Watching videos of representatives of organizations like the Abstinence Clearinghouse, the CWA, and the IWF always makes me tense, and I finally realized that it’s the women themselves (and women are the official faces of all these misogynist groups) that make me nervous. The permanent grins affixed to their faces from a youth misspent in drill team practice and the tension radiating from them that indicates they’re about to crap a diamond if they could relax their sphincter muscles enough to release it is a winning combination for making people uneasy. All that lying must do a number on your stress levels. I didn’t even realize a person could grin and grind her teeth at the same time.
Still, Rachel Maddow is on the video, and that makes it worth watching.
81 Responses to “They’re onto us, grin harder!”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Amazing. I really am impressed about the ability of these people to completely ignore reality, even if it comes in hard numbers, certified by every reliable study on this planet.
Kudos to Dan Abrams for keeping the discussion on a realistic level and not allowing Valerie Huber to take the discussion in the direction she wanted it to go. The best was at the end where they challenged the study she was quoting. Rachael Maddow ftw with “whenever I evaluate myself, I turn out to be doing awesome as well”. heh.
This is the kind of reporting we need to be seeing more of. Fair and balanced shouldn’t mean giving nutty ideas equal airtime with proven facts.
Clearly, abstinence-only education is working like a friggin’ charm. A charm that has “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA” engraved on the back.
Jeebus. What the fuck is wrong with these people? Advocacy for abstinence-only “education” is open advocacy for STDs, for teenage pregnancy, for premarital sex, for abortion, and just in general, for poor sexual health in teens that will continue to damage them and everyone they come into contact with for the rest of their lives. We don’t even need to cite the copious statistical evidence that substantiates this, because even if it’s only examined in the abstract realm of the thought experiment, these things are still the natural, logical, and quite inevitable conclusion of the abstinence-only curriculum.
The lies they tell get more elaborate and ridiculous (but at the same time, also more vague and devoid of anything even remotely resembling actual content) every time I hear them. I can’t even imagine what it’s like to go through one’s entire life without ever uttering even a single truthful statement, but these people have the façade down pat.
I don’t think there’s an honest bone in Hubert’s body. And no matter how many times she throws out the word “actually” or the phrases, “the fact is” and “in reality”, she’s still wrong.
Her use of weasel words and evasion techniques should form the basis of a drinking game.
Here’s a snippet:
ABRAMS: “So the congressional study wasn’t true?”
HUBER: “We know that there are a number of reports that show that abstinence education is effective –”
ABRAMS: “Let’s talk about the congressional study. That one isn’t true? I mean it says that really there’s no evidence that it works.”
HUBER: “Well actually, what that study does reveal is that abstinence education – we need to have more of it rather than less.”
ABRAMS: “Wait. So because it doesn’t work, we got to have more of it to make it not work even more.”
HUBER: “Actually, if you look at the study, what it reveals is that you cannot present abstinence education one time to young teens and expect it to have a stick-factor. It has to be continued and reinforced throughout their difficult adolescent years.”
CROSSTALK
MADDOW : “I’m sorry to interrupt. I’ll just interject for a moment that I feel like what we have learned about abstinence-only education is that not only is it not effective at either delaying or stopping young people from having sexual intercourse, but by…making it [an] abstinence only approach, people receiving that form of education get less information about pregnancy, STDs, and HIV; and it makes them more susceptible to those things.”
CROSSTALK
HUBER: “Actually, that’s not true at all. Abstinence education is a holistic message that provides information on relationship-building, accurate information on STDs, and yes, accurate information on contraception – all within the discussion of why abstinence is the best choice.”
CROSSTALK
ABRAMS: “Let’s be honest. What you mean by talking about what they’re teaching about the use of condoms etcetera is that they don’t work, right? I mean, abstinence-only only talks about the failure rate of condoms.”
HUBER: “Abstinence education provides a realistic and accurate discussion of contraception, all within the context of why abstinence is the best choice. Teens are presented all the information necessary to make wise decisions.”
…and later…
HUBERT: “No. The reality is that teens are resonating with the message of abstinence education in increasing numbers. There’s trends data to show that more and more teens are abstaining.”
ABRAMS: “That’s not what the studies show! You’re losing on the studies.”
HUBER: “No, that’s not true. In fact, a recent study just released –“
ABRAMS: “From who?”
HUBER: “Virginia’s abstinence education program.”
…and later still…
MADDOW: “Whenever I evaluate myself, I turn out to be doing awesome.”
I don’t think there’s an honest bone in Hubert’s body. And no matter how many times she throws out the word “actually” or the phrases, “the fact is” and “in reality”, she’s still wrong.
Her use of weasel words and evasion techniques should form the basis of a drinking game.
Here’s a snippet:
ABRAMS: “So the congressional study wasn’t true?”
HUBER: “We know that there are a number of reports that show that abstinence education is effective…”
ABRAMS: “Let’s talk about the congressional study. That one isn’t true? I mean it says that really there’s no evidence that it works.”
HUBER: “Well actually, what that study does reveal is that abstinence education – we need to have more of it rather than less.”
ABRAMS: “Wait. So because it doesn’t work, we got to have more of it to make it not work even more.”
