Posted
by April Fleming
November 1, 2006 at 11:27 p.m.
D.A.R.E. you to abstain!
[Government Tells Singles No Sex 'Til You're 30][1] "WASHINGTON, Oct. 31, 2006 - If you're single and in your 20s, the federal government wants you to steer clear of sex. That's the new guidance for states under the Department of Health and Human Services' $50 million Abstinence Education Program. HHS officials say it's not a requirement - just another option for states to combat what they call an alarming rise in out-of-wedlock births."At this point it's not exactly a hot story that the government spends an extraordinary amount of taxpayer money on abstinence education (more than just the $50 million detailed here) around the world. And It's not like they're wrong as far as biology is concerned - no sex, no babies, yeah? ![][2]But this has slowly evolved into religious second bastard cousin to the spectacular waste that was (and somehow, despite a respectable amount of evidence that it is ineffective, still is) the D.A.R.E. program. Remember back in 1993 when the [Government Accountability Office][3] found that there was no statistically significant evidence of the effectiveness of the program?Have a peek at a portion of the government's guidelines for what just could not possibly be another fantastic misuse of money (which, if you don't mind, I could use a piece of for some health insurance). I've bolded (perhaps emboldened?)my favorite bits: "IV.7 Legislative Priorities Describe how the State's proposed plan will address each of the following A-H elements: (A)"has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity; (B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children; (C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems; (D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity; (E) teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; (F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society; (G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and (H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity. Each element should be meaningfully represented in all Federally funded abstinence education grantee programs and curricula."Hm. C. Birth Control. Condoms. D. Paying taxes to reinforce moral standards. No, please. E. In 2006, less than 50% of American households are married households. We be in trouble. F. See 'E'. H. Self-sufficiency? Like paying rent?I remember learning about disease and pregnancy risk in health class in high school and elementary school, and from what was in the 5-book series of '70s sex ed for kids books my parents directed me to rather than deal with the awkward conversation (something we Irish Catholics have mastered). Surely there were recommendations for abstinence, or at least mentions of it somewhere. But like D.A.R.E., it didn't quite resonate in the teenaged brain when it came to being in the situation. Somehow though, I made it through without pregnancy, disease, or unforeseeable psychological/physical effects: but I suppose I'm not up to expected human standards. In that case, hopefully Grandma is actually praying for me. ![][4] [1]: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2619061&page=1 [2]: http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/f... [3]: http://www.gao.gov [4]: http://media.lawrence.com/img/blogs/f...
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
I only have one child, a boy, and I was brutally candid with him about the real world ramifications of unprotected sex. I didn't rely upon moral platitudes or threats of punishment in another realm. I knew that such concepts were just not going to be remembered all that well in the heat of passion/lust and without the attached social stigma that once existed. But I still didn't want to see him creating babies before he was ready to be a father! (I made it abundantly clear that if he was a father, he'd be expected to do the responsible thing, by society and his family.)
So, I basically told him in great and gory detail how things worked...and that anytime he had sex, with any female, he was risking (a) creating another person just like HER and (b) linking himself and his fate (mental, financial, and emotional) to that female for the rest of his natural days. I said, before doing it always ask yourself this one question "Do I want to make another person just like her?"
I went over and over the things that go along with "making love", good and bad. That kind of information, given early and often, made him a little more "afraid" to give into the natural urges (and the young women throwing themselves at his feet).
He was not as pure as the driven snow when he married at age 23 (?), but he was a darn sight more careful about with whom and how he did things! At least, that is what his wife now tells me.... Mothers are so often the last to know these things!
mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says…
Yeah, but you shoulda seen porno collection . . . .sheesh.
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says…
Sex is dirty. So are awkward converstations, but I'd rather not talk about it. Abstinence means never having to say you're sorry. Abstinence Missions are the surest signs that the terrorists have won.
Good lord, stop me before I hit that Post comment butto...
