Selling a dangerous lie (Sex Ed)

townhall.com ^ | 12/17/05 | Rebecca Hagelin

[kattracks]

What is it about sex education that causes some otherwise rational adults to behave irrationally?

 When it comes to other topics -- smoking, drinking, drug abuse -- we don’t hesitate to give our children the benefit of an unambiguous “no.” We tell them flat out that they shouldn’t do it. If anyone said, “But kids are going to drink any way, so let’s show them how they can minimize the effects of a hangover,” most parents would suggest that that person have his head examined.

 Yet who can deny that the same logic (or lack thereof) lies behind the push for “comprehensive” sex ed? In the name of “safety,” we’ve allowed a river of pornography to flow through our schools for the last couple of decades. “Condom races,” in which teams of teens compete to see who can unroll a condom onto a cucumber the fastest, are only the tip of the truth-is-relative iceberg here, folks.

Well, I’m not the only parent (thank God) who thinks this in unacceptable. A recent Zogby poll shows that 91 percent of parents want their children to receive a clear-cut abstinence message. And many school districts nationwide have gotten the message and ditched their “safe-sex” and “abstinence-plus” programs for true abstinence ones.

Now we’re hearing a growing chorus of liberal voices claiming the abstinence-only programs that parents say they want their children to receive are misleading, naïve, ineffective and damaging. These programs, critics say, leave innocent teens to face sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), pregnancy or worse without proper knowledge of how to use the almighty condom.

Those voices have made two media splashes lately. One is a hysterical column by Frank Rich in The New York Times that makes it sounds as if backwoods red-staters want to make sex illegal. The other is a report published on House Government Reform Committee letterhead and signed by Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat whose district includes Hollywood. According to the Waxman report, abstinence programs are subjecting students to “false and misleading information” about sex.

Well, do the programs work? The Waxman report and the Rich column both claim that abstinence programs haven’t been shown to be effective in preventing teen pregnancy or reducing STDs.

But Robert Rector and Melissa Pardue, two scholars at The Heritage Foundation who research these policy areas thoroughly, say 10 scientific evaluations (four of them peer-reviewed) have found abstinence programs effective both at reducing teen pregnancy and at reducing sexually transmitted diseases.

And abstinence programs do even more, Rector notes. They “also can provide the foundation for personal responsibility and enduring marital commitment,” he writes in one Heritage Foundation report. “Therefore, they are vitally important to efforts aimed at reducing out-of-wedlock childbearing among young adult women, improving child well-being, and increasing adult happiness over the long term.”

Rich also ripped into virginity pledges -- in which students pledge to abstain at least through high school -- calling them ineffective and downright dangerous. But another Heritage report that relies on data from the federally funded National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health shows how wrong he is.

“Adolescents who take a virginity pledge have substantially lower levels of sexual activity and better life outcomes when compared with similar adolescents who do not make such a pledge,” the report says. “In addition, making a virginity pledge is not associated with any long-term negative outcomes. For example, teen pledgers who do become sexually active are not less likely to use contraception.”

Plus, as my friends at Project Reality point out, if condoms were effective at reducing STDs, then, as condom use goes up, STDs should go down. But they’ve grown right along with condom use.

Seriously, who can deny the dangers of sex for teens? We know that the rates of depression and suicide are higher among teens who are sexually active. We know sexually active kids are more likely to drink, smoke and use drugs. And we know -- as parents, educators and members of the community -- that kids strive to meet the expectations we set for them.

If we subject our children to programs that say, in essence, “We know you’re going to have sex,” we shouldn’t be surprised when they do. If we tell them we expect them to abstain, on the other hand, many of them (not all, but let’s be reasonable) will do just that.

We owe them the truth. And the “safe-sex” message is a lie.

Rebecca Hagelin is a vice president of The Heritage Foundation, a Townhall.com member group.

[jwalburg]

Good article, but as for But kids are going to drink any way, so let’s show them how they can minimize the effects of a hangover

I once talked to a school employee who said that when his kids were in high school he let them drink with their friends in the basement at his home so they wouldn't drink and drive. Really.

[kingu]

The biggest problem with the 'safe sex' teaching program, in my opinion, is that it fosters trans-generational sexual relationships -- in other words, it makes it easier for older men to prey upon young women. We turn sex into a learning experience, and young people naturally turn to those older than them to teach them.