HUBER: “Actually, if you look at the study, what it reveals is that you cannot present abstinence education one time to young teens and expect it to have a stick-factor. It has to be continued and reinforced throughout their difficult adolescent years.”
CROSSTALK
MADDOW : “I’m sorry to interrupt. I’ll just interject for a moment that I feel like what we have learned about abstinence-only education is that not only is it not effective at either delaying or stopping young people from having sexual intercourse, but by…making it [an] abstinence only approach, people receiving that form of education get less information about pregnancy, STDs, and HIV; and it makes them more susceptible to those things.”
CROSSTALK
HUBER: “Actually, that’s not true at all. Abstinence education is a holistic message that provides information on relationship-building, accurate information on STDs, and yes, accurate information on contraception – all within the discussion of why abstinence is the best choice.”
CROSSTALK
ABRAMS: “Let’s be honest. What you mean by talking about what they’re teaching about the use of condoms etcetera is that they don’t work, right? I mean, abstinence-only only talks about the failure rate of condoms.”
HUBER: “Abstinence education provides a realistic and accurate discussion of contraception, all within the context of why abstinence is the best choice. Teens are presented all the information necessary to make wise decisions.”
…and later…
HUBERT: “No. The reality is that teens are resonating with the message of abstinence education in increasing numbers. There’s trends data to show that more and more teens are abstaining.”
ABRAMS: “That’s not what the studies show! You’re losing on the studies.”
HUBER: “No, that’s not true. In fact, a recent study just released –“
ABRAMS: “From who?”
HUBER: “Virginia’s abstinence education program.”
…and later still…
MADDOW: “Whenever I evaluate myself, I turn out to be doing awesome.”
kodiak:
I’ve got a longer and more general comment trapped in moderation, but this was my favorite part of the segment, too, especially when Valerie Huber then tried to insist that the group she was citing, which actually contained the word “abstinence” in its name, had somehow managed to conduct an “independent study.”
Sometimes, Teh Stupid burns too much.
I have a partial transcript stuck in moderation, and that was the comment on which I ended it. Maddow kicked much ass with that one.
I like that that “independent” study cited by Valerie was in a state called Virginia.
Ya, that’s why I felt it was great that the host didn’t just allow her to cite “a study” but instead made her say *which* study and by *who* so that it could be properly evaluated.
I have respect for too few “journalists” on these kinds of issues, but Dan Abrams just gave me a glimmer of hope that the kool-aid is wearing off.
Dare I hope that as this administration comes to an end and we start looking for our next president, we might get some ACTUAL reporting with substance?
Actually Amanda, I hope they are getting paid assloads of money to grin and lie. Independent women lying for pay is better than only white men lying for pay. Sorta.
“independent study” my ass
Abstinence only education is just another name for security through obscurity.
And that has a dreadful record of success in the real world.
It is too bad Maddow did not mention the Waxman report that included all of the misinformation and gender sterotypes that fill the abstinence only programs.
Education is supposed to be preparing children for life as productive adults, isn’t it? And not teaching anything practical about sexual health, for their future, when as adults sex is not only acceptable (at least when married) to everyone but pretty damn likely to occur at some point, does this how? It doesn’t? So, why is it considered sex education of any sort again?
Right. Nothing to see here. I hate these evil people.
The angle at which she held her neck was causing me physical pain to watch. Did she move her lower body at all while talking?
I had a big ol’ crush on Rachel Maddow the first time I heard her on Air America when they first launched and she had an 8-11 slot with Liz Winstead and Chuck D. I heart her so much.
That looked painful for Hubert. And the only real thing she has was “that’s not true” which for the wingnuts is usually good enough to get away with, going for the whole “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Stop looking! Seriously, you can’t handle the man behind the curtain!”
Color me tickled pink that a MSM source actually asked the *hard* questions (which aren’t hard at all) and didn’t let them get away with their usual evading tripe. And like Kodiak I was clapping that Abrams actually made her tell him WHICH study approved of abstinence only and I was even more happy that he pointed out the very state the group was in has just denied federal funding for more abstinence only education.
Perhaps the Kool-Aid is wearing off indeed, but I’m afraid to be hopeful…
The permanent grins affixed to their faces from a youth misspent in drill team practice and the tension radiating from them that indicates they’re about to crap a diamond if they could relax their sphincter muscles enough to release it is a winning combination for making people uneasy.
It’s the Vaseline on their teeth.
They have three expressions: the rictus grin, rage, and panic. You only get to see the latter two for a second when they’re caught off guard in an interview. At least that’s the impression i get from Beverly LaHaye.
Hey, heres a radical idea:
Lets treat sex ed the same way we treat religion in school. That is, keep it at home.
You’re under the mistaken impression that abstinence-only “education” has anything remotely to do with preventing any of those things. Looked at in the broader context of the anti-abortion and anti-birth control movements as well as the traditional gender roles heavily pushed in these programs, and it becomes clear that the purpose is to undermine girl’s sexual and reproductive autonomy by attempting to systematically deny them the knowledge and the means to take charge of their own sexuality and sexual health.
“Lets treat sex ed the same way we treat religion in school. That is, keep it at home.”
