Washington Funds False Sex Lessons

Quote:

---

The Bush administration is funding sexual health projects that teach children that HIV can be contracted through sweat and tears, touching genitals can result in pregnancy, and that a 43-day-old foetus is a thinking person.
A congressional analysis of more than a dozen federally funded "abstinence-only programmes" unveiled a litany of "false, misleading and distorted information" in teaching materials after reviewing curriculums designed to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

There are more than 100 abstinence programmes, involving several million children aged nine to 18, and running in 25 states since 1999. They are funded by the federal government to the tune of $170m (£88.5m), twice the amount when George Bush came to power.

The money goes to religious, civic and medical organisations as grants. To qualify they may only talk about types of contraception in terms of their failure rates, not about how to use them, or the possible benefits.

The survey was conducted by the staff of congressman Henry Waxman of California, a longstanding Democratic critic of the Republican administration's approach to sex education. His team concentrated on the 13 programmes that are most widely used, and found only two of them were accurate.

"It is absolutely vital that the health education provided to America's youth be scientifically and medically accurate," Mr Waxman said. "The abstinence-only programmes reviewed in this report fail to meet this standard."

Other "facts" include that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, half the gay male teenagers in the US have tested positive for HIV, and condoms fail to prevent transmission of HIV in 31% of incidences of heterosexual intercourse. US government figures contradict all of these assertions.

AC Green's Game Plan - a programme named after a basketball player who said he would not have sex before marriage - teaches: "The popular claim that condoms help prevent the spread of STDs, is not supported by the data."

Mr Waxman told the Washington Post: "I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."

But government officials said Mr Waxman's report rehashed old anti-abstinence prejudices for political purposes. Alma Golden, the deputy assistant health and human services secretary for population affairs, said it took statements out of context to present programmes in the worst possible light.

"These issues have been raised before and discredited," Ms Golden said. "One thing is very clear for our children: abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs, and preventing pregnancy."

Mr Waxman also criticised some programmes for reinforcing sexist stereotypes to children. One - Why Know - says: "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments."

Another programme, Wait Training, says: "Just as a woman needs to feel a man's devotion to her, a man has a primary need to feel a woman's admiration. To admire a man is to regard him with wonder, delight, and approval. A man feels admired when his unique characteristics and talents happily amaze her."

---

Source

o-kay.... lets misinform instead of teach or protect.

No change there then Mr Bush :rolleyes:

And damned Federal money goes for this bullshit.

The subject of the abstinence only education programmes has been mentioned several times before, this report came out earlier this week.
i didn't agree with the program to begin with because it takes a "morals only" approach ignoring practical realities.

this news if true only makes my opposition to the programme stronger. Government money should not be going towards misinformation and whoever is responsible should be removed from their position..... not that anyone will lose their job for incompetence for at least "4 more years"

Quote:

---

and that a 43-day-old foetus is a thinking person.

---

Well considering that they've got Bush as an example, it would probably be a genius too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Well considering that they've got Bush as an example, it would probably be a genius too.

---

:lol:

much like teaching that condoms can prevent aids and other STD's...

:dry: Great another Junior Anti-Sex League. As if Partnership for a Drug-Free America wasent bad enough. :rolleyes:

They could spend all this money on this bullshit.

or they could take a lesson from the anti tobacco people and threten people.

say something like:

"If you have sex without a condom tiny midgets will come and bite your dick off"

That would deter kids from getting it on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

much like teaching that condoms can prevent aids and other STD's...

---

Try filling a condom with clean water, then suspend it in a bath of salty water. If they are as leaky as you appear to suggest the water inside the condom would become salty, it is called osmosis. It doesn't happen, and salt molecules are much smaller than viruses and bacteria so they can't get through either.

Ignorant statements like this could be responsible for thousands of deaths. I suspect that giving out false information like this could leave those giving the advice liable to legal action. Perhaps that could even bankrupt the Republican Party. Keep up the good work.

I used Condoms as our primary birth control method during the many years of my marriage - they worked perfectly and I have no idea how many we got through (a lot). We stopped using them twice and we had two children (conception in both cases taking only a month).

I have seen idiots ripping them on TV saying "look they are not safe" All I can say is I wouldn't want to have sex with these lunatics - a tad too rough for my taste :)

A condom is not 100% fool proof and there are a fair number of fools out there. A seat belt is not 100% effective either, should we remove them from cars?

Of course not doing anything is safer. Not going near cars or roads will dramatically reduce your chances of road death.

However, as the old saying goes, "if you can't be good be careful". The message that condoms are irrelevant is not a sound one. They have a part to play in helping improve sexual health and they definitely are pretty effective in birth control (otherwise there would be a dozen or more little Biggles running around - perish the thought).

There is absolutely no excuse for teaching our children things of this nature that are not true.

My son is 11, he understands sex, he understands pregnancy, he understands sexually transmitted diseases. He also understands how condoms can prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, but at the same time, he knows without question that abstinence is the safest way to prevent both. At this moment in time, he's pretty appalled by the mere idea of it, and has stated vehemently that he's never having sex. I'm not naive enough to believe that it will stay this way, but I'm preparing him for it when it does happen.

What is wrong with teaching children the truth? If they're going to have sex, they're going to do it with or without knowing the risks. I'd rather they were armed with the knowledge of all their options.

Just a note though, although I believe that sex education programs are important in school, I also feel that a subject like this should also be reinforced in the home. It's part of a parent's role and responsibility, to educate their child, and this is too important a topic to leave up to someone else. I mean, most parents help their kids with their homework and take an interest in what their learning in math or english, they should be just as involved with what they're learning about sex.

Quote:

---

The Bush administration is funding sexual health projects that teach children that HIV can be contracted through sweat and tears, touching genitals can result in pregnancy, and that a 43-day-old foetus is a thinking person.

---

Sounds like fundamentalist christian/ anti sex groups. Oh wait..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

What is wrong with teaching children the truth?

---

If the truth were widely available, within a generation there would be no Republicans.
You see the dilemma.....

Less Taxes - Less Money for States/Cities - Less Money for Education = Another generation stupid enough to vote for Less Taxes etc etc etc..


No wonder they dont want info available :rolleyes: