In another post, we were discussing abstinence only education in the context of John McCain tap dancing around questions about whether sex education should include information about contraceptives. So, I thought the following story was instructive:
A recent survey that found some Florida teens believe drinking a cap of bleach will prevent HIV and a shot of Mountain Dew will stop pregnancy has prompted lawmakers to push for an overhaul of sex education in the state.
. . .
The survey showed that Florida teens also believe that smoking marijuana will prevent a person from getting pregnant.
State lawmakers said the myths are spreading because of Florida’s abstinence-only sex education, Local 6 reported.
Here in Indiana, during the past session, Sen. Breaux introduced SB 327 would have required schools adhering to an abstinence only education to notify parents of that fact. The notice would have specified, among other things, that “abstinence-only education does not teach students how to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases other than by remaining abstinent” and that the child was not receiving “medically accurate information” on the risks, benefits, and proper use of various forms of contraception in reducing the risk of pregnancy and STDs.
With Obama,we hopefully will finally be able to put religion and our Constitution back into historic perspective,imhv. Abstinence only is a religious belief,and has no credibility as a program to protect teens or anyone else from disease or unwanted pregnancy.Anyone is free to follow personal belief to practice sexual abstinence no matter what the law may be. Religion can diminish the constitution,but the constitution does not impinge religious belief.Abstinence only will never be prohibited,but contraception can be.. If common sense and religion are opposed to each other,then it’s a false and self-serving confrontation.
I’ve pointed out before that Im kind of an old guy and I emphasize it again to put my personal jublilation for Obama into perspective.I’m no longer a bright-eyed youth working for JFK or Barry Goldwater,two of my early political heros. Obama would be a liberal president,who also happens to be a devout Christian,having announced that he has ‘found Jesus’ ,but would honor our Constitution, mana from Heaven given to this country as a gift to heal the cultural rift opened up by years of religious pandering to one religious element. He will lead us back out of the wilderness. Excuse my sermon. Both religion and Constitutional law have suffered greatly under the present regime.Our Constitution has been under attack from day one,and religion has been perceived as a backwater ignorance promoted by political hacks.
Lou said:
Bingo. I’ll point out the same statement applies to gay marriage as well.
– a “woman of a certain age” (44) voting for Obama
I thought pregnancy was caused by drinking well water. I mean my wife and I drank city water during the first seven years of our marriage-no kids. We move into a house that has well water and suddenly have two kids. Connection…I think so;-)
(Of course this doesn’t explain the twins, except maybe Lake Michigan water is even more powerful!)
This is going to be fun. What other legislation can I validate based on the stupid things that teenagers believe?
These are the same people that can’t find the United States on a map. These are the same people that are functionally illiterate and innumerate. They’re essentially barbarians.
That they think you can douche with the Dew is the least of our problems.
New slogan–“Douche the Dew!”
except maybe Lake Michigan water is even more powerful!
Must be all the “sludge” that BP is “dumping” in the lake.
See, and the Chicago Tribune made it out to be a bad thing.
Yeah and they both have the proper number of digits and everything. Except with potty training the girl has figured out she’s missing something the boy has; and for that reason she must sit to go potty…
Must be the “green” effect BP has on the Region!
I wonder if Mountain Dew inside the tip of a properly applied condom would be effective…
Enough marijuana might cause erectile dysfunction, perhaps, and prevent pregnancy.
Come on, people! Think outside the um… box.
And what’s with Florida, anyway? Sunshine and oranges eating their brains? I mean, everyone around here knows that other than on your first time, or in a hot tub, pregnancy is possible.
My guess is that putting carbonated citric acid and corn syrup in your mate’s sensitive areas might keep you from being invited back, hence reducing the odds for pregnancy and STDs…
I think T is on to something.
Buzzcut posted: This is going to be fun. What other legislation can I validate based on the stupid things that teenagers believe.
………………………………………..
Just offhand here are some of things I’m aware of personally teenagers have said they believe.
And what they believe, determines what they do
You can’t get pregnant if you have sex just once.( a girl was saying what the boy had told her and she knew he wouldn’t lie)
You can’t get disease if you have unprotected sex with the same person, no matter how many times.
Having sex with just one person is OK as long as you love each other (14 yr olds talking)
A girl saying: I want to have a baby so I can be free and take care of it, and live my own life.
