I thought about this being a DD post for me, but I decided I couldn't wait to share this with some of you folks. Now, I realize right off the bat that this can of worms may excite a few of you and that's o.k. as long as we keep the discussion civilized. I just thought that I would share with the other members of PR just exactly what is being taught in our public schools.

Personally, I sincerely believe that honesty is the best route to take with children when discussing this issue. Granted, the last thing you want to hear is your five year old daughter asking what a certain word means...that can shake a father up pretty bad. However, in just being straight with your child shows them that you have a trust in them. If by keeping a secret you think that you are solving the problem, well, the school playground destroys that illusion pretty quickly. On the other hand, giving too much info can give a child a fright.

Kids today are more smart in some ways than when we were children. Giving them an honest and informed answer, then asking them to believe in you makes for a stronger relationship. Telling a child to "forget it" or giving them misleading facts...well, a child will get the impression that you don't trust them enough.

I think that asking them to tell you everything they know, then correcting any incorrect knowledge they give you, is the best route. Don't offer up anything beyond what they discuss but let them know that you are open to further discussions if they have any more questions about it.

Enough babbling....here's the article. It's breaking news on the Washington Post right now.

Rob

Quote: Originally Posted by Washington Post Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says By Ceci Connolly Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A01 Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found. Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education. Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since the efforts began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece. The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact. Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators: • 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. One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said. "I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," Waxman said. "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." When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say, and it is not known how many gay teenagers are HIV-positive. The assertion regarding gay teenagers may be a misinterpretation of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found that 59 percent of HIV-infected males ages 13 to 19 contracted the virus through homosexual relations. Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the material that was surveyed, said he is "saddened" that Waxman chose to "blast" well-intentioned abstinence educators when there is much the two sides could agree on. McIlhaney acknowledged that his group, which publishes "Sexual Health Today" instruction manuals, made a mistake in describing the relationship between a rare type of infection caused by chlamydia bacteria and heart failure. Chlamydia also causes a common type of sexually transmitted infection, but that is not linked to heart disease. But McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk of pregnancy in mutual masturbation. Congress first allocated money for abstinence-only programs in 1999, setting aside $80 million in grants, which go to a variety of religious, civic and medical organizations. To be eligible, groups must limit discussion of contraception to failure rates. President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years. It does not appear that the abstinence-only curricula are being taught in the Washington area. Waxman and other liberal sex-education proponents argue that adolescents who take abstinence-only programs are ill-equipped to protect themselves if they become sexually active. According to the latest CDC data, 61 percent of graduating high school seniors have had sex. Supporters of the abstinence approach, also called abstinence until marriage, counter that teaching young people about "safer sex" is an invitation to have sex. Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that Waxman's report is a political document that does a "disservice to our children." Speaking as a pediatrician, Golden said, she knows "abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy." Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model. Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex. Bill Smith, vice president of public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a comprehensive sex education group that also receives federal funding, said the Waxman report underscored the need for closer monitoring of what he called the "shame-based, fear-based, medically inaccurate messages" being disseminated with tax money. He said the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information. 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."

Edit: The last paragraph is a riot.

It's not the first time and certainly won't be the last time they are lied to, unfortunately.
Remember D.A.R.E.? I can appreciate the desire to keep kids off of drugs, but giving them false information based on ignorance is just plain wrong.

I was a kiddy stoner and look how I turned out. Seriously, not many people my age own a sucessful buisness.

Some kids will do drugs and some won't, I don't think I've really ever met anyone who was actually
deterred from drugs by anti-drug commercials. In fact, those just made me want to do it more.

That report on how absitence is taught sounds like it was done by a group that is distorting the trueth "Micheal Moore" style

I don't buy that load of BS...Abstinence programs are probably fine, and if it is being taught wrong, I bet it is by Liberal teachers with there own agends that is purposely wrong to make it fail.

Kinda like how they tried to scare kids before the election saying "Bush is bringing back the Draft"
The only people to propose it were Liberal's, and the only 2 people who voted for it were *Big Surprise* Liberals

EDIT: Yeah..I knew I could smell something Foul..looking over it again, I see that article came from the "Washington Post"

Hmm... why is it every time someone tells me the dangers of sex... I wanna go nail the first chick that I see?

Quote: Originally Posted by Darksamurai Hmm... why is it every time someone tells me the dangers of sex... I wanna go nail the first chick that I see?

I think its called being opisitional definat...

I had sex when i was 16, was smart about it, no baby, no burning sensations. Kids are smart, give em the facts, not rhetoric. If you mislead them they wont trust you at all. Young people are going to have sex, always have, always will. Today you can have safer sex than ever before, but a lot of people dont want to admit that.
And while i'm typing this an awsome commercial came on, but i think it was a fake (on jump cuts)

Adolf Hitler was a baby once. (shows baby with hitler moustache)

Charles Manson was a baby once. (shows baby with swastica on forhead)

Please use a condem when you have sex.

