nine curricula of this type that were reviewed usually refer to the curricula simply as “HIV/STD prevention” or “STD/pregnancy prevention” programs.
In other words, the authors and distributors of what the Heritage Foundation calls "comprehensive sex ed curricula" say they wrote "HIV/STD or STD/pregnancy prevention" programs, not "comprehensive sex education" programs. Yet Heritage Foundation apparently reviewed these "disease prevention programs" as if they were "comprehensive sex ed programs" anyway. As the MCPS curriculum demonstrates, "disease prevention" is one of many segments of "authentic" comprehensive sex education. Other segments of MCPS's middle and high school sex ed curricula include abstinence, family life, and human development.
This undermines the entire Heritage Foundation review and is a prime example of the baldfaced spin Heritage is known for. The Heritage Foundation barrels full steam ahead with its anti-contraception agenda, claiming to be comparing comprehensive sex ed curricula with "authentic" abstinence-only curricula when they are actually substituting "disease prevention" programs for "comprehensive sex ed" programs. They must hope nobody notices.
The Heritage Foundation also states:
While polls suggest that parents also want teens to be taught the basic facts about contraception, most parents believe this should be taught separately, rather than as part of the abstinence curricula."
Appendix D, Question #14 shows that of the 1004 parents surveyed by Zogby in Dec. 2003, 39.9% agree that Teens should be encouraged to be abstinent and to use contraceptives in the same class. while 34.7% agree that Abstinence should be taught in an abstinence class, but facts about contraception should be taught in a separate class, such as a health class. A total of 25.4% were either unsure or felt that Sex education classes should not provide information about how to use and obtain condoms. The poll does NOT mention if these 25.4% want abstinence information provided in sex education classes or only in separate abstinence-only classes. The Zogby data indicates the largest group of parents surveyed want both abstinence and contraceptive messages taught "in the same class" in contrast to the Heritage Foundation's spin.
Note: In Appendix D, which reports the findings of the Dec. 2003 Zogby poll of 1004 parents with children under age 18, the Heritage Foundation notes that one of the 14 questions marked with an asterisk "combines data from two poll questions." They fail, however to note which question that is; none of the 14 Zogby poll questions is marked with an asterisk.
Garbage in, garbage out.
While we're discussing the finer points of polling data, let's remember that polls show over 90% of Americans believe teens should be taught that premarital sexual activity is wrong. Who's controlling these schools anyway? Obviously not the people.
The local community controls the schools. Did you happen to notice the Montgomery County school board election results from November 2006? Only school board candidates who support the new revised sex ed program got elected. Montgomery County Maryland is a true blue liberal and progressive suburb with a world renowned public school system.
"Montgomery County Maryland is a true blue liberal and progressive suburb"
Truly alone in its wackiness. If you'll remember, one reason the writers of the curriculum had so much trouble is because they couldn't find any already written curriculum that made the outlandish assertions that the TTF/MCPS coalition wanted to make. Believe me, there's money in them thar textbooks and if there was a demand for this stuff across the country, the books would be written.
If the over 90% number is right, then maybe the remainder, the fringe, mostly resides here.
Of course, the truth is that parents are apathetic because they know that whatever the curriculum, it really won't have much effect. TTF's idea that the last election was about the sex ed curriculum is a real honest-to-goodness knee-slapper.
You may have noticed we didn't see widespread protests when the erudite Judge Williams threw out the Fishback revisions. It won't happen when this one gets the heave-ho either.
andrea- not anon,
Anon- you are a hoot. Ever do stand-up? The "TTF/MCPS coalition"- good one. We get more powerful every day in your eyes. I guess next it will be TTF/Clinton/Obama, right?
Andrea
Post a Comment
<< Home