posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
orichalcum at 11:26am on 02/12/2004
orichalcum at 11:26am on 02/12/2004I'm bringing this up particularly because I thought there were more interesting viewpoints and discussion to be had on this topic. There's a WaPo article out today stating that the last 3 years of federally funded abstinence education have resulted in millions of American children being taught, among other things, that:
• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
Also, and this is my favorite part...
"Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."
Update: Having read the report in more detail, the particularly awful thing here is that the princess's solutions are _effective_ - a noose and poison, but make the knight feel ashamed and dishonorable because he isn't facing the dragon directly. Heaven forbid the woman cut through the crap and actually get the dragon killed, even with "women's weapons."
Now, the article doesn't give any statistics on how effective this education has been at preventing sex among its students - I couldn't find any such data; it may be too early. But I can't help feeling that lying to students to scare them about unprotected sex (not to mention perpetuating horrific gender stereotypes) has much the same effect as telling students in the 1950's to hide under their desk to protect themselves from nuclear bomb attack - it just makes everyone first more paranoid and then more cynical.
Thoughts?
• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
Also, and this is my favorite part...
"Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."
Update: Having read the report in more detail, the particularly awful thing here is that the princess's solutions are _effective_ - a noose and poison, but make the knight feel ashamed and dishonorable because he isn't facing the dragon directly. Heaven forbid the woman cut through the crap and actually get the dragon killed, even with "women's weapons."
Now, the article doesn't give any statistics on how effective this education has been at preventing sex among its students - I couldn't find any such data; it may be too early. But I can't help feeling that lying to students to scare them about unprotected sex (not to mention perpetuating horrific gender stereotypes) has much the same effect as telling students in the 1950's to hide under their desk to protect themselves from nuclear bomb attack - it just makes everyone first more paranoid and then more cynical.
Thoughts?
devious
There are 19 comments on this entry. (Reply.)