Anywho, back on point. The teen pregancy rate in the country is dropping, which means one of two things. Either kids are having less sex (doubtful, anyone see south park tonight?), or theyre having safer sex. Abstinence education just confuses kids with misleading statistics (AIDS stats are so messed up i dont even wanna start), or telling kids that condoms have holes in them big enough to let AIDS through...Hell, i've heard about kids in abstinence programs having casual anal sex because they thought it "didn't count". When i have kids i will definitly not leave it up to the school. I'll give them my own opinion and straight facts as unbiased as i can find them, same with drugs, and let them come to their own conclusions. And if i'll be happy to clairify or refute anything that the school indoctrinat^H^H^H^eaches them. I think i summed up most of the rest of my thoughts on this topic in another post.

Another reason why this generation pisses me off, hell when I was in school our Sex Ed. classes taught us stuff we already knew. I'm probably one of the few virgins left for my age. Of course half of all my buddies that brag about how they get laid and how I don't are either raising a kid at 19, paying child support or having to deal with some horrible STD they got.

Cyn, I'm so happy you were able to avoid pregnancy and std's. Good for you. Unfortunately I know from experience that isn't the case in all kids. The whole do it if it feels good mentality of this generation is very irresponsible. I don't care how mature they think they are, because they aren't. Parents don't tell kids stuff to mess with them or be jerks. We're trying to protect them, and let them benefit from our wisdom and mistakes. Wisdom comes from experience, and by the fact we've lived longer means we have had more experience. I don't believe the kids of today are any smarter or any less intelligent. They don't have to deal with anything more frightening or dangerous. Things are just different, yet they really havn't changed..

I know when I was a kid I had to find things out for myself. The Main Reason? I didn't trust adults. Growing up in a Mormon run Socialist state, propaganda was horrible. I never trusted opinions from them, I would do the research myself, find out adults lied, and them distrusted them.

Truth is always the best policy, lying to protect children goes back to the beginnings of time. Look at our track record, it has never worked. But with educated people they make an educated choice whether it be Abstinence, safe sex, gay sex, whatever. Give an Ignorant person a choice they will come up with an ignorant answer devoid of fact. That is fact a person without Knowledge can not make a knowledgable choice. Remember knowledge is king. Well there is my 2 cents.

It's like the old saying from back in the 70's. (or so I was told)

The solution to pollution is dilution.

Apparently due to this, people thought it was alright to dump and pollute, as long as there was enough water to counteract the harmful ways.

I'll agree with this greatly, kids today are being taught and told about the truth. Which is a great thing.

Only thing that pisses me off with kids now (and this is going to make me sound old) is the way they dress and act.

Girls looking like whores and guys wearing anything from the latest rap videos.

Kids may be smarter now than they were.. but most deserve a good smack upside the head.

Case in point. I was on the bus a few days ago, and there were 2 kids, one with 2 joints behind his ears and the other smelling one. Someone asked them how old they were, and one replied 9 years old. I was about ready to drop the back of my hand across his face. *shakes head*

Kids may be smart now, but most are a lost cause.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cis Case in point. I was on the bus a few days ago, and there were 2 kids, one with 2 joints behind his ears and the other smelling one. Someone asked them how old they were, and one replied 9 years old. I was about ready to drop the back of my hand across his face. *shakes head* Kids may be smart now, but most are a lost cause.

Jeesh, people really do smoke a lot of grass up in British Columbia eh? I remember this little thing they had on MTV af few years back called "BC Bud" I thought it was kind of interesting....

Quote: Originally Posted by Cis Girls looking like whores and guys wearing anything from the latest rap videos.

Uhg, i know how that is, i hate going to the mall and places like summerfest now. Your checking out a girl from a distance and you get closer and she's like 9, its terrible. Not just the feeling like a dirty old man (im only 18?!?!), but its terrible that their parents let them dress like that. Anyone see last nights south park? I think as usual Matt and Trey hit the nail on the head. Stupid Spoiled Whore seemed to parody this one store in the mall Rave Girl or something like that. Its like stripper clothes for preeteens! I apreciate the female form as much as the next guy, but i'd be turned off by girls my own age who dressed like that. I'm just glad my 15yo sister has more sense than that, she dresses in a somewhat respectable/proper manner (*shrug* for a teenager, tennies, jeans, a band tshirt and a wacky belt generally) and manages to still find nice guys to date. Yeah, if she ever started dressing like some of the girls i see i'd probably have to do my brotherly duty and go upside her head...