Sex Education in America (and the world)Follow

George Bush believes strongly that the only information your children need about sex is that abstinence is 100% effective against preventing both pregnancy and STDs. He believes this so strongly that he has made it national policy, schools lose federal funds if they teach anything other than abstenance or mention condoms other than to relate that they are not 100% effective. This policy reaches beyond our borders and effects the rest of the world. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,710335,00.html

Essentially Bush refuses to allow American dollars to fund programs overseas that teach anything other than no sex until marriage as THE way to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

I think that it is unrealistic to expect all tenns to abstain until they are married. I think it is foolish not to provide our children with information that can save them from a lifetime of suffering. I think it is dangerous to the entire human race to think that AIDS is going to go away if we only wait until we are married to have sex.

Anyway I have more to say, but I'm having trouble focusing right now. So reply and I will get back to you.

I'm from Canada. Our sexual education has never included abstinance, and all the relationship talk they added had sex somewhere in the equation.

I heard about the U.K's new campaign to reduce teen pregnancy by encouraging kids to engage in oral sex as opposed to intercourse.

Hmmm...that's like inviting someone over for wings, but making them leave before the ribs.

No, I think he genuinely believes it. This has been a part of his platform since he was elected govenor of Texas in 1995. (In that time Texas dropped to 49th in teen births in the nation, and is currently tied with Mississippi for last in the nation.)

I would like to hear G.W. Bush's abstinence story so i would have a role model.

Edit**
Seeing as how he was born in 1946 and didnt marry Laura until 1977 he would have one hell of an abstinence tale all 31 years of it.

Edited, Sun Jul 25 02:00:54 2004 by bhodisattva

Yeah. The only problem is that many didn't teach it at all.

I got lucky. ^^



I completely agree. The problem is that this isn't really a school-type subject though. I don't think a setting full of your peers, experienced or otherwise, is really going to help students learn about the ins and outs of the bodys sexual side. I would really like to see this taken to a hospital and taught there, with AID/HIV patients helping to teach the class. Have a representative of each disease explaining what it does, what they could have done to prevent it, and the whole nine. I remember my "Sex-Ed" class (if it can be called that, it was sparse,) I remember the high school politics of the day playing a huge part in student behavior.

I don't remember learning much (most of it I knew anyway) but I do recall half the class seemed to think it was a joke. Every time '*****' or '******' was mentioned there was a general *snicker* and *Hand over mouth* laughter and smiles. Even if we do buff up on sex-ed in high school we still face the fact that most of this should be taught alot earlier than high school. We really should stop demonizing sex, it's not healthy to our society. I mean if we were more like europe this wouldn't even be an issue we would have to deal with.

Why is that? Because the kids are embarassed. They're embarassed because sexuality is not a comfortable topic of conversation in a puritan influenced society.

You'd think we would have shrugged off that particular yoke of guilt and shame decades ago.

Our sex education in England was mostly in the playground behind the bike-sheds. Yes we were taught the biological processes involved by teachers, and given the basics about STI's. There was also a message about mutual and respect somewhere in there.

I totally agree that promoting abstinence only has a place if it's tempered with a 'But if you do. . .' message.

If we really want to spook the Religious Right, try this article, also from the Observer.

Bush didn't listen to the U.N, so why should the U.N. listen to Bush?

Don't you mean first in the nation? As in most teen births?

You really have to love a platform that includes anti birth control, anti abortion, and anti homosexuality. It sure is a good thing he supports the death penalty, that way we can clean up all of the unwanted kids who become violent criminals.

Way to not even state your opinion on the topic at hand.

Or if you did, you hid it in a jumble of verbal diarrhea.

Just out of curiosity, where are getting your statistics from? I did a quick google search, which brought me to the CDC website, where it looks like Texas ranked as the state with the third highest rate of teen pregnancy. Washington, DC has the highest rate of teen pregnancy, followed by Michiga, followed by Texas. Vermont has the lowest rate of teen pregnancy, which is why they would be ranked first in the nation. The statistics are here. (It's a pdf file)

So, basically abstinence education is NOT working in Texas.

edit - NM, I read the post wrong - but here are the statistics nonetheless.

Edited, Sun Jul 25 17:42:03 2004 by kundalini