Slowing Down for the Holidays, Reviewing
As we decelerate into the holiday season, it might be good to wrap up where we are in the development of the MCPS sex-ed curriculum.
The short story is this: the school district proposed a framework and then curriculum materials regarding a 10th grade condom lesson with video, and 8th and 10th grade sexual variation lessons comprising two 45-minute classes in each grade. These were reviewed by the citizens advisory committee and a number of changes were suggested for each of the sections. The school district took the committee's recommendations for further consideration; they are not obligated to accept suggestions, but I think the feedback was pretty good, and they will want to use a lot of the ideas. On January 3rd, the committee will meet to be briefed on the final recommendations to the Superintendent, and on January 9th the Board of Education will be presented with the new curriculum, and as far as I understand, they will vote at that meeting about whether to accept it or not.
That's the stuff on the agenda.
There's also a lot of background noise. The Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum are complaining that there isn't enough anal sex in the curriculum. Well, there isn't any, actually, other than one mention that you should use a condom if you do that. They obviously didn't get the point of the sexual orientation material; it isn't about sexual intercourse, it's about being a person with feelings. They got porn on the brain, if you ask me.
They're saying they have hundreds of doctors supporting them, signing their petition. It doesn't look like the doctors understood what the petitions were really about when they signed them, and you will notice the CRC is very hesitant to make a big deal out of this. If they keep it quiet, just mention it here and there, they might be able to get away with it, but if they go on the news saying these Shady Grove doctors support them, and the doctors hear about it, this will backfire on them. Like just about everything else they've tried.
They are also saying that students' First Amendment Rights are going to be violated if they aren't allowed to express their opinions about gay people in class. Indications are, they think they can convince a judge that this is a problem, that the school has to let students say whatever they think in class, according to the Constitution. I refuse to be optimistic; it is possible that MCPS lawyers will be staring off into space, like last time, and let them get away with it. The constitutional rights of students turns out to be a tough legal subject. It depends on what kind of "forum" you frame it to be. Precedent has established that the classroom is not a public forum, and you don't have the legal right to say every ugly thing that comes into your head, but they've had a lot of time to develop their arguments, and the district won't know what they're going to say until they go into court. At this point, it is a simple matter of preparation for MCPS legal representatives.
The CRC filed a "minority report" to the school board. They filed it under CRC President Michelle Turner's name, but it appears that they mean for it to represent the views of three members of the citizens advisory committee, and Ms. Turner was not on that committee. It's not clear what the official status of this document is, but it's on the record, for what that's worth.
So here's how they see it. A committee meets for months, considers dozens, if not hundreds, of suggestions, mostly by the CRC and PFOX members. Stays late, schedules extra meetings, discusses these often-bizarre suggestions, votes on them. Some pass, some don't pass.
So far, we are talking about a common kind of democratic process, hard-working community volunteers trying to do the right thing. All opinions get a hearing, and the group votes.
But the CRC won't accept that. Their feeling is that the majority was just wrong, and they are right. The school board needs to see their suggestions and hear their opinions anyway, even though the committee, following every rule in the book, declined to endorse them.
The truth is, this is what they're about. It's not about creating a curriculum that our community can accept. No, it's about creating ... a disruption.
The only questions now have to do with when they will file the inevitable lawsuit, and what the grounds for it will be. Last time they didn't have much of a case, but by filing it right before pilot testing was to begin, they were able to rush the judge and catch the school district unprepared, and all it took was a temporary restraining order. I don't know much about these things, but Great Swarmy says we can expect them to try something like that again. There's an established process for developing curricula, and there is disruption; we know what the process is, but we will have to wait to see what the disruptors choose to do.
The short story is this: the school district proposed a framework and then curriculum materials regarding a 10th grade condom lesson with video, and 8th and 10th grade sexual variation lessons comprising two 45-minute classes in each grade. These were reviewed by the citizens advisory committee and a number of changes were suggested for each of the sections. The school district took the committee's recommendations for further consideration; they are not obligated to accept suggestions, but I think the feedback was pretty good, and they will want to use a lot of the ideas. On January 3rd, the committee will meet to be briefed on the final recommendations to the Superintendent, and on January 9th the Board of Education will be presented with the new curriculum, and as far as I understand, they will vote at that meeting about whether to accept it or not.
