Doggedly searching for the crux of the biscuit.
The social conservatives love to impose their abstinence-only sex ed programs and Bush has made them a central part of his proposed education package, so it's only fair to examine just how effective such programs are, right? And the best place to start looking would obviously be in his home state of Texas. So the Texas Department of Public Health decided to check the numbers and, uh, and, uhhh, hmmm.
Houston, we have a problem.
Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President George W. Bush’s education plan, have had no impact on teenagers' behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study. Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University. [...] The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex. Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education.
Catch that, folks? No impact whatsoever on their sexual behavior, except that they don't have the information at hand that might help them keep from getting knocked up or infected. This reminds me of something, but I can't quite put my finger on-- oh, I remember now: those DARE programs that don't do diddly in reducing drug use in schools. Yet, the amount of your tax money being thrown at these types of demonstrably useless feel-good programs continues its unabated upward trend. Why?
"These programs seem to be much more concerned about politics than kids, and we need to get over that," he said.
Yes, that would be the reason.
(via Robust McManlyPants)
TrackBackPerhaps they really want the birth rate to rise in the red states?
Posted by: Ru at February 3, 2005 03:12 PMIf only it were thought out that well. I suspect the real subconscious drive is to punish kids for sexual behavior. If you teach them how to avoid pregnancy and STDs, then they might just have enjoyable sex without life-altering consequences and that would be UNACCEPTABLE.
Posted by: apostropher at February 3, 2005 03:17 PMWithout pregnant kids in the back of the room trying to hide their impending deliveries, where will Texas kids find the outcasts to pick on? Decades of after-school specials have left our pool of whisper-campaign target resources dangerously low.
Also, if we can shame them early in life for their natural curiosity, we can have them emotionally bruised and psychologically vulnerable well before we sign them up to "vote," right?
(PS: Lord, but Pivot mangled that post. I cleaned it up a touch. Not much, but hey, mystery brackets are gone, at least.)
Posted by: Robust McManlyPants at February 3, 2005 04:03 PMwhere will Texas kids find the outcasts to pick on?
Mexicans.
Posted by: apostropher at February 3, 2005 04:07 PMBut apostropher, that would require spending the cash to teach them English and treat them like human beings first. As it stands now, Texas gets to keep them marginalized and spend money on Jesus' own white people. Everybody wins!
Posted by: Robust McManlyPants at February 3, 2005 04:52 PMA statistic I heard on NPR some time ago: those under 25 will face a 1 in 2 STD infection rate (probably most are chronic/uncurable). I'd think that would motivate most thinking people to make sure their kids have a condom with them each time they leave the house: "Do you have your coat?" "How about a condom?" "Drive carefully!"
Posted by: Ru at February 4, 2005 12:15 AMthose DARE programs that don't do diddly in reducing drug use in schools
Funny that. In my lovely little town of Fayetteville the Dare program served only examples of what the poor kids could attain, e.g., a fatty low-rider, if they sold drugs. If you are living in a one-bedroom trailer, the dream of owning a Cadillac and some bling-bling are a little more pressing than the far away reality of ending up in a cell. At least you’d only have to share the jail cell with one person instead of four.
The America that continues to express shock at the thought of “13 and 14 year old babies” having sex is amusing to me. Examine your family tree more carefully, I’ll bet you notice that a few generations ago, marrying and babies began at that age.
Sex is biological. Abstinence is not. Biology wins.