That's not the rule in our house, and luckily we've a school district that also basically believes the same thing. And since they've had this program in place, enrollment at the district alternative high school has dropped to the point where the district is considering selling the campus to a private school and moving the alternative high school to a couple of temporary buildings at district headquarters.

Abstinence only works; it worked for our parents, it'll work for our kids.

[sixthousandrpm]

I actually tend to agree with the "let em drink in the basement" logic speaking as a teenager myself. It is a good idea for two reasons: first, the real danger of alcohol is drinking and driving. If friends come over and spend the the night its a lot safer than having a bunch of drunk party goers drive home drunk. Second, the other big danger Ive seen in college is binge drinking to the point it becomes life threatening because people don't know the effects of alcohol. They get to college and go nuts. Both of these problems can be avoided if kids learn how to drink responsibly in a safe environment.

[endthematrix]

Yes. And in Naperville, IL there was a town uproar over an ordnance that charged underage teens at a party even if not participating in consumption. There was a big party and a number of kids were busted who claimed they weren't drinking. Oh, the high-society culture screamed, "not my kid!" The excuses were plenty from the kids: "I was a designated driver." "I was just going to go help a drink friend in need."

[Melas]

Abstinence only works; it worked for our parents, it'll work for our kids.

Huh? How old are you, 300? My parents were born in the early 20's, and from tales I've heard, abstinance was hardly the buzzword of World War II.

[agere_contra]

My mother was "of age" in WW2 and she was abstinent. As were all her friends. Mores really were different then.

[weegee]

Now we’re hearing a growing chorus of liberal voices claiming the abstinence-only programs that parents say they want their children to receive are misleading, naïve, ineffective and damaging. These programs, critics say, leave innocent teens to face sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), pregnancy or worse without proper knowledge of how to use the almighty condom.

When has a liberal ever told the truth to advance his/her agenda? Read up on the Sex Positive Agenda and you will find that they oppose "abstinence" not because it doesn't work but because they find the entire concept of abstinence to be unhealthy. Just as they oppose telling a homosexual not to act on those urges, they feel that abstinence is denying sexual desires that people should act on.

[Melas]

My mother was "of age" in WW2 and she was abstinent. As were all her friends. Mores really were different then.

Uh-huh. Sure. You should hear the cleaned up version of my youth that I feed my kids. I hate to be the one to tell you, but we weren't as chaste during the 30's and 40's as a lot folks like to pretend.

[Ma3lst0rm]

You are right, for the leftist sexual urges can not possibly be controled. I think the reason this is so is they see sex as their political weapon of choice in the corruption of children and the skewing of their political and sexual maturation into one of choatic indulgence. Sexuality is a powerful tool to shape identity and by having sex replace religion and social responsibility as the premier priority they achieve two political goals of the elite. They create a class of morons who are so caught up in their selfish indulgences that raising the children they manage to have becomes the unquestioned responsibility of the state and they become ever more willing to allow the state to manage their lives to a greater degree creating a cycle of dependancy and reinforcing the victim politics designed to enslave the minds, and lives of the citizenry to dependancy on an ever increasing bureaucracy where essential freedoms are slowly eroded and replace by government agency and fluff freedoms (sexual expression, et.) are exalted.

[American Vet Repairman]

"You are right, for the leftist sexual urges can not possibly be controled"

That is true as can be. Liberals define who they are by sex. They do not see a sanctity in relationships and only want the world to fix the problems that an overactive sex life can cause. Sex is wonderful-but in the context of a lifelong monogamous relationship it is ideal. As a nurse I have lost count in the sexually transmitted diseases I have seen. And I mean disfiguring things to people who should be enjoying life but are getting lifelong procedures and treatments just to stay somewhat healthy. In the Navy they would say, "To be safe, keep the buttons buttoned".

[weegee]

"Free love" was tried in the 1960s and some children of hippies have gone through decades of counselling because they "learned" it was wrong to say no to sex.

[weegee]

More parents encourage their kids to be sexually active today. They'd rather be a "friend" than a parent. Witness stripper wear for grade school students available at major department stores everywhere.