That's the stuff on the agenda.
There's also a lot of background noise. The Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum are complaining that there isn't enough anal sex in the curriculum. Well, there isn't any, actually, other than one mention that you should use a condom if you do that. They obviously didn't get the point of the sexual orientation material; it isn't about sexual intercourse, it's about being a person with feelings. They got porn on the brain, if you ask me.
They're saying they have hundreds of doctors supporting them, signing their petition. It doesn't look like the doctors understood what the petitions were really about when they signed them, and you will notice the CRC is very hesitant to make a big deal out of this. If they keep it quiet, just mention it here and there, they might be able to get away with it, but if they go on the news saying these Shady Grove doctors support them, and the doctors hear about it, this will backfire on them. Like just about everything else they've tried.
They are also saying that students' First Amendment Rights are going to be violated if they aren't allowed to express their opinions about gay people in class. Indications are, they think they can convince a judge that this is a problem, that the school has to let students say whatever they think in class, according to the Constitution. I refuse to be optimistic; it is possible that MCPS lawyers will be staring off into space, like last time, and let them get away with it. The constitutional rights of students turns out to be a tough legal subject. It depends on what kind of "forum" you frame it to be. Precedent has established that the classroom is not a public forum, and you don't have the legal right to say every ugly thing that comes into your head, but they've had a lot of time to develop their arguments, and the district won't know what they're going to say until they go into court. At this point, it is a simple matter of preparation for MCPS legal representatives.
The CRC filed a "minority report" to the school board. They filed it under CRC President Michelle Turner's name, but it appears that they mean for it to represent the views of three members of the citizens advisory committee, and Ms. Turner was not on that committee. It's not clear what the official status of this document is, but it's on the record, for what that's worth.
So here's how they see it. A committee meets for months, considers dozens, if not hundreds, of suggestions, mostly by the CRC and PFOX members. Stays late, schedules extra meetings, discusses these often-bizarre suggestions, votes on them. Some pass, some don't pass.
So far, we are talking about a common kind of democratic process, hard-working community volunteers trying to do the right thing. All opinions get a hearing, and the group votes.
But the CRC won't accept that. Their feeling is that the majority was just wrong, and they are right. The school board needs to see their suggestions and hear their opinions anyway, even though the committee, following every rule in the book, declined to endorse them.
The truth is, this is what they're about. It's not about creating a curriculum that our community can accept. No, it's about creating ... a disruption.
The only questions now have to do with when they will file the inevitable lawsuit, and what the grounds for it will be. Last time they didn't have much of a case, but by filing it right before pilot testing was to begin, they were able to rush the judge and catch the school district unprepared, and all it took was a temporary restraining order. I don't know much about these things, but Great Swarmy says we can expect them to try something like that again. There's an established process for developing curricula, and there is disruption; we know what the process is, but we will have to wait to see what the disruptors choose to do.
posted by JimK at 10:46 AM
41 Comments:
Jim K writes:The CRC filed a "minority report" to the school board. They filed it under CRC President Michelle Turner's name, but it appears that they mean for it to represent the views of three members of the citizens advisory committee, and Ms. Turner was not on that committee.
____________
Remember the past minority report from Retta, Michelle and Company
????
'Pro-gay' agenda irks committee members
by Sean R. Sedam
Maryland Gazette Staff Writer
April 15, 2004 (Gazette)
http://tinyurl.com/y4hkqx
Ted
Wow, Ted, it is amazing to see how much things have not changed. Thanks for linking to that.
JimK
"There's also a lot of background noise. The Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum are complaining that there isn't enough anal sex in the curriculum. Well, there isn't any, actually, other than one mention that you should use a condom if you do that."
Actually, the CRC, rather reasonably, has pointed out that the curriculum might lead a young person to believe that engaging in anal sex with a condom is safe while there is no data to support that and reason to believe it might not be so. In addition to the CRC, this is also the current position of the Surgeon General's office.
This is an issue that could, conceivable, have liability issues for the county when a teen uses a condom for anal sex after inferring, from the curriculum, that it was safe and then, subsequently, contracting AIDS.