I’m pretty sure that’s how we got into a lot of the trouble we’re in regarding how people conduct their sex lives.
If your parents are ignorant (which a huge number are), then how can they give you any more than the barest outline of what you need to know?
We need to break the cycle of sexual ignorance, not propagate it…
Unfortunately, Atomic, there are many, many ways to worship, but there’s only one way to get pregnant. (short of divine and/or scientific intervention, that is)
Sex ed is more like vaccinations. The more people that get it, the better off everyone is in general.
If your parents are ignorant (which a huge number are), then how can they give you any more than the barest outline of what you need to know?
This isn’t like teaching algebra or evolution. Any semi-literate 15 year old can hop on the internet and look up articles about sex and contraception. At least I would hope so.
Matters such as whether to wait for marriage or not are entirely personal, like religion and no preference should be expressed for either option in tax payer funded schools.
Oh, women by no means have a monopoly on that pasted-on-grin thing. The fundie guys do it too. When have you ever seen, for instance, Pat Robertson without at least a trace of a shit-eating grin?
Unfortunately, Atomic, there are many, many ways to worship, but there’s only one way to get pregnant. (short of divine and/or scientific intervention, that is)
I was talking more about the moral issues surrounding sex (whether to wait for marriage, etc) rather than the basic mechanics.
Exactly. So health class should teach all the medical information - STD’s, pregnancy, psychological issues, sexual assault and abuse, contraception (proper use, effectiveness, pro’s and cons - including, yes, a mention that abstinence is the only kind that’s 100% effective) - not whether to wait for marriage or not.
This is all stuff they need to know to be healthy adults, whether they wait for marriage or not. That’s what education is for - teaching kids things they need to know before they need them.
Exactly. So health class should teach all the medical information - STD’s, pregnancy, psychological issues, sexual assault and abuse, contraception (proper use, effectiveness, pro’s and cons - including, yes, a mention that abstinence is the only kind that’s 100% effective) - not whether to wait for marriage or not.
Sure. But when you get into handing out condoms and birth control pills in public school, thats when you lose me.
Sure. But when you get into handing out condoms and birth control pills in public school, thats when you lose me.
Yay for STIs and teen pregnancy!
Right. This is why sex-ed classes are normally called something like “health” rather than “moral dictats.” They can learn algebra and evolution the same way. However, they don’t. Either because they don’t have the self-discipline or they simply don’t think it’s important enough. So why do you think information about sex and contraception is different? They hand out ham & cheese sandwiches in school cafeterias, too, but you don’t see Jewish students complaining that this is offensive, given that there are plenty of alternatives also available in the cafeteria.So why do you think information about sex and contraception is different?
Because teenagers are usually very much interested in sex, due to the fact that it is a primary (if not the primary, next to hunger) human drive?
They hand out ham & cheese sandwiches in school cafeterias, too, but you don’t see Jewish students complaining that this is offensive, given that there are plenty of alternatives also available in the cafeteria.
A parent can pack their child whatever lunch they want.
Its not the “offensive” thing that bothers me. Its the public school playing surrogate parent. If I had a child and found out my 13-year old daughter or son was getting condoms and/or birth control pills from the school nurse without talking to me about it first, I don’t know about you but I’d be pretty pissed off at the school for thinking it knew how to raise my kids better than I do.
Sure. But when you get into handing out condoms and birth control pills in public school, thats when you lose me.
Fruitbat, what was your high school like?
Mine didn’t give out condoms or birth control pills. Instead, they had babies. Abortions, too, though I had no way of keeping count of those.
I don’t know how many of those couples used birth control haphazardly, or actually wanted a baby. I know that some counted on pulling out, while others just went and had unprotected sex (sometimes as a result of pressure from the boyfriend, sometimes not).
Teenagers have never needed adults’ approval to fuck. They’ve fucked when fucking meant risking their very lives. They still do. Making it a little bit more difficult for them to get birth control because we disapprove and don’t want to encourage them will change nothing. Making it a little bit easier might.
An analogy: Gym class. The gym teacher starts telling the kids about skateboarding. Skateboarding is always a risk, he says, but there are ways to minimize that risk. Helmets. Kneepads. Elbow pads. This is what can happen to you if you use the helmets, and here’s what can happen to you if you don’t.
Finally, knowing that some of these kids will skateboard anyway even if they can’t get helmets, he points to a box of helmets by his office door. Is he telling the kids that they should skateboard, or that they shouldn’t? No, he’s offering information and safety equipment. And maybe there’s one kid in his audience who avoids life in a wheelchair because of it. Isn’t that worth it?
Sure. But when you get into handing out condoms and birth control pills in public school, thats when you lose me.
Fruitbat, what was your high school like?
Mine didn’t give out condoms or birth control pills. Instead, they had babies. Abortions, too, though I had no way of keeping count of those.
I don’t know how many of those couples used birth control haphazardly, or actually wanted a baby. I know that some counted on pulling out, while others just went and had unprotected sex (sometimes as a result of pressure from the boyfriend, sometimes not).
Teenagers have never needed adults’ approval to fuck. They’ve fucked when fucking meant risking their very lives. They still do. Making it a little bit more difficult for them to get birth control because we disapprove and don’t want to encourage them will change nothing. Making it a little bit easier might.
