State bans abstinence program (RI)

[struggle4progress]

By The Associated Press

PROVIDENCE - Rhode Island education officials have banned from public schools a federally funded abstinence program that civil rights advocates said embraced sexist stereotypes and included a voluntary student health survey that violated privacy laws.

Lawyers at the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union first complained last year that a now-abandoned textbook used by Heritage of Rhode Island taught students that girls should wear clothing that doesn't invite "lustful thoughts" from boys. The book described men as "strong" and "courageous" while women were called "caring."

A speaker on an accompanying videotape said abstinence helped him "honor my relationship with Jesus," although Heritage officials said the tape wasn't used in public schools.

"The curriculum had these incredible sexist viewpoints about men and women and boys and girls that seemed to come out of the nineteenth century," said Steven Brown, executive director of the state's ACLU. <snip>

http://www.thewesterlysun.com/articles/2006/03/23/news/news8.txt

[uppityperson]

1. very good

[MadMaddie]

2. Finally....some sanity......

[Bassic]

24. Feels good, doesen't it? nt

[Erika]

3. Like in Narnia, the winter is over

Now we need to rid our government of these right wing neocon theocratic fascists aka the Bush administration and their fringe supporters.

[saigon68]

20. They are all caught in the ninteenth century

When saloons and brothels were door to door in the wild west coast ---ooops

Wrong coast

[Tesha]

22. Wake me when RI throws out Lincoln Chaffee. (NT)

[tandot]

4. Good. Educate our children, don't dummify them

:thumbsup:

[BeyondThePale]

5. Ummm... did anybody think to add that abstinence doesn't work?

[Nevernose]

9. Abstinence education works better than nothing at all

Abstinence education works better than nothing at all; sex education (condoms, birth control, etc.) works better than nothing at all. Research shows that what works best is a combination of the two.

"These are the terrible, horrible things that could happen to you if you have sex, so don't have sex. If you DO have sex, and I know some of you will, wear a rubber."

Edited to add that Rhode Island sounds like it had some fucked-up, archaic paradigms about sex and gender.

[BeyondThePale]

12. Better at what?

Ok, abstinence may be better than nothing at preventing pregnancy and disease, but two thoughts:

1) better than nothing is not a great criteria

2) the brand of abstinence taught by these fundamentalist idiots involves a great deal of guilt and moralizing regarding a healthy bodily and social function. So, you wind up with:

a) really confused, fucked up kids when it comes to having sex
b) pregnancy and disease when they naturally have sex, but know nothing about contraception


I am afraid your argument just doesn't wash...

[kath]

13. Here's a very good book about what you wrote -that abstinence-only

ed is NO way to produce young adults with a healthy and responsible attitude toward sexuality:

"Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex" by Judith Levine.
The totally kick-ass foreword is by Dr. Joycelyn Elders.

[Nevernose]

15. Perhaps you missed my point, or perhaps I was unclear

I'm afraid that, cleanliness of our respective arguments aside, you apparently did not bother reading past the title of my post.

1) better than nothing is not a great criteria
No, it's not. We're in total, one-hundred percent agreement here. There are, however, factions in this country that take an all-or-nothing approach. Abstinence or nothing at all. In that case, it's better, IMO, to take the lesser of two evils until the policy can be changed.

2) the brand of abstinence taught by these fundamentalist idiots involves a great deal of guilt and moralizing regarding a healthy bodily and social function. So, you wind up with:

I said, in the orginal post, that Rhode Island sounds like it had some fucked-up, archaic paradigms about sex and gender. Note I was not talking about physical sexual characteristics when I said "sex," but was referring to the actual, physical act of sexual intercourse. (Their defintions of gender roles, while still fucked-up, are a side rant.) Perhaps I was unclear, or, more likely, I didn't edit that in for clarity until after you had begun writing your reply.

a) really confused, fucked up kids when it comes to having sex
Agreed, especially when it comes to teaching the all-mighty "Christian" values in our schools, and having abstinence based on some sort of pseudo-moral or religious doctrine, as oppossed to a carefully thought out, rational, individual decision. "Abstinence should not equal "sex is bad," but it's all too easy to confuse "abstinence" with "religious education" for those on the left as well as those on the right.

I'm not sure which is worse, though: a lot of confused kids and our resultant quasi-Victorian society, or just a few teenagers with babies of their own and perhaps HIV or an STD or two. This is not asked in an argumentative fashion, but as a legitamte question.

b) pregnancy and disease when they naturally have sex, but know nothing about contraception
The main point of my original post was that what works best is a combination of the two, teaching both abstinence AND contraception.

That's what the most recent studies show. Not one or the other, but both. I've known a pregant ten-year old whom our local school board thought was too young to have sex education. I know more unwed teenage mothers than most people know mothers of any age. I have a daughter of my own. If the science shows that a combination of the two approaches works better than one or the other individually, then I say go for it.

[AndyTiedye]

14. It's a FEDERAL Program. How Many Other States Still Have It?

[Nevernose]

16. When Kansas and Wyoming and Texas move into the 21st century?

Why not teach the kids that they shouldn't have sex until they are really, truly ready (abstinence), and when they do, they should wear a freaking condom?

Admittedly, the program in question is apparently totally fucked up, and is seems to me to be religion based. But what, in theory at least, is so wrong about telling twelve year olds to wait? And when they're done waiting, to wear a condom?