"They are also saying that students' First Amendment Rights are going to be violated if they aren't allowed to express their opinions about gay people in class."
The school should not be promoters of any view of homosexuality that is not factual.
Homosexualists should not be allowed to use the public schools for propaganda.
Any judge would agree.
"The CRC filed a "minority report" to the school board. They filed it under CRC President Michelle Turner's name, but it appears that they mean for it to represent the views of three members of the citizens advisory committee, and Ms. Turner was not on that committee. It's not clear what the official status of this document is, but it's on the record, for what that's worth."
Since Ms Turner is the president of an organization that was required by court order to be represented on the CAC, the status is: legally required.
"So here's how they see it. A committee meets for months, considers dozens, if not hundreds, of suggestions, mostly by the CRC and PFOX members. Stays late, schedules extra meetings, discusses these often-bizarre suggestions, votes on them. Some pass, some don't pass.
So far, we are talking about a common kind of democratic process, hard-working community volunteers trying to do the right thing. All opinions get a hearing, and the group votes.
But the CRC won't accept that. Their feeling is that the majority was just wrong, and they are right. The school board needs to see their suggestions and hear their opinions anyway, even though the committee, following every rule in the book, declined to endorse them.
The truth is, this is what they're about. It's not about creating a curriculum that our community can accept. No, it's about creating ... a disruption."
Since TTF shares CRC's concern that a curriculum acceptable to the community should be passed, let's publish it and have a referendum on it.
"The school should not be promoters of any view of homosexuality that is not factual"
The same could be said for PFOX and the ex-gays If the CRC really wants this anal sex thing in the curriculum why not lobby to put it someplace else in the currently unwritten curriculum rather then wasting legal money? The CAC recommended that and extra minute be added in the condom video. CRC could put effort into adding anal info in that portion.
... any recommendation for regular HIV testing ...
As I recall, the committee did vote to include a statement, suggested by the CRC's rep, to recommend frequent testing.
The problem is that the sexual orientation curriculum is not about physical sexual activities. Students who are gay will need to figure out some things on their own, there just isn't enough time in two classes to go into it all. It is most important to acknowledge, out loud, without prejudice, that these things exist, that gay/transgender people are still people just like everybody else, they're not weird or scary.
Though of course you make a good point, I doubt that the schools can take up class time to give advice like that to an admittedly small proportion of the class. I would think that something like a GSA could provide important information like this, or a faculty advisor.
JimK
Here's some Focus on the Family response to attacks on James Dobson by homosexualists last week:
"A Focus on the Family statement says that Pruett is trying "to distance himself politically from the use of his scientific conclusions" and that Dobson did not represent Gilligan as opposing same-sex parenting. "The question is not, 'Did Dr. Dobson apply their research only to political stands they agree with?' but rather, 'Is the essay true to what these individuals have written?' We believe that it is.""
Seperately, JK said he thought Time magazine must have realized they "screwed up" by printing Dr Dobson's article. Here's their reaction:
"Time spokeswoman Ali Zelenko says the magazine's role is "to moderate the debates on today's most controversial subjects and present a wide spectrum of views we believe are worth listening to whether we agree with them or not.""
Again, they believe both Dobson and the lesbian responder have a view "worth listening to". They didn't say if they agreed or disgreed with either. Certainly don't think they "screwed up" by failing to discriminate against mainstream viewpoints.
"The same could be said for PFOX and the ex-gays If the CRC really wants this anal sex thing in the curriculum why not lobby to put it someplace else in the currently unwritten curriculum rather then wasting legal money? The CAC recommended that and extra minute be added in the condom video. CRC could put effort into adding anal info in that portion."
Homosexualists would be against that and have blocked it with their stacked committee. Any suggestion that anal sex is more dangerous than other sexual activity is perceived by the homosexualists an attack on homosexuality and the homosexualist agenda.
I’m merely suggesting that CRC try and do something creative and not sue again, there are other ways to get what you want besides suing somebody...also anon could you define Homosexualist for me, I hve no idea what that is.
Anon says:
"The school should not be promoters of any view of homosexuality that is not factual."
And neither the MCPS Staff nor the overwhelming majority of the CAC has done any such thing -- unless, of course, you assert (which you do, apparently) that the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, et al. are all lying to the public.