An analogy: Gym class. The gym teacher starts telling the kids about skateboarding. Skateboarding is always a risk, he says, but there are ways to minimize that risk. Helmets. Kneepads. Elbow pads. This is what can happen to you if you use the helmets, and here’s what can happen to you if you don’t.
Finally, knowing that some of these kids will skateboard anyway even if they can’t get helmets, he points to a box of helmets by his office door. Is he telling the kids that they should skateboard, or that they shouldn’t? No, he’s offering information and safety equipment. And maybe there’s one kid in his audience who avoids life in a wheelchair because of it. Isn’t that worth it?
Can someone find the study that Huber was referring to? I can find plenty of news stories about it, but not the actual report itself. My google-fu is failing me, apparently…
If you have sex, you will die.
I almost forgot this.
If your problem is the money being spent, instead consider the money being saved. Unwanted children of unprepared parents can be a serious drain on society.
You will die anyway, so why not have sex?
So are these women victims of patriarchy? Do they deserve pity or a swift kick up the ass?
(not a literal kick, of course (unless nobody’s watching))
Yes. Not that it excuses what they’re doing. They’ve accepted positions as favored servants (”You’re not like most women, you’re smart, you’re a lady…”) and thus don’t want freedom; they’re so afraid of losing their privileges that they’ll fight any attempt to create equality.
This is a both/and blog.
Valerie Huber - teens are getting ALL the information to make informed decisions? Then riddle me this
If it’s so damn good and Rachel is wrong, why are the rates going up?
Oh yeah, they need more abstinence education. How much more, every damn week, for their entire middle and high school career?
How about afterward when they go to college?
Truth is, Rachel is right, these programs are KILLING people.
Valerie Huber - teens are getting ALL the information to make informed decisions? Then riddle me this
If it’s so damn good and Rachel is wrong, why are the rates going up?
Oh yeah, they need more abstinence education. How much more, every damn week, for their entire middle and high school career?
How about afterward when they go to college?
Truth is, Rachel is right, these programs are KILLING people.
AtomicFruitbat-
This isn’t like teaching algebra or evolution. Any semi-literate 15 year old can hop on the internet and look up articles about sex and contraception.
Tyro-
They can learn algebra and evolution the same way. However, they don’t.
Me-
Actually the average 15 year old could goggle up a tutorial about algebra pretty easy, even I can do that and I’m 36. Finding basic evolution beat me, but a 15 yo kid could probably get it eventually, but fact based sex ed on the internet? I mean Come On!
Ok just tried it and teens can easily find valid sex from goggle the first to sites were TeenSource.org (which is pretty bad now that i look at it) then Scarleteen (pretty good by all accounts) then SexEct (which looks good too). A kid can easily find both valid info and disinformation on the web. So while it’d be better to have somebody present real info to kids in class, but when you look up “teen sex ed” the first 1000 sites aren’t old man/girl p0rn like I thought they’d be.
How is she a servant?
Oh, please. There is a vast amount of misinformation out there, especially on the internet, so it should be up to schools to give good information.
Also, the average 15 year old, or average person in general, has pretty bad reading/internets comprehension skills. They might go to a reputable site with good information, sure. They might also stumble upon one of the many conservative/christian sites with just the kind of bad sex information being peddled by abstinence education. They might go to a message board where they’ll ask a question and get a variety of answers, some of which may be completely wrong, but they might take it seriously anyway. At any rate they’ll likely come upon a lot of conflicting information.
As an example(that doesn’t precisely prove my point, but whatever) that comes to mind right now is this study where 24 of 25 seventh graders were fooled by a hoax site.
And when it comes to sex, something that’s important to the vast majority of adults and can result in real consequences when done incorrectly, you don’t combat ignorance with more ignorance.
I didn’t even realize a person could grin and grind her teeth at the same time.
It was more like a grimace. Some people are smooth liars. Others… well you know.
I’m know for a fact that conveying a convincing smile is very difficult with your sphincter so tightly puckered up. Have you ever come down with abdominal distress in a public place? When you had to go now…I mean RIGHT now?
o.k., I’m being silly. Rachel blew her ass out of the water.
Sorry, Atomic, but you lost me. If you cut part of health class because people are offended by the three or four days of it devoted to sex ed, then you might as well toss the whole damn science curriculum with it.
At the core of it, human anatomy and sex education is morally neutral. It’s the nutcases who are weighing it down with an ass-load of “moral” baggage.
Prophylactics are no different than vaccinations. They, too, are morally neutral – or, at least, until the perpetually outraged “values voters” generate some faux anger about them.
So, you’re saying that public schools should only educate kids on what they aren’t interested in? You’ve lost me– you have no logical position, though you are straining as hard as Huber to find one.
But see, as a parent it isn’t your decision whether your teenage son/daughter has sex. That is their decision and they are going to make it whether you approve or not. If they cannot talk to parents about contraception (and that is true of a staggering number of teenagers), then there MUST be a means for them to get access to both the appropriate education (i.e. ACTUAL evidence-based information) and the contraception to prevent pregnancy and disease. If you are as good a parent as you think, then your child probably will talk to you– therefore the school would not be doing anything behind your back. If your child doesn’t talk to you, stop blaming the school and look in your own backyard.
