But, of course, this is only a report from the liberal media, quoting a pinhead, liberally biased professor.

"Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President Bush (news - web sites)'s education plan, have had no impact on teenagers' behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study.  

Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University"

----------------------------------------------------------------

Well i'm not surprised, most youngsters watch mtv so of course they will struggle with abstinence. Check this out;


“MTV is blatantly selling raunchy sex to kids. Compared to broadcast television programs aimed at adults, MTV’s programming contains substantially more sex, foul language and violence – and MTV’s shows are aimed at children as young as 12. There’s no question that TV influences the attitudes and perceptions of young viewers, and MTV is deliberately marketing its raunch to millions of innocent children,” said L. Brent Bozell, president of the PTC.

MTV is watched by 73% of boys and 78% of girls ages 12 to 19, and it is profoundly influential in the lives of its young fans by glamorizing drug and alcohol use, sexual promiscuity and violent behavior

In 171 hours of MTV programming, PTC analysts found a staggering 1,548 sexual scenes containing 3,056 depictions of sex or various forms of nudity and 2,881 verbal sexual references. Children watching MTV are viewing an average of 9 sexual scenes per hour with approximately 18 sexual depictions and 17 instances of sexual dialogue or innuendo. To put this in perspective, consider that in its last study of sex on primetime network television, the PTC found an average of only 5.8 instances of sexual content during the 10 o’clock hour – when mostly adults are watching...

Click on link to read the full article...Now its not so surprising, if mr bush wants real change, he will have to real in the producers of mtv and the people who are so eager to influence our young american children...

something is so awry in our society that we keep with things such as these in the face of empirical evidence that clearly shows they do not work.  It seems blind ideology more and more trumps logic...

Curiously, will anyone on THIS board try and defend abstinence only education?????  hehe....probably not.

Does this prove that sex education outside the home is wrong???

-- Modified on 2/10/2005 4:27:51 PM

I guess we have to lump you in to because you agreed.

One could easily draw from the same evidence that in fact MORE abstinence teaching is needed in order to have the desired effect. This assumes that the desired effect is having 12-13 year old girls obstain from sex, thereby preventing pregnancy and STDs.

Maybe the Party of Larry Flynt does'nt want that though. It might hurt sales....

... after all, we didn't turn out so bad (I think).

I would take it from another perspective...

WHY THE HELL ARE TEACHING ANY TYPE OF SEX EDUCATION.

Little Johhnie and Joanie are having enough problems learnig skill that actually make them marketable (math/reading). Teach biology yes, but do/do not is a family issue, not one for the school. Same thing with condoms, if the kids want them, let them go through teh 16 year old embarrasment of having to but them themselves like I did.

I.e. lots of pregnant teenagers, and rampant V.D. among them.   Which leads to poorly raised kids, and/or abortions.  Sex education, when done correctly, is designed to REDUCE pregnancies and V.D.  There is no other reason for it.  I agree that other political agendas are inappropriate.  But, it is sheer idiocy to assume that teaching nothing means kids won't have sex.  They will, only it will be unsafe sex.  The desire to get rid of sex-ed has always been based on ill-informed denial among the religious right that their kids wouldn't have sex if they were kept ignorant.  But that has NEVER been supported by the evidence.

Why did the rates of sex go up remarkably after abstinence ed was introduced for just a short time?  Fact is, MTV has been there for a long time.  Did it suddenly get worse when abstinence-only-ed was introduced in Texas?  

I tend to think all "directed video" is bad for kids, not just MTV, and not because of it's sexual nature.  It is damaging to  developing minds when they are shown where to look and what to look at for hour after hour.  

So, I agree with you about MTV, strangely enough, but not for the reason you are giving.  I'd say the same kind of harm comes from "Lassie" or the "Andy Griffith Show," but perhaps intensified with MTV due to the use of the quick cut.  Our nation is now in the clutches of several successive generations damaged by television, the latest generation being the worst.