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Better pictures then lots of babies mamas, eh?
feeble (anonymous) says…
Anyone else think that the costume'd crusader on the cover of that abstinence comic looks a bit like "The Tick"?
jochan (Jocelyn Craft) says…
feeble, you're not wrong. That was, in fact, my first impression. It's the Tick without feelers. (Gee, that could get a little Freudian, couldn't it?)
cvillehawk (anonymous) says…
The guy on the comic doesn't technically abstain. As anyone can see, due to the tightness of his outfit: he has no dick.
mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) says…
Absolutely, first thing I thought of. Kind of appropriate, though, because c'mon, who'd screw the Tick? Bat Manuel, though. . . .
alm77 (anonymous) says…
Here's the problem with governmental promotion of abstinence: It's totally un-American.
People in this country want to eat what they want, drink what they want and screw who they want with zero consequences. You no longer hear the message "eat right and exercise" or "cut down on alcohol intake". Instead you get diet pills and no-hang-over meds or liver transplants (not that alcoholism is the only reason for liver failure). Since we (meaning typical Americans, I'm sure this doesn't apply to anyone on *this* board) ;) have become accustomed to getting a shot, a pill or a device that deafens the natural consequences of our actions, we've lost the Pavlovian impulse to avoid things that are unhealthy.
I think there are those who will abstain, but the majority won't. Those who abstain can learn the information and use it when they do become active and those who don't abstain need all the information they can get NOW. Total prevention would be abstinence, manageable prevention would be moderation, (which, IMO, is what should be the governmental objective) but there will always be some people that have no grid for either since our culture hands out cures so readily and easily.
thetomdotdot (anonymous) says…
"We've lost the Pavlovian impulse to avoid things that are unhealthy."
Can't say as I recall losing any drool over that particular impulse.
But thats just me.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
thetomdotdot....keep on drooling. It's one of the reasons you are so loved! LOL.
alm77 (anonymous) says…
thetom.... it's all in how you're conditioned. ;)
Mackadoo (anonymous) says…
alm77 -- interesting point about abstinence being un-American. You don't see the religious right campaining to abstain from anything but sex. They consume - and waste - ridiculous amounts of food, gas, alcohol (well, no alcohol for the Baptists), electricity, land, water... you name it. Of course, they're not the only ones consuming and wasting.
I tend to believe Jesus would be against overconsumption of all those things as well, but maybe the religious right knows God's will a lot better than I do ;)
godjilla (Jill Ensley) says…
Heyyyyyy, didn't I work with you?
rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…
What's the ticks favorite positions?....SPOON!
fletch (anonymous) says…
"(E) teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;"
That's neo-con code for "don't be a homosexual." Saying "context of marriage" is just double talk for "straight married couple."
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
AT the risk of being violently attacked - I tend to believe that Jesus is less against anything then he is FOR certain things - things that are good for us whether we know/like it or not. . Whatever that might be is up for debate. But lists of do's and don'ts are for people who did not get it when he simply said "love God, love each other" and left it at that.
OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says…
fletch,
i agree with you about the un-married being political code for gay, however i just wanted to clarify your mentioning of the neo-cons.
the neo-cons are actually not the problem with this particular issue. (don't get me wrong, they are the root of plenty of problems however). When we talk about neo-cons, just to clarify we're really talking about only a dozen or so people in high-power positions (cheney, rumsfeld, perle, frum, ledeen, kristol etc). For the most part they are not that concerned with the social issues. It's the military and foreign policy issues with which the neo-cons are most interested.
If we need to identify the "men behind the curtain" that helped create something like this abstinence-only issue, the no-sex sex-ed etc, i believe they are more the work of the born-again theocrats (the focus on the family, christian coalition etc). Now that isn't to say that some characters don't fall into multiple groups, but for the sake of credibility, i think it's important to only blame the neo-cons for the things the neo-cons have eff'd up and blame the theocrats for that which they've eff'd up. anyway, just my $0.02.
bluedragon (anonymous) says…
As far as I'm concerned "Abstinence Only" education is the surest way to pregnancy and STD's. If it's badgered into a kid's head that having sex (a natural human activity) is a terrible thing, then he/she is likely to find any means neccesary to hide the fact that he/she does, when he/she does. That means NOT buying condoms or any other means of protecting himself/herself.