Facts of life sexed up by US chastity lobby to keep lid on libidos

[emad]

Times

THEY call it the “hearts-and-libidos” campaign.
Sherry Smith, a 50-year-old former nurse from Pasadena, a leafy suburb of Los Angeles, is one of thousands of teachers across America who are promoting a new — or very old, depending on how you look at it — kind of sex education: condoms are “not what they’re cracked up to be”; mutual masturbation can cause pregnancy; and girls who have sex run the risk of suicide.

Much to the despair of liberal Americans, the statistics suggest that these so-called “abstinence-only” campaigns are working. According to the US Department of Health, the birth rate for American females between 15 and 19 years old was 43 per 1,000 in 2002 — less than half the rate of 101.1 in 1995. Even teenage boys seem to be less keen: only 31 per cent had sex in 2001, down from 43 per cent in 1995, according to the National Centre for Health Statistics.

Critics, led by the Californian Congressman Henry Waxman, say that more than 80 per cent of the abstinence-only curriculum contains “false, misleading or distorted information”.

In a report on the subject, Mr Waxman’s staff analysed the content of abstinence pamphlets with titles such as Sex Can Wait and Managing Pleasures Before Marriage. One claimed falsely that up to 10 per cent of women who had legal abortions would become sterile; another taught that women “need financial support”, while men need “admiration”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1430075,00.html

[molly]

1. We all know that thumpers don't live in the real world

they have imaginary stats along with their imaginary "playmates".

[Raster]

2. One need only think back to their high hormone holy days...

abstinence? yeah, that happened.

[iamjoy]

3. I Have A Better Idea

Let's just tell girls that sex is not enjoyable, and that it is something they must submit to once they are married to please their husband, a duty they must do - like vacuuming.

I mean, why be honest when lying works so much better?

[bleedingheart]

4. so fundies support the concept of "gold digging"

funny how bi-polar society really is..on one hand you have people who find it disgusting that people don't marry for love....and they are the liberals....

then you have the people who condone the idea of women marrying for financial support...and they are the fundies...

[MuseRider]

5. The article is just about

as bad as the program it is talking about. There is just so much wrong with this article and the way it is written. Don't you just love this line, "Much to the despair of liberal Americans, the statistics suggest that these so-called “abstinence-only” campaigns are working." and all it infers?

[progressoid]

8. No kidding. I thought that it was a clip from freeperland.

Some more of that liberal bias I guess.

[ExclamationPoint]

6. Blue State MA has the least amount of teen pregnancies

I don't think having sex is the problem, being responsible and using protection is. I don't think it has too much to do with your political affiliation, just your responsibility.
I'm against the distorted information, but not the low amount of teen pregnancies.

Edit: Actually New Hampshire does, Massaschusetts is second.

[asjr]

7. Ms Smith would have fit in very well in

the 1600s in Mass. She must be a reincarnation of the witch burners in that era. I am getting tired of others telling me what I can do and can't do with my own body.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

9. isn't the times a rupert murdoch rag?

Another thing - how do they know that this statement is true?

"Even teenage boys seem to be less keen: only 31 per cent had sex in 2001, down from 43 per cent in 1995, according to the National Centre for Health Statistics."

I remember all of those stupid questionaires they had us fill out in high school - everyone used to lie on them...

I remember a little while back the BA made the National Institute of Health claim that if a woman had an abortion she would most likely get breast cancer. :wtf:

[seabeyond]

10. break statistics down to those taking abstinence classes

and those that dont. those that take abstinence class has sex earlier and higher rate of preg than those that dnt take the class and the oath. so the reason for lower numbers to me indicate it isnt about the class

[InvisibleBallots]

11. These people see themselves as a counter to the Corporate Media and TV

"When you empower the kids, and tell them they don't have to have sex, it's a real eye-opener for them. Because what the teenagers see on television — Ally McBeal having sex with a complete stranger in a car wash, for example — is telling them otherwise."

Let's all read "What's the Matter with Kansas" chapter 8 which explains this dynamic. This would be an easy issue for the Progressive movement to pick off a few allies from the right wing, without going against our principles.

Kids are getting sex education from many sources - and the corporate media and television is a big part of it. The fundies are pushing sex education materials that are full of "false, misleading or distorted information" - so is the corporate media and television.

Parents are always worried their kids are having unsafe and unwise sex. They are always worried that their kids are getting "false, misleading or distorted information" - take these parents concerns seriously - like the fundies are doing - and we give them an alternative.

[grilled onions]

12. How do they know it's working?

Does every teen tell the truth when polled? Are the sex police there at every date,party etc? Is it because they are not reproducing or do they have "proof"?? Can some of them by slyly using birth control and the elders don't know it? Could it just be luck at times? You have to wonder how many teens have gone "cold turkey".:crazy:

[LisaLL]

13. Evidence check/Sneaky Trick Alert

"Much to the despair of liberal Americans, the statistics suggest that these so-called “abstinence-only” campaigns are working. According to the US Department of Health, the birth rate for American females between 15 and 19 years old was 43 per 1,000 in 2002 — less than half the rate of 101.1 in 1995"

There is no link that these programs reduce teen pregnancy rates. They have been extensively studied and there is *zero* evidence that abstinence-only programs increase abstinence.

75% of the reduction in teen pregnancy is secondary to improved contraception use. 25% due to more teenagers abstaining. Both of these phenomena have been shown to be outcomes of certain comprehensive sex ed programs. Neither has been shown to be an outcome of abstinence-only programs.

The sneaky trick revealed is that these anti-accurate-sex-ed folks are trying to take credit for an event that is unrelated to their programs.

For a reality check: notice that all of the credible medical groups (ACOG, AMA, APHA, AAP, etc) are opposed to funding abst-only programs because there is no scientific evidence that they work.

[gauguin57]

14. Paging June Cleaver ...

... June Cleaver, white courtesy phone ..

[Solly Mack]

15. Sperm pole-vault!!!!! (mutual masturbation causes pregnancy)

They do the high jump! broad jump! They can even do the shot put!!!!

WOW! Olympian sperm!!!!

And sperm can swim through clorinated water to get you pregnant too!

It's the Dream Team!!!!!!!

[LisaLL]

16. Insulting implication

"Much to the despair of liberal Americans, the statistics suggest that these so-called “abstinence-only” campaigns are working."

The problem in this statement is:

1. The insinuation that liberals would be disappointed in the outcome of decreased pregnancy is insulting and untrue.

2. It is meant to promote the idea that liberals are not interested in lowering teen pregnancy- also untrue. (Effective problem solving and transparent statement of goals are progressive values).

3. It lies about abst-only programs working by any scientific measure.

4. The statistics do not "suggest" that these programs are effective. There is no evidence that they are effective at this time. Deliberately distorting how the statistics appear is what they are doing to assert this.

Wow----so many falsehoods and misleading implication in this short statement! This is the NYTimes???? Who wrote the article?