/Zin    

Party of Larry Flynt?  Does "Hustler" even have sales these days?  I think those sales have already gone down with the advent of the internet, which is why Flynt has spanned out into clubs, which definitely don't have teens wacking off to them.  I might be wrong, but I dont' think those magazines ever made money from the teen market, the teens and pre-teens just found their uncle's cache of magazines.  

Abstinence education makes as much sense as having a drivers ed class where for the whole thing, you tell teenagers, "Don't go near cars.  Think of a better way to travel.  Like a bus, or a train or walking.  Besides, why do you want to travel to begin with?"  In fact, that makes more sense than abstinence education because cars are far more deadly and crippling.

Or, how about math education, where we tell kids to do things instead of math?  In what other endeavor, in what other subject, is this approach even acceptable?   If you want to get from point A to point B, how would you see it if I told you, "Why do you want to go to point B?  Go to point C instead, you don't need to be there."  You'd feel like you're being snowed and manipulated,  right, which is probably the way teenagers in Texas feel right now.  Abstincence-only will work only if the punch line to that joke is true: that teenagers don't know the difference between a hamburger and a blow job.  If they want a BJ, tell them to have a hamburger instead.  That works until they really want the blow job, and aren't just asking about it curiously.

In what other human drive is this manipulative striving toward anorexia considered something good?

Now, there's one good message to abstinence, and that is that one should never consent to sex, at least not early on, unless they themselves want it.  They should never do it, at least as a teen, just because their partners do.  That, however, hardly covers the topic-- it isn't enough for a whole sex-ed class.    

How about times when they want to have sex, but don't have the knowledge to do it safely, or the knowledge to get proper treatment in the aftermath?

Why did the rates of sex go up remarkably after abstinence ed was introduced for just a short time?  Fact is, MTV has been there for a long time.  Did it suddenly get worse when abstinence-only-ed was introduced in Texas


Ummm, i think mtv has been getting worse each year, The producers just crank up the filth-o-meter...During my highschool days, when mtv first apppeared there was little filth, now, everything pertains to sex...Why, you would need to ask the programming director...perhaps our society needs the 'in your face'style of entertainment...

"I tend to think all "directed video" is bad for kids, not just MTV, and not because of it's sexual nature.  It is damaging to  developing minds when they are shown where to look and what to look at for hour after hour."


I agree. Books and outdoor physical activity is what kids need to develope in my opinion, instead they are immersed in video games and and video tv..

I was trying to use the "unique" concept that perhaps the parents should assume this responsibility. BTW, its just a guess, but if a kid comes from a home with irresponsible parents, WHY would you assume they would be responsible enough to use condoms, whether you give them out for free or not...

Perhaps the problem here is the left is making parents TOO reliant on government to handle the job they should be doing. You know, that "IT TAKES A VILLAGE" crap.

-- Modified on 2/14/2005 12:59:20 PM

I don't if you've noticed that parents interests do differ from their off-springs' quite a lot quite often.  If many mothers have an unfettered choice, their sons would never grow out of toddlerhood, when they happen to be cutest.  If father's are given the choice, their daughters would never date, and the marriages would be arranged.  How is it in anyone else's interests for the government to favor the most backward of parents here?  

Their offspring might not vote now, but they do later.  

I agree.  Parents should take responsibility.  They should vote for a government that institutes truthful sex education.  But I know that's not what you had in mind for assuming responsibility.  

/Zin

unfortunately that seems to be the solution with so many programs from the left, we can't leave anyone behind, so we must reduce ALL to the least common denominator.

Your solution basically FORCES a kid to sit through classes that they may not need in the case of good parents (which I LIKE TO THINK most people still are). It also takes CHOICE away from the parents of how they want this subject to be handled.

Bottom lines here is you are sayong "TRUST THE GOVERNMENT", they can do it better than you...

Seems to be a recurring theme from the left, but not one I am sold on...