Sorry if this is a double post:
So, you’re saying that public schools should only educate kids on what they aren’t interested in? You’ve lost me– you have no logical position, though you are straining as hard as Huber to find one.
But see, as a parent it isn’t your decision whether your teenage son/daughter has sex. That is their decision and they are going to make it whether you approve or not. If they cannot talk to parents about contraception (and that is true of a staggering number of teenagers), then there MUST be a means for them to get access to both the appropriate education (i.e. ACTUAL evidence-based information) and the contraception to prevent pregnancy and disease. If you are as good a parent as you think, then your child probably will talk to you– therefore the school would not be doing anything behind your back. If your child doesn’t talk to you, stop blaming the school and look in your own backyard.
The angle at which she held her neck was causing me physical pain to watch. Did she move her lower body at all while talking?
@ Raine: No, I don’t think she moved anything but her lips–and I got the creepy feeling that she wasn’t actually moving them herself, but the ventriloquist with his hand up her ass was controlling them throughout the entire thing. (Which would explain the lower body stiffness as well.)
“If you have sex, you will die.”
You will die anyway, so why not have sex?
Well, yes… but, you know.
Mostly, I was responding to the way Ms. Abstinence Only was saying that AO education “actually does include comprehensive information on contraception!!!111one”
Which I’m sure amounts to discussions aimed only at how it fails, which I’m sure does little more than discourage kids from using it. Basically, the message they try to send is nothing but fear. FEAR!
I may be the only person I know who waited, but not because I had to, or was afraid, or thought sex was wrong or dangerous at all, but just because I wanted to.
AtomicFruitbat:
If you had any need to deal with parents of school-age children on a regular basis, you’d probably be as convinced as I am that in most cases, the school system does know how to raise kids better than the parents do.
In comprehensive sex education, they do NOT tell you to go have sex, all the cool kids are doing it. They give you realistic information on pregnancy and STDs, information on how the reproductive organs work (but nothing on how to create pleasure with them, not in my high school, anyhow) AND a bunch of information on what to do if there is inappropriate touching at home, how to handle pressure to have sex when you don’t want to, ethics such as not spreading rumors about other people’s sex lives or making sure the person you’re dating knows if you have herpes, etc. AND, at various points throughout, abstinence and waiting until you’re older are pointed to as a way to avoid a lot of trouble. Like: “The pill is 99.8% effective when used properly, and if you are sexually active and that’s too high a risk, or you aren’t sure of the health of your partner, you can use a condom. Or, you could abstain, which is 100% effective in avoiding both pregnancy and STDs. It even included a film on How to Say No for guys. I don’t remember homosexuality being dealt with much, but as much as I didn’t want to be in that class as an embarrassed 13 year old, it was good for us.
If you had any need to deal with parents of school-age children on a regular basis, you’d probably be as convinced as I am that in most cases, the school system does know how to raise kids better than the parents do.
In several cases, the back of the bike shed is probably superior…
I remain perpetually puzzled as to why the availability of contraception and accurrate information on sex and reproduction remains such a hot-button issue for people like Fruitbat, who claim not to have the kinds of weird woman-controlling hang-ups of the abstinence-only crew. I mean really: a) If your relationship with your children is all that, then they will discuss it with you. b) If it’s not, especially if you don’t realize it’s not, would you really rather your child came home with a disease? c) Likewise, would you really rather be a grandparent unexpectedly? Rather than admit that your child might make a decision you dissapprove of and allow for that possibility? Really? Because I look at my two sons, and I can’t imagine deliberately keeping them ignorant, or trying to ensure that they have maximum problems getting ahold of the requisite safety equipment. It’s like leaving the keys to the Harley on the dining room table, but locking the leathers and helmet up in a vault.
In this case, you can’t lock up the Harley. So yes, inject all the warnings about riding you want into the mix, but give them accurate information about motorcycles and don’t lock up the safety equipment. Because keeping it away doesn’t tell them not to ride, it just makes it more likely they’ll suffer a head trauma if they do.
I’m often surprised at how glibly refer to children as if they were property. Parents don’t have an inherent right to enforce ignorance, especially damaging ignorance, on their children. So while you may be “pissed off” in this regard, but it says more about you than it does about the policy.
Man, did that get screwed up in the pipeline. Here is the corrected version:
“I’m often surprised at how glibly people refer to children as if they were property. Parents don’t have an inherent right to enforce ignorance, especially damaging ignorance, on their children. So while you may be “pissed off” in this regard, it says more about you than it does about the policy.”
Also, I had comprehensive sex-ed in my (Canadian) public school system,and it was double-pronged; in Grade 6 (when we were 12/13), we got “changing me”, which was primarily focussed on the changes associated with puberty, AS we were going through puberty, and it hit on the basics on STDs, birth control, etc., in a way that didn’t demonize sex in any way, but did make it seem kind of complicated, and maybe not something to jump into super-fast.