Sure we can ignore what teenagers believe,and say it’s nobody’s business except the parents,but a full sexuality presentation done in an academic setting can set things right very fast.First the biology as academics ,then the moral decisions based on full disclosure.
Parallel moral/religion education is a family endeavor. A catholic family,or atheist family, should expect to send their kids to public school and not have them turned into Protestant Evangelicals ,or any other variable..Secular-based education serves all religious views and protects religion as separate and intact.
A survey by state or region of these sexual beliefs would be pretty interesting. Maybe add it to the No Child Left Behind testing. For instance, it is amazing how the “can’t get pregnant your first time” thing persists. I’m tempted to have the person explain what kind of mechanism would lead to such a phenomenon. Like the sperm get confused by some kind of biological “new car smell” or something.
You can’t pregnant – if you’re standing up
if it’s your first time
if she’s on top
right? Sure.
The PLanned Parenthood folks once tried to unite withteh pro-Life movement to put together a sessin for first year women about date rape. That was all, just how to protect yourself against date rape. The pro-life folks refused to participate unless they were given an hour to preach abstinence.
So much for reaching across the divide to work toward a common good – the workshop never happened.
T, do you think that myth was started by a misunderstanding of the hymen?
Lemming, one point. Planned Parenthood is a singular group. The “pro-life movement” is an idea. Saying that a group tried to partner with an idea is equal to a “war on terror”.
I have no doubt, though, that some church or other pro-life group did what you said. Just don’t throw them all in the same bucket.
Jason– I think the “misunderstanding” came from a desire by a guy to get laid. “Come on baby, you’re a virgin! So you don’t have to worry about getting pregnant *tonight*.”
Gay dudes can’t get pregnant.
Something to think about.
-Brad
http://www.clashofculture.com
My favorite all time widespread misconception is that gays and lesbians don’t have children. It’s not a matter of orientation/it’s a matter of whom you have sex with.
“new car smell”
tee hee hee, snicker, snort…
For real now… how can a more educated decision be a bad thing? I’m tremendously proud of Jean Breaux on this one.
Maybe sex ed should be taught by parents…..
Just sayin…
That would be the same people we can’t trust to feed their children breakfast?
Yep, Brenda those are the ones! Before the school system and the government began raising our young, we actually had parents. It’s kind of hard to remember, but a long long time ago a mother (a woman) and a father (a man) were responsible for their children. They fed them, educated them and taught them right from wrong. It was a novel concept, antiquated really, by todays societal structure.
I seem to recall the results were far better too when the parents were raising the kids, not the state.
Tim, I think you have the chicken before the egg on this one. Or maybe you just lived in a different coop.
For starters, we probably need to return to a time when a single worker’s average income is enough to support the entire family.
Doug says:
For starters, we probably need to return to a time when a single worker’s average income is enough to support the entire family
…………………………………..
This is exactly the kind of comment I hear in Europe about lack of family values in the States. Every American has to work just to get by.Even the kids work as soon as they are old enough to support themselves,and the wife has a full time job.The American family has been destroyed and the French fear that France is being destroyed by American values. The whole family works on weekends and nights,and can never sit down to a meal together,because someone is always missing,which is a nightmare scenario for the French.Then even with all that, people can’t afford health insurance in many cases.It makes the French shudder.
To hear it in Europe,especially France where I have more contacts, the USA is a fallen country culturally,and then ,the conversation thread goes into American violence and our ‘gun mentality’and how dangerous the USA is. Then,maybe american race issues would then start another conversation thread yet another loser for oure American culture
It’s hard to explain one’s own culture without being defensive,but I try to point out that work for Americans is a personal freedom and independance and everyone is advertsing-driven to have the latest invention,and daily living comfort level in the States is way above what it is anywhere in Europe.France particulary is not a ‘comfortable’ place for everyday living.But if people haven’t visited both countries that doesnt mean anything.I also point out that with race issues,the USA has made considerably progess with laws being passed in just in my lifetime,but entrenched cultural views change very gradually..
The other traditional reason why French had been unwilling to travel in the States is because of how bad our food is.But that’s one improvement the French partculary have noticed over the last few years. If one is informed they can now eat very well in the states,from the French point of view,which means one sit-down, served, several course meal daily.
