Posted on 02/01/2005 11:28:59 AM PST by nyg4168
> If advertising doesn't work, then why do corporations spend billions of dollars on it?
*Advertising for things people don't want* doesn't work.
> I remember I was a pre-teen when that first "scrambled egg" commercial came out. It was effective.
The "this is your brain" one? I believe I was in early/mid teens. It was ineffective with me. Because I had *already* made my determination that drugs were not for me. What sold me? Watching my schoolmates turn into drooling morons.
Reality is a far better teacher than a preacher.
Also, it doesn't help when everything in pop culture is telling kids to do the opposite.
That is the essence of the problem and why these programs fail.
>I doubt that would work today since ...
... a single shot woudl take care of most of those diseases, and for the ones that linger, there are TV-advertised treatments that make it look like you'll live just fine. And for oen of the STD's, it's attained, in some circles, a level of "you're damn near not cool if you don't have it."
The actual physical downsides of rampant and unwise sexuality are not what they once were. Unwanted pregnancies can be dealt with with a quick trip to the neighborhood Pre-Born Baby Suck-O-Lux Emporium; if you choose to keep said baby, Da Gubmint will take care of you at taxpayer expense. Ans what with the devaluation of the father figure... Single Mom is not nearly as unpalatable as it used to be.
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.
Wait a minute, am I missing something here? They are only discussing 23% of ninth-grade girls who were ALREADY sexually active. What about the other 77% who were not? What was the effect on them?
And perhaps the percentage might have gone up even more without the abstinence program. Maybe it would have gone up to 50%. Without a comparative study taken before the abstinence program was put in place, this study is meaningless.
Your statement is BS.
I don't know when you grew up but the Government stayed out of families when I grew up in the 50s. Morality was in, that is true, but it was "in" because the people wanted it such and carried it out at home. It was socially unacceptable for a girl to get pregnant when not married and this was the deciding factor when girls were making out in the cars with boys. Yes, fear of God may have played a part, fear of mom and dad was the biggest deterrent, for the boys too. If you were a boy did manage to have sex, you tried your hardest(no pun intended) to NOT get the girl pregnant! The consequences were just too great! The Government played no part in this, it was a societal thing and needs to be again.
The governement has no business teaching our children about sex, hetero or homo, period. Morality isn't something you can legislate and until our citizens make having sex by unmarried teens morally unacceptable in society our teens will have sex and STDs will continue to be a problem.
It should be obvious by now that teaching sex in school has done nothing to reduce teen sex nor has it reduced the incidents of STDs. Most teens don't think safe sex is cool, if they use that expression any more, and do it without condoms. Teaching at home and leaving the government out of the sex training business will work better than the system today.
I didn't realize his name was Buzz. No one with that name is ever wrong. His motto is "To promiscuity, and beyond".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.