Comments on: The definition of abstinence only sex education http://karenrayne.com/2007/04/15/the-definition-of-abstinence-only-sex-education/ Thu, 17 May 2012 22:28:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Ruth http://karenrayne.com/2007/04/15/the-definition-of-abstinence-only-sex-education/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Ruth Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:35:00 +0000 http://karenrayne.com/?p=30#comment-69 I am disgusted by the amount of money being spent on this very limited, narrow agenda. These teachings fly in the face of many adolescents' own experience and the experience of their friends, so it can only further the distance between them and educators on this topic. This is appalling!<br/><br/>(Although, as Dorian points out, item #7 is excellent; this subject is not talked about nearly enough. The percentage of sexual assaults where the victim is impaired from drugs and/or alcohol is very high.)<br/><br/>Karen, I look forward to more from you on this topic. I am disgusted by the amount of money being spent on this very limited, narrow agenda. These teachings fly in the face of many adolescents’ own experience and the experience of their friends, so it can only further the distance between them and educators on this topic. This is appalling!

(Although, as Dorian points out, item #7 is excellent; this subject is not talked about nearly enough. The percentage of sexual assaults where the victim is impaired from drugs and/or alcohol is very high.)

Karen, I look forward to more from you on this topic.

]]> By: Alice http://karenrayne.com/2007/04/15/the-definition-of-abstinence-only-sex-education/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Alice Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:22:00 +0000 http://karenrayne.com/?p=30#comment-68 I think a lot of those goals sound good on paper, but there's a lot they're not saying. They're not talking about how EVERYONE NEEDS TO LEARN TO PROPERLY USE CONDOMS even if they're not planning on having sex for years or decades. They're not talking about the negative psychological effects of telling people "You're trash if you have premarital sex" and the fallout when they have premarital sex and then think they're trash. They're not talking about the fact that abstinence only education has already been proven not to work (sort of like trickle down economics and other right-wing hypotheses). I think a lot of those goals sound good on paper, but there’s a lot they’re not saying. They’re not talking about how EVERYONE NEEDS TO LEARN TO PROPERLY USE CONDOMS even if they’re not planning on having sex for years or decades. They’re not talking about the negative psychological effects of telling people “You’re trash if you have premarital sex” and the fallout when they have premarital sex and then think they’re trash. They’re not talking about the fact that abstinence only education has already been proven not to work (sort of like trickle down economics and other right-wing hypotheses).

]]> By: Dorian http://karenrayne.com/2007/04/15/the-definition-of-abstinence-only-sex-education/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Dorian Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:07:00 +0000 http://karenrayne.com/?p=30#comment-67 Wow - that is an amazing definition for a government that is supposed to demonstrate separation of church and state at all times - those positions may not use the word church or god, but they certainly are toeing the staunch conservative christian line. Here are my thoughts related to each of their points. 1. Teaching and learning is always done best when it is complicated and involved. Requiring an exclusive purpose is hurtful to the process. 2. So, if the school-age children are married then sexual activity becomes okay? This is rediculous. 3. This is true, but not helpful once someone decides to become sexually active in avoiding pregnancy and diseases. 4. This is a major christian thing - by whose expectation is this the standard? Not mine! And not lots of other Americans either. 5. I completely disagree with the word "likely" 6. I completely disagree - bringing children into a family set up that does not want them, welcome them, cherish them appropriately is much more lokely to have all these harmful consequences. 7. Excellent. 8. I think this is a good goal - but the question then is who gets to define self-sufficiency?<br/><br/>I'd love to hear from other people reading also. Wow - that is an amazing definition for a government that is supposed to demonstrate separation of church and state at all times - those positions may not use the word church or god, but they certainly are toeing the staunch conservative christian line. Here are my thoughts related to each of their points. 1. Teaching and learning is always done best when it is complicated and involved. Requiring an exclusive purpose is hurtful to the process. 2. So, if the school-age children are married then sexual activity becomes okay? This is rediculous. 3. This is true, but not helpful once someone decides to become sexually active in avoiding pregnancy and diseases. 4. This is a major christian thing - by whose expectation is this the standard? Not mine! And not lots of other Americans either. 5. I completely disagree with the word “likely” 6. I completely disagree - bringing children into a family set up that does not want them, welcome them, cherish them appropriately is much more lokely to have all these harmful consequences. 7. Excellent. 8. I think this is a good goal - but the question then is who gets to define self-sufficiency?

I’d love to hear from other people reading also.

]]>