We also had the “Values, Influences and Peers” program in Grade 7 and 8, which amongst drug-and-crime education, had a large section on abusive relationships, and the effects of alcohol on making judgements, WHEN we were starting to “go out with” people.
Then, in the mandated Grade 9/10 gym classes, the in-class health section got down to business about sex ed, because that’s the age when it becomes more relevant (hopefully). Even then, they didn’t hand birth control pills out in class BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING YOU CAN GET ONLY BY PRESCRIPTION FROM A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL. We learned how to put on a condom, and where you can get them easily, different options of birth control hormonal and non-hormonal. We did have a class discussion about whether or not your prescriptions would show up on your parents health plan (no) or if your doctor was allowed to tell your parents if you were on birth control (NO), but at that age, it’s good to be educated on bodily integrity and the fact that your body is your own, and no one else (even your parents) have the right to make decisions about it.
In short, my sexual education was comprehensive, multi-pronged, and age-appropropriate at all levels, and it makes me upset to know entire generations of Americans are not getting this benefit because of the irrational, hysterical concerns of Huber and people like AtomicFruitBat. Disgusting.
That Huber twit is a liar. Compare international rates of teenage pregnancy. The U.S. is by far the worst.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_tee_bir_rat-people-teenage-birth-rate
In France, where a Harris polled showed that 64% of the French described themselves as atheist or agnostic, has a rate five times lower than the U.S.
Additionally, by the end of this year the French government has said that it will install condom machines in all high schools.
Tapetum
They already answered that with “yes” when they pressured the FDA into not approving a vaccine for HPV for girls saying it would make them promiscuous if they were to receive the vaccine.
In essence they were saying it is fine with them if you die from a disease (like cervical cancer which is what HPV is associated with) if a teen has sex.
The HPV vaccine was not approved until the Dems took both houses.
Likewise it is fine with them if teens contract diseases like syphilis. How many times have you heard these moralistic American Christian Taliban types say “The wages of sin is death.” Generally they only apply that to homosexuality but it is part of their mind set one other issues too.
I wouldn’t b e surprised if in many classes the same level of “turth telling” and scare/guilt tactics are used that are being used in their crisis pregnancy centers.
I have a comment in moderation, again.
I believe I read on Kevin Drum’s site (can’t find a link, maybe it was Balloon-Juice or Sadly, No) that Sweden has much more informative sex ed than the US and France has generally less sex ed than the US. And they both have about the same rate of teen pregnancy, and it’s a lower rate than ours. Education is only part of the problem and part of the solution. Which is not to say I’m not horrified by abstinence-only programs –which I am– so much as to say that I’m not going to think everything will be better if a good program will be conducted in every classroom.
But wow! that woman sure can fling bullshit! An independent study must be anything that 1. she didn’t make up herself and 2. doesn’t contradict her “reality”.
Just a brief note to the couple people earlier in the post contending that kids could just hop on the internet to get all the accurate sex education/health information they need–thus no need for public school sex ed:
Only 63% of African American households are online (and that’s the highest number I could find) and 29% of Hispanics have internet access at home. Libraries and schools often have security data blockers (to avoid internet porn) that reading simple articles with words like “breast” or “vagina” or “penis” on WebMD.com can’t be access–so your theory that kids can “get it at home through the internet” pretty much misses a big chunk of the populations most at risk, African American, Hispanic, and poor white students.
Public school is for the public and just because some uptight parents don’t want their kids to know the basics of human anatomy does not mean that all children should be denied that information. I consider much of home-schooling to be a crime, but I would prefer that the fundies get out of our educational system’s school boards (see recent controversies in Kansas and Texas)
and take their twisted beliefs to Left Behind book clubs and let the rest of us study actual science, actual history, and actual comprehensive sexual education.
Perhaps fundies/conservatives could opt their children out of comprehensive sex ed and all such children during that time could take a class on “thinking for themselves” instead of hanging out in the library. That would be great.
Just a brief note to the couple people earlier in the post contending that kids could just hop on the internet to get all the accurate sex education/health information they need–thus no need for public school sex ed:
Only 63% of African American households are online (and that’s the highest number I could find) and 29% of Hispanics have internet access at home. Libraries and schools often have security data blockers (to avoid internet porn) that reading simple articles with words like “breast” or “vagina” or “penis” on WebMD.com can’t be access–so your theory that kids can “get it at home through the internet” pretty much misses a big chunk of the populations most at risk, African American, Hispanic, and poor white students.
Public school is for the public and just because some uptight parents don’t want their kids to know the basics of human anatomy does not mean that all children should be denied that information. I consider much of home-schooling to be a crime, but I would prefer that the fundies get out of our educational system’s school boards (see recent controversies in Kansas and Texas)
and take their twisted beliefs to Left Behind book clubs and let the rest of us study actual science, actual history, and actual comprehensive sexual education.
Perhaps fundies/conservatives could opt their children out of comprehensive sex ed and all such children during that time could take a class on “thinking for themselves” instead of hanging out in the library. That would be great.
“I don’t know about you but I’d be pretty pissed off at the school for thinking it knew how to raise my kids better than I do.”