[AndyTiedye]

17. Nothing At All

But what, in theory at least, is so wrong about telling twelve year olds to wait? And when they're done waiting, to wear a condom?

Nothing at all. But that wouldn't qualify as an "abstinance-based program" the way the regime defines it,
and probably would not receive funding. They want programs that never mention birth control of any kind,
and are sponsored by their favorite churches.

[Kailassa]

18. Were teenagers really so different in your day?

If I didn't want my teenagers to do something, I just had to sternly say, "don't", and it was as good as done.

I remember going on a school camp when I was a teenager and being annoyed at the fact that this camp was originally meant to be free of rules, (hippie days, alternative education ideas), yet on the way we were each given a typed list of 10 camp rules. I made damn sure I openly broke every rule, even though taking a boat out on my own and getting caught in a current nearly got me killed.

It turned out that it was my own father who had bullied the school into having rules, and the teacher running the camp had been furious, first with my father, and then with me.

But my worried father had not thought of pushing rules against sex. We were 16 - 17 year olds, and the teachers figured if anyone had not had sex yet, it was time we did. So they took us out onto the dunes for the night, and we were instructed to partner up and each couple go off into the dunes and enjoy the night together.

If any kids actually had sex that night, I'd be really surprised. The next day those I spoke to had done the same as I'd done, sat up talking all night. A lot of friendships were made that night that lasted, it was uncanny how well the couples seemed to be suited. Now if we'd been told we must not have sex, I expect we all would have, instead of rebelling by just chatting and forming friendships.

So when, at 12, my daughter was under a lot of peer pressure to have sex, I said fine, but do it here in your own home. And I bought her condoms. I'd have been devastated if she actually had, but luckily it worked. Knowing she could do what she wanted in her own bedroom, she had nothing to rebel against, so she looked at guys a bit more critically.

Three of the 4 generations of women in this family were brought up on the abstinence theory, my daughter was brought up with freedom to choose. Yet we all chose to have sex at exactly the same age.

Abstinence for girls who are uneducated about sex just means kidding yourself that you won't do it until it's too late to use birth control. For the ones who have more idea what they are doing, it means having sex in every way that can't cause pregnancy and still considering themselves to be virgins afterwards.

[Mythsaje]

27. I have to laugh at parents (or would-be parents) who seem

to think that ruling over their kids (or especially teenagers)with an iron fist accomplishes anything positive.

The most screwed-up kids/teenagers I've ever met were controlled that way, and either became bullies, or completely rebelled.

And then there's "Questions--the anti-drug."

From watching others, I learned "Lying--the anti-parent."

Having an open, two-way relationship with your teen is going to be a lot more effective than interrogating them every time they want to go somewhere. "Who, what, where, when, how?"

Kids are mighty clever at working out ways to go around parental oversight. An intelligent parent realizes this and starts an on-going dialogue very early.

[flamingyouth]

6. Good.

Finally some state comes to its senses in this arena.

[raggedcompany]

7. Happy to hear it. n/t

[Longhorn]

8. Way to go, RI! n/t

[cap]

11. in heavily Catholic and heavily Democratic RI

three cheers...RI public schools are secular!

Southern Fundamentalism doesnt translate well up North... that's why Heritage needs to "retool"

[fujiyama]

10. Didn't Rhode Island

giev Kerry his largest margin of victory?

Smart state. Too bad they have that idiot Chafee as their senator. Granted, he's not bad as far as repukes go, but c'mon, times have changed. This isn't his father's party anymore.

[intheflow]

19. And yet RI is considering banning abortions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=591015

Ironies abound!

[cap]

21. wont happen..

RI is pro-choice... some nutcase in the legislature is having a field day.

Heavily Catholic, Heavily liberal Massachussetts voted for gay marriage and wont ban abortion.
RI is the same.

[LynneSin]

25. Every state has nut jobs trying to push the abortion ban

Rhode Island is safe

[Bassic]

23. At last, someone who is actually able to think is ivolved in the

decision making process.

Archaic ideas about the roles of men and women are not gonna make the Rapture happen any faster, you got it Fundies?

[LynneSin]

26. I just *love* their idea of an anonymous survey

To measure the Heritage program's effectiveness, students also had been asked to complete a voluntary survey in class that included questions about their sexual history. The survey asked students to provide their birthdays and the first letter of their first name.

Geez, if I fill out my information as "L" with the birthdate of 5/14/XXXX I guess no one would figure out that was me

:crazy:

[duhneece]

28. NM tried to make comprehensive sex ed a law

My very conservative county, Otero, was especially vocal in fighting it and just wants to keep its abstinence-only education...even for high school students.
I fought this when my son was in high school 10 yrs ago, but this county hasn't changed. Still lots of work to be done.

[slackmaster]

29. Abstinence is good like many other things...

But only in moderation.

:nuke:

[Kailassa]

30. Very true.

Five minutes of abstinence each day never hurt anyone.

[HuffleClaw]

31. "Heritage of Rhode Island has a three-year grant from...

...the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that provides $400,200 annually"

i suppose this is what FAITH-BASED funding gets ya? what a complete crock. and of course they include the jesus crap, though they aren't legally permitted to. 'an oversight' i expect they call it when caught. taxdollars paying for this crap is a horror.