Seeing as how average household income in the US is thousands of dollars more than just about any European country you can think of, I would say that Lou’s European friends don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
Certainly, no one from France, England, or Germany should be talking smack about the US economy. I’ll accept some criticism from the Swiss.
When I lived in London on an expense account, my English colleagues made less than I did, paid way more taxes, and paid just stupid amounts for rent. They were poor by American measures.
And they had to wear suits to work. No “business casual” over there.
These days, they all come over to Manhattan to shop. They actually think that they’re getting a bargain. And compared to London, they are.
A couple of thoughts — I have no data, so I’m not pretending to know the answers.
First, household income stats might not be an appropriate measure if U.S. households have 2 incomes while their European counterpart has 1 income (and leaves the other parent at home to play more of a role in raising children.)
Second, if they pay a lot more in taxes, it may be that they have a lot more of their needs already squared away — for example, the European household may not have to part with thousands of dollars in health insurance premiums.
Third, I believe the dollar is pretty weak compared to the Euro; that’d mean they were getting a great deal purchasing merchandise here, just as we get a great deal buying stuff in Mexico.
For starters, we probably need to return to a time when a single worker’s average income is enough to support the entire family.
I think you need to educate yourself on the subject, here.
Check out the table on income quintiles. The bottom row shows the median number of income earners per quintile.
The median houshold in terms of income has 1 income earner in it. That median income was $48k in 2006.
I think that a family of 4 could be easily supported on such an income, especially in Indiana.
Check out the tables on income broken down by education. Pretty damn enlightening, if you ask me. It doesn’t seem like college grads have any difficulty making one income work.
Now, maybe you want to revise your statement to say “we need to return to a time when a single worker, with only a high school education, had enough income to support an entire family”. But we aren’t ever going back there, which is what upsets me so much about the educational landscape in Indiana.
if they pay a lot more in taxes, it may be that they have a lot more of their needs already squared away — for example, the European household may not have to part with thousands of dollars in health insurance premiums.
Consider that most Americans have the vast majority of their health insurance premiums paid by their employers, and that these benefits are not incorporated into the household income statistics.
So no, the fact that European taxes go to socialized medicine does not make up for their lack of household income or insane tax rates.
Doug, Doug, Doug… I’ve said it before, and I’ll sait it again. A family of four can *still* live on the income of one moderate wage earner (I know a family of 10 that does it with two currently in college) – we just choose *not* to.
That nostalgic time you keep reflecting on (the way I was raised, for that matter) included the following maximums.
Compare to your household today:
1 stereo
1 tv
1 movie night a month (if we were lucky)
1 dining out a month (a single breakfast, lunch or dinner)
20 toys that were passed down from one generation to another
5 shirts per person
5 pairs of pants per person
2 pairs of shoes per person
1 family vehicle
library card
vegetable garden
1 family camping trip each year
I could go on and on. If you want to do it the way we were raised (or the way our parents were, depending upon your age), you can easily do it on one moderate income… with savings.
You are comparing apples to Organic Papayas drop-shipped from Hawaii.
To current standards, that may sound like we were poor… we weren’t. We just lived simply and had other priorities. I went on a trip to Germany for two weeks when I was 14.
That brings up the problem with disparities. When you and everybody you know pretty much has the same sort of stuff, even if it’s not very good stuff or very much stuff, you don’t feel deprived. When a lot of your peers are maxing out their credit cards to buy a lot of cool stuff, all you see is the cool stuff, not their credit card bills.
This isn’t necessarily something that government policy needs to address, but it is one factor our parents didn’t have to deal with so much. In terms of government policy, I suppose it might stem back to a Supreme Court case (late 70s or early 80s, I believe) that allowed credit card companies based in a state with loose usury laws to enter into binding, high interest agreements, with citizens in states with strict usury laws. That freed up a lot of credit which had some good effects and some bad effects. (I’m not trying to make any particular point here, just rambling.)
Even at the time (60’s and 70’s) we were off-kilter with our peers. If it wasn’t credit cards as much then, it was living at the edge of your means. However, the “priorities” explanation was delivered in such a way as to make sense to me, even when I was young. Not always, of course. When our TV died when I was 7 and we didn’t replace it, the family took a palpable hit in my book. Hmm…I read far more than the average person in my social circle…. go figure.