Atomic, sometimes the truth hurts…
“So if a parent doesn’t value education, they feel that it is fine for that parent to keep the child ignorant. I think given a chance and if they thought they could get away with it, they’d do away with mandatory education for ages 6-16 laws too.”
Well, it does make ‘em all uppity ‘n stuff. Think they’re smarter than their parents, that they might go to college and get a better job, move to some blue state and vote for democrats - education is definitely a problem in a lot of cases…
(How can you keep them dumb, ignorant, and down on the farm, if they realize the farm - and surrounding area - is filled with dumb, ignorant Authoritarian Cultists who unthinkingly toe the Reichwing party line. Education gives you a window into the existence of other realities. That’s why education is something to be feared, not embraced…)
I would just like to add that we should not assume that every teen has access to the internet in an environment where they feel comfortable seeking out information on sex. I know that I would not feel very comfortable (when i was a teen, at least) looking up sex realted information on a public library computer or at school.
And even if we could assume that every household has internet (which is a bit of classism I am working to rid myself of), many young people with controlling parents may be afraid to look up these things at home because their parents could possibly access the browsing history.
As for myself, I got comprehensive sex ed as a kid and I did choose to abstain through all of high school and part of college. So did a lot of my classmates. I don’t know anybody who thought that comprehensive sex ed gave us the message to “go out and have sex!” I nostly thought that the message was just that we were to be respected as sentient human beings who can make smart choices if we have all the information. Imagine that.
Lets treat sex ed the same way we treat religion in school. That is, keep it at home.
I don’t remember the First Amendment clause about the separation of state and sex education. Your statement, while clever on its surface, is, of course, ignorant. It implies that sex is a matter of imagination like religion, when it’s a biological fact of life. If I say, “Hoo-ya, I believe that a disco ball is the god of us all,” then that’s my religion and who are you to say otherwise? But I can’t say, “Hoo-ya, I believe standing on my head after sex prevents AIDS and pregnancy,” and assume that’s good enough. Because religion is my made-up bullshit vs. your made-up bullshit, there’s a serious issue there. Since sex is a biological issue, sane people should consider comprehensive sex education no more controversial than nutrition information or any other health education.
Also, it’s a matter of public health. Society and the state bears the costs of the results of “keeping it at home”—i.e. the spread of STDs, AIDS, and unwanted pregnancy. And let’s make no mistake, you are demanding the spread of these things, because a lot of parents are too uninformed or ashamed to give their kids the proper levels of sex ed. Snappy little slogans vs. maintaining the public health? Well, it’s too bad that people are so wowed by snappy slogans like Atomic Fruitbat’s. Consider it the danger of the soundbite driven culture.
I was talking more about the moral issues surrounding sex (whether to wait for marriage, etc) rather than the basic mechanics.
Most comprehensive sex ed stays completely out of the thorny issues. Telling you how to prevent pregnancy is not telling you that you should, so people whose god hates women can rest easy. Granted, some sex ed curricula includes “do not rape” materials—perhaps someone is fussy with the idea that we should stop rape?
Sure. But when you get into handing out condoms and birth control pills in public school, thats when you lose me.
No one is forcing you to use them. In fact, most schools only give them out when asked. So your “concerns” about moral instruction are looking more and more like squeamishness about sex every comment. So, no different than any other opposition I’ve seen.
I don’t know about you but I’d be pretty pissed off at the school for thinking it knew how to raise my kids better than I do.
I write for a parenting website and even the most conservative parents there support comprehensive sex education. They are nobody’s fools; they know that you send your kid to school for a reason, which is that no man is an island. Even really good parents who talk to their kids a lot appreciate having supplemental instruction. Learning something by having it reinforced at various levels is more effective than one-shot-and-run.
Because teenagers are usually very much interested in sex, due to the fact that it is a primary (if not the primary, next to hunger) human drive?
So, you feel that the more fundamental something is to someone’s nature, the more they should be ignorant about it and ill-prepared to handle it and more in danger of hurting themselves? Do you feel that the proper reaction to defecation is to avoid teaching wiping and cleanliness? Do you feel the proper reaction to the urge to eat is to avoid nutrition information? But thanks for your posturing; every comment you make demonstrates the fundamental misanthropy behind sex squeamishness, this ill attitude towards human nature.
“I would just like to add that we should not assume that every teen has access to the internet in an environment where they feel comfortable seeking out information on sex.”
I would add that if you are living in a home where your teen has internet access, and they feel comfortable looking things up on their own, it’s probably because you already made them feel comfortable and knowledgeable about the topic - therefore you are not the problem.
It is precisely the kind of home where there is a paranoia about sex and access to information about sex is tightly controlled that the problem exists. Often, information received at school might be the only source of accurate information about sex those teens ever get.
Ignorance is the problem, and knowledge is the solution…
How is she a servant?
The drill team smile is the female equivalent to Uncle Tom grinning, and functions as a symbol of servitude for a reason. Though I have more sympathy for the latter than the former, since the latter was a literal survival skill in a world where lynching was treated as sport, and the former is a symbol of someone who knows on a deep level that she had a choice, but was too cowardly to take it, and now spends her days lapping the ass of the patriarchy and abandoning her dignity in a way that betrays her desire to punish women who weren’t big cowards like her.