Robert,
The curriculum is broken down into discrete units of multiple lessons. STIs appear in the course outline in two places (I am referring to the 10th grade curriculum currently in use). STIs are one of the subheadings in the Family Life and Human Sexuality unit. This is the same unit that contains the contraception information, though probably not in the same lesson as that information. STIs, including HIV, are listed individually in the Disease Prevention and Control unit. This would be where we would look to see if the curriculum advises HIV testing. These particular lessons were not among those being revised this time, so the CAC members wouldn't have had this information presented to them.
As a teacher you know how it is. The body of information has to be broken down into single lesson chunks and presented one at a time. Information about STIs could be presented in the contraception lesson - they seem related - but it is in the Disease Prevention unit, also a logical place. Sadly, this has led the dissenters in this and the past CAC to attempt to claim that the material is not there at all. Perhaps the CRC wants the teachers to issue warning labels, "You could get a non-curable, fatal or fertility-destroying disease," at the beginning and end of every lesson.
Thanks for that, Tish.
It's not like they leave it out. The health classes have vivid photos of dripping, oozing, blistered genitalia, and typically they have people come in, often someone with HIV or some other disease, to talk frankly about it.
The current task is to develop a condom lesson and "sexual variations" lessons for eighth and tenth grade. HIV/AIDS is addressed elsewhere, and as for anal sex ... they'll have to learn about that from their parents or in church, I guess. Maybe the CRC could teach a special class after school or something.
JimK
"could you define Homosexualist for me"
someone trying to impose on others the view that homosexuality is normal and healthy
"And neither the MCPS Staff nor the overwhelming majority of the CAC has done any such thing -- unless, of course, you assert (which you do, apparently) that the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, et al. are all lying to the public."
The associations presented their politically correct opinion which was arrived at politically. The Fishback regime CAC decided to characterize this opinion as a fact. The deceiving party is apparent.
"It's not like they leave it out. The health classes have vivid photos of dripping, oozing, blistered genitalia, and typically they have people come in, often someone with HIV or some other disease, to talk frankly about it.
The current task is to develop a condom lesson and "sexual variations" lessons for eighth and tenth grade. HIV/AIDS is addressed elsewhere, and as for anal sex ... they'll have to learn about that from their parents or in church, I guess. Maybe the CRC could teach a special class after school or something."
A bunch of double talk. If condoms are discussed as preventative of disease, it should be explained that efficacy in anal sex is unproven and doubtful. Anything else is misleading. That's something education should never be.
"In my opinion, condoms and abstinence are important, but early diagnosis and treatment are equally important. Kids should know this."
They should also know that in societies where a strong stigma is attached to certain behavior, the AIDS rate is much lower among that group.
If society would maintain a strong stigma against homosexuality, it would be less open, less convenient, less promiscuous and the few who feel compelled to practice it would be safer.
Is this the same Anon, or a different one? The last two posts.
JimK
Anonymous at December 18, 2006 9:39 PM
There is no doubt that the use of condoms lowers the risk of disease whether sex is anal, oral, or vaginal.
Anonymous at December 18, 2006 9:44 PM
The stigmatization of gay sex itself leads to promiscuity. Look at men like Ted Haggard and Jim Mcgreevey. Instead of being free to openly have a same sex partner men like these are forced to seek out anonymous sex in order to hide their orientation. They don't want a sexual partner to know who they are, where they live, or to start showing up regularly and hanging around. Now that Mcgreevey's open about his sexuality he is in a stable monogamous same sex relationship.
"The stigmatization of gay sex itself leads to promiscuity. Look at men like Ted Haggard and Jim Mcgreevey. Instead of being free to openly have a same sex partner men like these are forced to seek out anonymous sex in order to hide their orientation. They don't want a sexual partner to know who they are, where they live, or to start showing up regularly and hanging around. Now that Mcgreevey's open about his sexuality he is in a stable monogamous same sex relationship."
Doesn't seem to hold up to analysis. Compare the AIDS rate among gays in San Francisco to other places.
"There is no doubt that the use of condoms lowers the risk of disease whether sex is anal, oral, or vaginal."
