From: jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett)
Subject: Re: sex education
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 45

In article <Apr.8.00.57.31.1993.28227@athos.rutgers.edu> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>It seems I spend a significant amount of my time correcting errors about
>the reliability tests for condoms and abstinence.  A few years ago I saw
>that famous study that showed a "10% failure rate" for condoms.  The
>same study showed a 20% failure rate for abstinence!!  That is, adult
>couples who relied on abstinence to prevent pregnancy got pregnant in
>alarming numbers--they didn't have the willpower to abstain.  And we're
>thinking that this will work with high school kids?!?

I am told that Planned Parenthood/SIECUS-style "values-free" methods, that
teach contraceptive technology and advise kids how to make "choices",
actually _increase_ pregnancy rates. I posted a long article on this a while
back and will be happy to email a copy to any who are interested.  The
article included sources to contact for information on research verifying
these statements, and an outstanding source for info on acquiring
abstinence-related curricula even in single-copy quantities for home use.

The same research produced the results that abstinence-related curricula
were found to _decrease_ pregnancy rates in teens.  I assume that it is
reasonable to assume that the AIDS rate will fluctuate with the pregnancy
rate.

The difference is not in "contraceptive technology" but in the values taught
to the children.  The PP/SIECUS curricula taught the kids that they have
legitimate choices, while the abstinence related curricula taught them that
they did _not_ have _legitimate_ choices other than abstinence.  It is the
values system that is the strongest determinent of the behavior behavior of
these kids.

Despite the better track record of abstinence-related curricula, they are
suppressed in favor of curricula that produce an effect contrary to that
desired.  

Question for further discussion (as they say in the textbooks):  Why don't
we teach "safe drug use" to kids, instead of drug abstinence?  Isn't it
because we know that a class in "how to use drugs safely if you _choose_ to
use drugs" would increase drug use?  Why isn't "drug abstinence education"
barred from schools because it teaches "religion"?  Aren't we abandoning
those children who will use drugs anyway, and need instruction in their safe
use?


-- 
Joe Kellett
jkellett@netcom.com
