Washington funds false sex lessons

Gary Younge in New York
Friday December 3, 2004
The Guardian

The Bush administration is funding sexual health projects that teach children that HIV can be contracted through sweat and tears, touching genitals can result in pregnancy, and that a 43-day-old foetus is a thinking person.

A congressional analysis of more than a dozen federally funded "abstinence-only programmes" unveiled a litany of "false, misleading and distorted information" in teaching materials after reviewing curriculums designed to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

There are more than 100 abstinence programmes, involving several million children aged nine to 18, and running in 25 states since 1999. They are funded by the federal government to the tune of $170m (£88.5m), twice the amount when George Bush came to power.

The money goes to religious, civic and medical organisations as grants. To qualify they may only talk about types of contraception in terms of their failure rates, not about how to use them, or the possible benefits.

The survey was conducted by the staff of congressman Henry Waxman of California, a longstanding Democratic critic of the Republican administration's approach to sex education. His team concentrated on the 13 programmes that are most widely used, and found only two of them were accurate.

"It is absolutely vital that the health education provided to America's youth be scientifically and medically accurate," Mr Waxman said. "The abstinence-only programmes reviewed in this report fail to meet this standard."

Other "facts" include that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, half the gay male teenagers in the US have tested positive for HIV, and condoms fail to prevent transmission of HIV in 31% of incidences of heterosexual intercourse. US government figures contradict all of these assertions.

AC Green's Game Plan - a programme named after a basketball player who said he would not have sex before marriage - teaches: "The popular claim that condoms help prevent the spread of STDs, is not supported by the data."

Mr Waxman told the Washington Post: "I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."

But government officials said Mr Waxman's report rehashed old anti-abstinence prejudices for political purposes. Alma Golden, the deputy assistant health and human services secretary for population affairs, said it took statements out of context to present programmes in the worst possible light.

"These issues have been raised before and discredited," Ms Golden said. "One thing is very clear for our children: abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs, and preventing pregnancy."

Mr Waxman also criticised some programmes for reinforcing sexist stereotypes to children. One - Why Know - says: "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments."

Another programme, Wait Training, says: "Just as a woman needs to feel a man's devotion to her, a man has a primary need to feel a woman's admiration. To admire a man is to regard him with wonder, delight, and approval. A man feels admired when his unique characteristics and talents happily amaze her."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 62,00.html



I feel like I'm reading the Vitalogy booklet

god what bullshit

Yea, that is some really, really sick shit

Man what a bunch of crap, huh? Are teachers actually going "Well, ok, if this is what we're supposed to teach."?

This line really made me laugh though:

"A man feels admired when his unique characteristics and talents happily amaze her."

If you want to teach abstinence, do you really have to fill it with lies and crap?

well. what do you expect when 51% of the country wants to pretend they live in 1956?
That's what they told girls then too. Strangely, all of those kids turned into hippys in the 60s...hmm, I can't imagine why.

Yea, and be glad you don't live here

Teaching that abstinance is a good way to avoid being pregnant or getting an STD. There is no question about that.

But it is utterly foolish not to teach about other methods of avoiding pregnancy and STDs and even DANGEROUS to teach things that are not scientifically true. ALL scientifically sound methods of contraception and disease prevention must also be taught.

And yes of course the parents should be teaching in addition to the schools.

This is certainly disconcerting, but luckily, most teachers will disregard what the government has to say about it.

Why can't the forces of abstinence and safe sex just UNITE? Then we just might get this problem closer to being solved.

I think abstinence only education is stupid, but I wouldn't have that much of a problem with it if they weren't flat out LYING to the kids. Obviously 2 of the programs Waxman studied were unobjectionable, so it can be done.

Also, A.C. Green is a lunatic.

--PunkDavid

its stupid to teach scientifically inaccurate and in fact misleading claims although a 43 day old foetus is quite advanced.

*ding*

You, sir, are correct.

Abstinance is something that should be included with the other safe sex methods. It should not be the only method discussed.

Abstinance only education really does not serve the students and neglects to give them all of the information they need.

my girlfriend was at the airing of crossfire on thursday when they were talking about this stuff. she was furious after the show.

quite frankly i'm appalled by all this, too.

I learned that if you even have an impure thought about a girl, she can get pregnant.

what the fuck is this shit?

I wish I had a coherent something to say about this, but I just feel like barfing.

And what about the parents? Why aren't parents teaching sex ed? The Largest population of parents in this country are Baby Boomers...the ones that started all that free love shit that ruined the childhoods of gen x (but it gave us Nirvana and Pearl Jam ). So if they are that open and free, then why they fuck aren't they taking responsibility for their own children?

I would like to see the methodology of this study..

what exaclty does he mean by program? Are these quotes of writen material? or did he quote what teachers were saying?

I didn't see anywhere where these programs are being taught in public schools

They say "curriculums designed to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. " and "The money goes to religious, civic and medical organisations as grants."

Well, what the hell does that mean? It would have been nice if the article EXPLICITY told us who is being taught this stuff and who is saying it.

Let's not lose our grasp on reality here. I doubt this is a case where the government is propogating this type of information. What we have hear is a case of over zealous teachers spouting off their personal beliefs, and dispelling lies to their students.

Bad, yes. The fault of the Bush administration? No.

I certainly hope that proper steps are taken to correct whatever problems exist, as it's a very serious matter.

Agreed.

Would you say that those "personal beliefs" fall in line with those of the Bush administration though?