No doubt. But how much lower among the different activities? Choices might be made based on information received in these classes. There might be unexpected consequences of these choices.
"There is no doubt that the use of condoms lowers the risk of disease whether sex is anal, oral, or vaginal."
No doubt. But how much lower among the different activities? Choices might be made based on information received in these classes. There might be unexpected consequences of these choices.
Homosexualist? Where on earth did that word come from? How about adding another newly-madeup word to the incresingly puerile diatribes of the various Anonymi (probably really only one fear-filled individual) contributing his/her"thoughts"- to this site: "Homophobist"
Would that be "somebody who tries to impose on others the hate-filled view that homosexuals are sick, disease-ridden, child-molesting, wanna-be heterosexuals"?
Bob
If society would maintain a strong stigma against homosexuality ...
These are the words you know these bigots are thinking. They believe that hate -- uh, I mean, "stigma" -- is justified because it might serve a purpose.
JimK
"I note that rates of teen pregnancy have gone down in this country during the past two decades."
The decline mirrors the development of abstinence programs in the eighties in response to the explosion of teen pregnancy caused by the imposition of valueless sex ed programs nationwide in the seventies.
Anonymous at December 19, 2006 4:39 AM
Anonymous, got any proof AIDS rates are higher in San Francisco? You are notorious for making stuff up.
Anonymous at December 19, 2006 11:08 AM
Abstinence only programs are a failure. From the American Journal of Public Health
"The overall pregnancy risk index declined 38%, with 86% of the decline attributable to improved contraceptive use. Among adolescents aged 15 to 17 years, 77% of the decline in pregnancy risk was attributable to improved contraceptive use."
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2006.089169v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=santelli&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
Research on virginity pledges found that for a select group of young people, pledges did delay the onset of sexual intercourse for an average of 18 months (a goal still far short of the average age of marriage).1 However, the same study also found that young people who took a pledge were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged. 2 In other words, pledging can cause harm by undermining contraceptive use when the young people who take them become sexually active.
1.Peter Bearman and Hanah Brückner, “Promising the Future: Virginity Pledges and the Transition to First Intercourse,”American Journal of Sociology 106.4 (2001): 859-912.
2 Ibid
Further research found that, among those young people who have not had vaginal intercourse, pledgers were more likely to have engaged in both oral and anal sex than their non-pledging peers. In fact, among virgins, male and female pledgers were six times more likely to have had oral sex than non-pledgers, and male pledgers were four times morelikely to have had anal sex than those who had not pledged.‹ According to the researchers, in communities where there are a higher proportion of pledgers, overall STD rates were significantly higher than in other settings. Specifically, in communities where more than 20% of young adults had taken virginity pledges, STD rates were 8.9%compared to 5.5% in communities with few pledgers.
Peter Bearman and Hanah Brückner, “After the promise: The STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges,” Journal of Adolescent Health 36.4 (2005): 271-278.
4 Peter Bearman and Hanah Brückner, “The Relationship Between Virginity Pledges in Adolescence and STD Acquisition in Young Adulthood.” Portions of study were presented at the National STD Prevention Conference, Philadelphia, PA, 9 March 2004, 10
Texas' 2004 evaluation included five self-selected “abstinence education” contractors who participated in a study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University. Analysis found that there were “ no significant changes ” in the percentages of students who “pledg[ed] not to have sex until marriage.”7 In addition, the analysis revealed that the percentage of students reporting having ever engaged in sexual intercourse increased for nearly all ages between 13 and 17.
Notably, prior to participating in an abstinence-only-until-marriage program, 23% of ninth grade girls had engaged in sexual intercourse. Following the program, 29% of the same age group reported having engaged in sexual intercourse. In addition, tenth grade boys reporting sexual intercourse increased from 24% to 39% following abstinence-only-until-marriage instruction.
One of the study's investigators said, “we didn't see any strong indications these programs were having an impact in the direction desired…these programs seem to be much more concerned about politics than kids, and we need to get over that.”8
Patricia Goodson, et al., Abstinence Education Evaluation Phase 5: Technical Report (College Station, TX: Department of Health & Kinesiology–Texas A&M University, 2004), 170-172.
