Abstaining From Faith-Based Sex Ed Programs
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Education, Religion
I think Rhode Island has made the right move on a faith-based abstinence program. More from The Westerly Sun:
PROVIDENCE - Rhode Island education officials have banned from public schools a federally funded abstinence program that civil rights advocates said embraced sexist stereotypes and included a voluntary student health survey that violated privacy laws.Lawyers at the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union first complained last year that a now-abandoned textbook used by Heritage of Rhode Island taught students that girls should wear clothing that doesn’t invite “lustful thoughts” from boys. The book described men as “strong” and “courageous” while women were called “caring.”
A speaker on an accompanying videotape said abstinence helped him “honor my relationship with Jesus,” although Heritage officials said the tape wasn’t used in public schools.
But hey, they stopped teaching this stuff over a year ago. So what’s the big deal?
Authorities at the private health education firm said they stopped using the disputed materials a year ago.“The issues they’re asking about are old, dead stuff,” said Chris Plante, executive director of Heritage of Rhode Island. He said he plans to meet this spring with state education officials to work out a mutually acceptable curriculum.
Sure, let’s move on Chris…but why in the hell did you attempt to pawn this religious stuff off on children in the first place? Didn’t you realize that people would see through the thinly veil as they always do? I mean…come on. And so people, this is where faith-based funding actually breaks down in most cases. Personally, I think it should probably be phased out in favor of private organizations which have absolutely no affiliation with the church, with the only funding for churches going to disaster relief work.
Now, if the money spigot gets shut off that will most likely mean that kids probably won’t be taught abstinence. Well, I don’t really consider that a big loss honestly. Why? Because proper sexual education teaches protection. Abstinence educations teaches…well…abstaining. But just in case you’re a fan of abstinence, these statistics about STD transmission may change your mind.
This entry was posted on Friday, March 24th, 2006 and is filed under Education, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 24th, 2006 at 11:39 am
I think it’s really a shame that the program was terminated, if only because we do need to teach our girls that wearing provocative clothing invites sexually aggressive behavior from the boys. If they would just cover themselves up, the boys wouldn’t think about sex anymore.
Also, that billboard ROCKS! It’s totally 80’s. It makes me think of Madonna, leg warmers, and my old pink denim jacket with all the buttons on it - like my WHAM! button, and my “like I care” button. Oh, the good old days . . . .
March 24th, 2006 at 11:54 am
I’m not getting your logic about funding church-based disaster relief. The funds are still going to, well, churches. If you think the government shouldn’t be providing money to faith-based organizations, then why don’t you think that globally? Why just toss out this one, single exception? Why can’t the disaster-relief funding go to “private organizations which have absolutely no affiliation with the church“?
When you say “breaks down in most cases,” what’s your universe of faith-based programs include? Soup kitchens? After-school programs? Community centers? ESL programs? Community gardens? Etc. etc.
No offense, but either your position isn’t really well thought out, or a bunch of your argument is missing. At the very least, it would be helpful if you defined your terms and sense of context.
March 24th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
So let me get this straight:
You’re saying abstinence doesn’t work because those who break it get STD’s.
Suprise Suprise, Wonder of wonders.
Oh, and btw. Looking at those stats, aside from Asians, it would appear that while “not statistically significant”, there was an absolute difference in the rate in favor of the abstinence program.
I contend that sex-ed should be run like philosophy, not wood shop. Children do not need to know HOW to have intercourse if the purpose is to PREVENT them from doing so. Instead they should be flooded with teenage mothers and kids with STDs who share thier experiences of early sex and how it destroyed thier lives, then be introduced to married couples who waited and whose children have bright futures, et al.
“Lawyers at the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union first complained last year that a now-abandoned textbook used by Heritage of Rhode Island taught students that girls should wear clothing that doesn’t invite “lustful thoughtsâ€Â? from boys. The book described men as “strongâ€Â? and “courageousâ€Â? while women were called “caring.â€Â?”
ACLU says it all. The ACLU has been in Planned Parenthood and thier ilks rolodex since PP’s inception. Aside from that:
“strong and couragous” men. “conservative” clothing. “caring” women. EGADS man! The HORROR! How dare they indoctrinate children with this vile garbage when they could be putting condoms on bananas and learning the uses of birth control pills and diaphramns and how pre-marital sex is “OK”, especially “when it feels right for you and your partner”, in addition to “abortions are a morally nuetral and painless way to get rid of a problem pregnancy”.
Simply Shocking.
March 24th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
“Instead they should be flooded with teenage mothers and kids with STDs who share thier experiences of early sex and how it destroyed thier lives, then be introduced to married couples who waited and whose children have bright futures, et al.”
YES, let’s scare the shit out of kids and make them think that sex is a dirty, dirty, bad thing, unless you are doing it after you get married to make a baby. But, I do agree with you, as I said above, that we should be telling those slutty girls to cover themselves up, for God’s sake!!
March 24th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Justin,
I do agree that we should be teaching prevention and I have no problems talking about condoms and the like. But I don’t agree we should just not talk about abstinence as an option as well. I think we should give kids as many choices as possible. Most kids are going to have sex and it makes sense to teach them how to use a condom and things like that. But some might want to wait, and we need to tell them that this is okay as well. We shouldn’t assume every kid wants to get busy and I didn’t appreciate your casual contempt for abstianence. I’m not a religious right nut, but like I said, we need to give kids ALL the options including abstainence.