Are we talking dance drill teams or flag drill teams?
Because I know several dozen former flaggies that will hunt you down and spin you like a common torn banner for comparing them to Teh Evil Anti-Sex Misogynists.
idiosynchronic, I don’t think the drill-team smile bit was meant to indicate that all drill team girls (or guys. Kennedy High School of Sacramento had an awesome banner team of 6 foot tall guys) are lock-step thinkers as well as marchers/dancers. It just means that the smiles are *forced*, part of the package being presented. No matter how much you love the performing, you’re focusing on your moves and the weight of your props and if you’re in line with the folks in your peripheral vision.
Do we really want to derail the “forced smiling for the cameras suggest these women aren’t totally comfortable with their position” message with a discussion of whether drill team members (of any kind) are independent thinkers?
I’d like to introduce the possibility that perhaps she doesn’t think she has a choice. What if she thinks, as Camille Paglia pretends to, that civilization and patriarchalism are pretty much the same thing, and that if the latter is ameliorated, the former falls? In that case, she might willingly embrace her own degradation (especially if it comes with perks like appearances on the Abrams Report) on the basis that it’s the only means she has of preserving her world. I don’t know whether or not I’m right, but if I am, it would account for that look of jut-jawed determination, that expression of someone determined to smile through agony, that Huber and so many other conservapologist women evince.
(Laura Schlessinger. Mona Charen. The Grande Dragonne of ‘em all, Phyllis Schlafly. You guys are right, they all have the same look about them, as if—cat alert—they’d managed to think up some way of having Botox and wrinkles at the same time. And BTW, folks, I’m old. I was born in 1962, so I’ve seen several decades’ worth of women of the same description come and go. I’ve already mentioned Phyllis Schlafly, but I’m here to tell you that Midge Decter and Helen Andelin looked like that too, as did Anita Bryant before she saw the light.)
What if the argument was presented the abstinence education isn’t cost effective? Mrs. Joker Nickleson said that you need to have on going classes in abstinence educaton for the utes.
But how many classes do you need to watch someone put a condom on a bananna?
Uhm…and I know I’m gonna get hammered here…
…we opted out of the public school program in favor of our church abstinence based (but also reality based in terms of contraception/STDs) program….
If Mythago was around, the laughs would be echoing out here in podunk, Myth being there way back when.
So okay, goddammit…we failed utterly to impress on our teenaged sons the values that we ourselves utterly failed to adhere to at precisely the same ages.
But what we got through to our boys was the critical sense of responsibility, and yes, the idea of sexual relations in the context of friendship, love, respect and with the exception of the EE, commitment. We’re proud of the way our sons have treated the young women in their lives, and yes… I would be seriously upset if they had exercised their sexuality randomly, carelessly and heartlessly.
Dishonest abstinence education is vile, but please do NOT underestimate the value of sex education that encourages genuine connection between partners. Our boys got that, along with getting their groove on…
Uhm…and I know I’m gonna get hammered here…
…we opted out of the public school program in favor of our church abstinence based (but also reality based in terms of contraception/STDs) program….
If Mythago was around, the laughs would be echoing out here in podunk, Myth being there way back when.
So okay, goddammit…we failed utterly to impress on our teenaged sons the values that we ourselves utterly failed to adhere to at precisely the same ages.
But what we got through to our boys was the critical sense of responsibility, and yes, the idea of sexual relations in the context of friendship, love, respect and with the exception of the EE, commitment. We’re proud of the way our sons have treated the young women in their lives, and yes… I would be seriously upset if they had exercised their sexuality randomly, carelessly and heartlessly.
Dishonest abstinence education is vile, but please do NOT underestimate the value of sex education that encourages genuine connection between partners. Our boys got that, along with getting their groove on…
Uhm…and I know I’m gonna get hammered here…
…we opted out of the public school program in favor of our church abstinence based (but also reality based in terms of contraception/STDs) program….
If Mythago was around, the laughs would be echoing out here in podunk, Myth being there way back when.
So okay, goddammit…we failed utterly to impress on our teenaged sons the values that we ourselves utterly failed to adhere to at precisely the same ages.
But what we got through to our boys was the critical sense of responsibility, and yes, the idea of sexual relations in the context of friendship, love, respect and with the exception of the EE, commitment. We’re proud of the way our sons have treated the young women in their lives, and yes… I would be seriously upset if they had exercised their sexuality randomly, carelessly and heartlessly.
Dishonest abstinence education is vile, but please do NOT underestimate the value of sex education that encourages genuine connection between partners. Our boys got that, along with getting their groove on…
Does having buttsex instead of vaginal sex count as abstinence? If not, why not? After all, if practiced consistently, that substitution is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.
Gore Vidal wrote about that phenomenon taking place amongst the young working-class residents in the area of Italy he lived in before he sold his residence there,
He reported that the women were known as ‘virgins in the front, martyrs in the rear”.
Actually, it isn’t. It’s pretty effective, but not 100%. All it takes is a little dripping. Which is exactly the sort of thing kids who are trying to stay “abstinent” by doing only buttsex (because all that’s even been referred to in their classes is vaginal sex) need to know.