“Texas Teens Increased Sex After Abstinence Program,” Reuters, 2 February 2005, accessed 17 February 2005 http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050131/hl_nm/
health_abstinence_texas_dc
Randi
You keep loading up the crap, trusting that no one has time to look up all these studies. I do know something about the Texas A&M study. I couldn't get your link to work but distinctly remember when this study came out that the researcher who conducted the study said one should not draw "overarching" conclusions from it and that his study lacked a control group and was not peer reviewed. Furthermore, he said that he had only studied a certain type of program based on building "self-esteem". He specifically said that other abstinence programs built on societal norms showed signs of success.
You and Robert are wrong. Historical stats here, just like the stats for new AIDS infections, don't lie and aren't coincidental. The emphasis on abstinence, whether alone or as part of a comprehensive curriculum, has caused a drop in teen pregancy.
Anonymous, you don't have any stats for AIDS infections or the effectiveness of abstinence only programs. I took the time to look it up and I only posted a fraction of what I found. The numbers speak for themselves. If you've got something to contradict the Texas study we haven't seen it yet - no big surprise there.
The American Journal of Public Health actually sudied this and contrary to your angry baseless assertion 86% of the decline in teen pregnancies is attributable to improved contraceptive and comprehensive sex education.
"the researcher who conducted the study said one should not draw "overarching" conclusions from it..."
Now isn't that interesting. Anon just flipflopped to the opposite side of this issue compared to when we were talking about Dobson where incidentally not one, but three researchers all said the same thing; Dobson's conclusions are "overarching."
Aunt Bea
Yeah, aunt bea, isn't that hilarious?!
Anonymous, you haven't actually proven the researcher who conducted the study said one should not draw "overarching" conclusions from it, or that it was absent a control group and not peer reviewed, but in the same spirit you were dismissing the researchers who castigated Dobson for misrepresenting their work, no doubt you'll want to specifically explain how this is incorrect:
Prior to participating in an abstinence-only-until-marriage program, 23% of ninth grade girls had engaged in sexual intercourse. Following the program, 29% of the same age group reported having engaged in sexual intercourse. In addition, tenth grade boys reporting sexual intercourse increased from 24% to 39% following abstinence-only-until-marriage instruction.
After all, you did say stats don't lie.
Dearest Ant:
Dobson used their research correctly as seperate pieces of an argument to reach a conclusion. Randi the Illogical said her study directly proved her case. She didn't even to seem to know what the guy studied much less that he said the research method he used was flawed.
"Anonymous, you haven't actually proven the researcher who conducted the study said one should not draw "overarching" conclusions from it, or that it was absent a control group and not peer reviewed,"
You're a sad specimen, Randi. The Reuters article you posted the link for had the quotes you dismiss. I doubt you read it.
Here's some other reading for you:
"The news media jumped upon a study by Texas A&M on the effectiveness of abstinence programs. News coverage about the report's findings indicated that children who received abstinence education were not working because teens were having sex after participating in abstinence education classes. However, the Associated Press did note that A&M researcher Buzz Pruitt “cautioned against drawing overarching conclusions from the study, which is incomplete and does have flaws" including the lack of a control group that would permit measurement of whether the increase in sexual activity would be even greater if teens had no abstinence education at all.
The Abstinence Clearinghouse examined the study by Texas A&M. It decided to compare results with those found by the Center for Disease Control's 2003 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance survey. In essence, the Texas teens in the YRBS study became the control group. The finding? Abstinence Clearinghouse found that “When compared with the general teen population [in the 2003 YRBS survey], teens who participate in abstinence education programs have significantly lower sexual activity rates." The difference was most pronounced among young males. Only 24% of ninth grade males engaged in sexual activity after abstinence classes, nearly 20 percentage points less than those in the larger YRBS study. Nearly 40% of males in the 10th grade did engage in sexual activity, 17 percentage points less than those 10th grade teen males surveyed in the YRBS study.
When NBC polled young Americans recently about their feelings involving sex, the survey turned up some surprising results. Most teens 13-16 years old have not engaged in sexual intercourse. Many are concerned about the adverse consequences, which include pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, even their parents’ reactions. Forty-two percent say they have not had sex because of their moral or religious beliefs. The findings speak to the good sense displayed by many young Americans.