March 24th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Oftentimes these abstinence programs don’t talk about protection. That’s my big problem with it. Because they focus solely on never having sex, they don’t prepare teens for the inevitable. And those STD numbers prove that out.
And by the way, any responsible sex ed program that teaches protection usually also teaches abstinence. But they don’t dwell on it because it’s not a likely scenario for the majority of teenagers. In short, why teach something to teens that the majority of them aren’t going to practice anyway?
Education is key, and we have to prepare our kids for the realities of sex, life, etc. That’s my point with this post.
March 24th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
“Oftentimes these abstinence programs don’t talk about protection. That’s my big problem with it. Because they focus solely on never having sex, they don’t prepare teens for the inevitable.”
I agree with teaching kids all the lines of defense. Teach them abstinence, teach them condoms, teach them masturbation(!), teach them birth control, teach them respect, teach them commitment.
But I know enough people who followed abstinence just fine, to know sex is not “inevitable”. Say this to a conservative, and they hear you saying that humans are nothing but a bunch of horny animals, and should be treated as such.
“In short, why teach something to teens that the majority of them aren’t going to practice anyway?”
Like math?
March 24th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Paul,
Where do you live and how old are you? I only personally know one person who is saving HIMself for marriage (allegedly - no, I actually do believe him), and he is an ultra-conservative Christian. I’m not even sure it’s not an excuse for why he hasn’t gotten laid yet.
Anyway, are you saying you know people who remained abstinent just while they were teenagers, or throughout their lives, or until they get married, or what? Everyone I know, except for said exception above, is doin’ it and has been for quite some time. We ARE a bunch of horny animals, and I think it’s GREAT!!
I’m not saying that teens having gobs of sex is a good idea, but they ARE going to do it - even if they wait until they go to college, and when they do, it’s best that they have all the info.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Our evolutionary biology, in addition to that, has given us mouths-full of teeth for tearing raw flesh and a propensity to kill others and take their resources. It doesn’t necessarily mean we ought to encourage our children to fling themselves into their instincts.
One of the reasons I don’t trust these mandates is that they’re always aimed at someone else’s kids. You know, the people who push them tend to say, “I’m fine at raising my child right, and traditionally this ought to be a parent’s job, but YOU other parents aren’t doing it right, so I want the state to step in.” That’s often a red flag, for me.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
I proposed to our local school board that we teach the children in grades 2 through 6 that eating candy on a regular basis was bad for their teeth …. they tried …. the program was cancelled after one semester period ….. because the snickers budget was gone in a month …
Kids are going to learn about sex just like they have for eons … all this crap does is make SOME folks think they have been involved.
Also, I always wondered about how many of the folks who preach abstinance, and how many of the folks who provide alternatives …. have prescriptions for Cialus ..
March 24th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
This is a good point. For those who think that humans are nothing more than animals in the pursuit of fulfilling our urges — what other animals overeats, oversexes itself, takes their pursuit of “natural” instincts to a sick, twist and unnatural levels? None, obviously. We humans are it. Why? What makes us different?
March 25th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
No. That is a really bad point. It’s also provably false. Anybody out there got a dog? A cat? Take a look inside their mouth. When you compare our teeth to carinvores’ teeth, there are few comparisons.
As far as the whole “kill others and take their resources”, well, the United States became a nation because we killed others and took their resources. And the children back then were encouraged to do so. But that’s the past. Currently, there are many ways one can do that. Killing aside, we are a society built upon capitalism, which is a very polite way of taking other’s resources. But yes, let’s take on killing. Don’t we teach our children to kill to defend their property, their cities and their country? I’ve gone hunting, been taught to shoot a rifle, shotgun, etc.
Sorry, I just think these are really bad points and don’t devalue mine in the least.
March 26th, 2006 at 1:57 am
Huh? Those points have nothing to do with your points. They’re addressed to the whimsical notion that just because we have particular sexual instincts we ought to embrace them and treat them as what we’re supposed to do.
Compare your dental structure to a dog. Then compare it to a rabbit. Which are you most like?
April 23rd, 2006 at 5:56 pm
I would be in favor of promoting abstinence through high school. Don’t begin to think about getting fully sexual till you get out of your parents’ house, age 17-18. (I don’t mean withhold information about protection, but don’t treat early and mid-teen sexual activity as inevitable or the norm. It’s not either/or, it’s a matter of emphasis. Treat it as an undesirable exception. Disaster preparedness.)
Besides being practical and considerate (neither you nor your parents want them walking in on you in flagrante), this rough rule has the advantage of postponing the legitimacy of sexual activity till the brain has matured. Young to mid-teens may have exploding sexual urges, but their most overpowering urge is peer status. Most of them need some protected time to get their sense of self in place before they become sexually active, so they have some awareness of what they actually want and don’t want to do, rather than being utterly driven by cool and status. Sorry to say it, but girls need the experiences of masturbation and what used to be called “necking and petting” even more than boys do, just to have a ghost of a chance of finding out how their bodies and souls work before being overwhelmed by male importunity.
April 14th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
[...] Here’s the deal… this was a win for the religious right. They got a chance to inject religion into the classroom and teach kids that you shouldn’ t have sex until you’re married. And hey, good for them that they were able to try. That’s what makes this country great. [...]