If only some of their elders possessed such common sense. The entertainment industry constantly besieges teens with messages urging sex in its ceaseless production of movies, television programs and songs glorifying sex. Who wants to hear a song about “Because I had sex and picked up a STD, I will never have a child?"
Last fall, the RAND Institute released the results of a study conducted for the National Institute of Child Health and Development. It showed teens who watched shows with a great deal of sexual content were much more likely to engage in sexual intercourse than those teens who watched programs with little sexual content. “This is the strongest evidence yet that the sexual content of television programs encourages adolescents to initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual activities," stated RAND psychologist Rebecca Collins. It is with reason that my friend, Leslee Unruh, President of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, asserts “clean programming is essential" to encourage young Americans to hold positive attitudes toward sex. Hollywood evidently has a very different idea.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Government Reform, challenged the curriculums of abstinence programs, even faulting them for relying upon religious beliefs and moral values and for engaging in gender stereotyping. However, the report prepared by Waxman's own staff was shown to have engaged in faulty analysis. A lesson plan issued by Teen-Aid Inc. that he cited as having claimed as many as 15% of women would be unable to become pregnant after an abortion did not even include that statistic."
It is really humorous to me that Anon keeps insisting that the premier medical associations in the US have only made politically correct statements instead of intellectual or scientific statements. Of course, the opposition that he represents have made statements based in total bigotry and nonsense. Anon, if you want to say (as we know you do ) that the Bible says this and that -then say it- don't try to tell anyone here that you are saying anything else. We aren't as simple as your usual audience.
Anonymous, unlike the situation with Dobson where the researchers soundly repudiated Dobson as being completely in error the texas researcher's statment against drawing overarching conclusions and that it is incomplete and does have flaws is not a total rejection of the conclusions which show prior to participating in an abstinence-only-until-marriage program, 23% of ninth grade girls had engaged in sexual intercourse. Following the program, 29% of the same age group reported having engaged in sexual intercourse. In addition, tenth grade boys reporting sexual intercourse increased from 24% to 39% following abstinence-only-until-marriage instruction.
The YRBS numbers cannot be directly compared to the numbers from the Texas study and certainly don't explain the increases in sexual intercourse documented in that study. The researchers themselves said "we didn't see any strong indications these programs were having an impact in the direction desired…these programs seem to be much more concerned about politics than kids, and we need to get over that." - hardly the sort of total repudiation of conclusions that the reasearchers quoted by Dobson gave.
I remind you that in communities where more than 20% of young adults had taken virginity pledges, STD rates were 8.9%compared to 5.5% in communities with few pledgers.
Peter Bearman and Hanah Brückner, “After the promise: The STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges,” Journal of Adolescent Health 36.4 (2005): 271-278.
"unlike the situation with Dobson where the researchers soundly repudiated Dobson as being completely in error"
This is incorrect. They said they didn't want him using it for that purpose. They never pointed to any point that he falsely said they made.
Gilligan said "there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article. My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can’t raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households."
Pruett said "There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, “What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.”
Only in your bizarro world is that not a total repudiation of Dobson's lies.
Neither Gilligan's or Pruitt's studies were about gay couples heading families. Dobson didn't say they were.
The studies were about the unique contribution made by each gender to child raising. Dobson quoted their points as part of a larger argument saying that children need to have both genders as parents to develop correctly. His quotes were appropriate and, if they weren't, the researchers haven't said which ones the were misleading.
You understand this completely so you have a lot of nerve accusing him of being a liar when you're the one trying to deceive.
Hello? Hello? Is there anyone in there? Dobson was trying to make the argument that gays shouldn't be parents. He was claiming these peoples work made that case when as you admitted yourself the work wasn't about how well the children of gay couples do compared with the children of hetereosexual couples. The researchers adamantly stated that he was wrong to say that anything in their work supported opposing gays as parents.
"He was claiming these peoples work made that case when as you admitted yourself the work wasn't about how well the children of gay couples do compared with the children of hetereosexual couples."
No, he didn't. He said it made part of the case.
I'm taking a blog holiday now, Randi.
Hope you have a white Christmas and see the Northern Lights!
Til next year.
Post a Comment
<< Home