Yay! That makes my head feel a little less like it's going to explode. I don't think there is any better example of ideology over what works than those who advocate for abstinence only education. It risks the lives of children because, you know, that's what Jesus would do.

FINALLY the states are getting it. The current administration is so clueless as to what the people actually want. Most parents don't want abstinence-only education. Most parents don't want lies and misinformation fed to their kids at school. And yet the federal government doesn't care, because clearly, the only voter's opinions that matter are those of the evangelicals.

The fervent support for abstinence-only education boggles my mind. How is it possible to ignore all of the statistics about teen STI and birth rates?

that shit is beyond creepy.

i'm glad some states are waking up.

Oh my. I am continually fascinated--and amazed--by the fact that supposedly "highly-educated" leaders and lawmakers are in charge of determines which discourses people--especially young people are exposed to. Goes to show that being well-educated does not necessarily equal having common sense. But this is a divisive issue and staunch conservatives probably think I have no common sense, either. Oh, the binaristic oppositions!

That was supposed to be "determining" and "probably don't think I have any common sense either." My bad for not previewing before I post.

You forgot the oxytocin truthiness that means that a women will NEVER be able to love her husband if she has sex with anyone else.

It sickens me to think that those quotes are real. Scaring and intimidating children to influence their sex lives is horrible. Amen to those 14 states.

I'm trying to remember my own public school sex education. In 6th grade our classes were split by sex. Then the girls all got a talk about how babies were made. No real talk about condoms or sex at all really outside of the biological factors. I suppose that's better then telling children that they should not have sex. In jr. high all we spoke about was STDs. That's not the most positive message.

ahh, the truthiness of it all:)

Don't forget that oxytocin won't let a woman love any of her subsequent children after she has the first one, cause the more she has, the more her supply is depleted.

Oh, wait..../snark

Christina: Also, every time she has a baby she'll love her husband less and less!

Wait a second... : )

From one of the abstinence only manuals:

"Men sexually are like microwaves and women sexually are like crockpots..."

Wait, what? Crockpots? What the hell does that even mean?

Women like to do it on the kitchen counter? If you throw a cheap piece of meat in, it will come out tender six hours later? Foreplay involves a lot of Cream of Mushroom Soup?

Of course, the idea that this is actually being taught in schools is just...disturbing.

Dangit, UltraMagnus beat me! Oh well.

To say nothing of the disasters that will ensue if she eats chocolate or masturbates! Or...eats chocolate right before masturbating...

EG: Ah, the perfect evening.

Heh. I know, right?

But I've got to add this:

women sexually are like crockpots

What, you just set everything up, turn us on, and walk away for six hours?

That doesn't sound like a fulfilling sexual encounter to me...

Hey, with men, you turn them on, wander off, and five or six minutes later they're done.

“What are the possible consequences of choosing to have an abortion?�

...death of fetus.

Uhm. Yes. That is sort of the point, is is not? I mean, do they really think people are assuming that when you get an abortion the embryo is placed into a nice little gestation tank for the rest of the duration and then given to sweet, godly Christian parents who oh-so-want a nice little abortion baby?

Akeeyu, I'm actually really interested in what the follow up to that line is. What does the rest of the manual say?

Oh, it doesn't go anywhere interesting with it, Destra.

“Men sexually are like microwaves and women sexually are like crockpots...a woman is stimulated more by touch and romantic words. She is far more attracted by a man's personality while a man is stimulated by sight. A man is usually less discriminating about those to whom he is physically attracted.�

Apparently crockpots are turned on by personality and are very picky appliances. Or something.

To me, the creepiest part is the card in the graphic: "You are like a beautiful rose. Each time you engage in premarital sex, a precious petal is stripped away. Don't leave your future husband holding a bare stem. Abstain."

Because other than as a wife, a woman has no worth? Because other than a pristine vagina, a wife has no worth? And because other than with a virgin, sex is bad?

I'm just baffled as to the logic behind it. In what way does that make sense to anyone? "Ladies! Be your husband's frightened, ill-educated cum-dumpster! You'll have a fulfilling life and marriage, we promise!"

So, men are like microwaves because they are attracted to women based on appearance? And women are like crockpots because they care more about their partner's personality? Do they know something about my kitchen appliances that I don't? I will admit, I don't usually read the instruction manuals. Do you know how funny this would all be if it were from 1950s sex-ed curricula? I would get t-shirts made w/ the crockpot thing. But, um... I can't believe they're teaching this to kids now. What kind of idiots do they think teenagers are?

In my ninth grade WORLD HISTORY class, we had a acting group from the local Baptist college come in and do plays about saving your virginity, which included a girl plucking out the petals of a rose one-by-one and giving them to the boys in the class. At the end, she gave her husband a thorny rose stem on their wedding night. We also learned that condoms don't stop HIV. Looking back on it now, it seems so fucking ridiculous, but also very frightening. No wonder my county has the second highest rate of teen pregnancy in the state!

I don't want to be the killjoy, lots of great comments about the microwave vs. croc pot, but just to be clear, they're talking about how men get ready, i.e. "aroused" quickly and how it takes women a while to "warm up". Hence the, "All men have to do is look at you and they're ready to go! While you, you poor dear, must be caressed and loved and told how pretty you before your vagina gets the message that it's time to start the party."

The other way I've heard this is that men are like microwaves and women are ovens. It's bad either way.

The problem is that they either can't comprehend, or are just plain failing to differentiate between sexual arousal and orgasm. I believe I saw this on a BBC documentary about sex (either that or TLC) where they tested women and men for arousal patterns and found that men and women become aroused at pretty much the same rate (depending on how sexual you are as a person, not gender). But, it can take some women longer to orgasm. So really, the analogy is bad either way but it just reinforces that women need emotional stimulus when it comes to sex and men aren't(mind you some women do, but not every single one of us).

But of course, they don't care about women's orgasms and I'm sure if they could get away with that they'd go back to saying women don't/can't have orgasms. But that might blow their love affair with oxytocin out of the water, so maybe not.

I graduated high school in Minnesota in 2004, and prior to that had two years of comprehensive sex education. I had already done a lot of research on the basics prior to that, but it was good to see that they cared about giving you proper information and reliable facts. I am glad other states are going to give people the information they need, rather then make them scared and misinformed, when sex is going to happen either way.

Is the abstinence-only crowd even aware that women have orgasms?

I doubt it, Akeeyu. And if they are, they probably think it's sinful.

Is the abstinence-only crowd even aware that women have orgasms?

In all seriousness, I think most of the sexual conservatives would be pretty hard-pressed in this day and age to suppress the idea of female sexual pleasure, even orgasm, entirely. I mean, even the crockpot analogy isn't denying that women get pleasure from sex--they're just saying we need lots of preparation. And the "truthiness" about oxytocin is another way they think about it--that the chemical conditions have to be juuuust right.

they tested women and men for arousal patterns and found that men and women become aroused at pretty much the same rate (depending on how sexual you are as a person, not gender)

I love studies like this! (Does that make me a lazy science critic?) I get so tired of people fixating on whatever portion of ourselves is different because of our sex and blowing it all out of proportion. It seems like, over and over, what scientific studies and just our own personal experiences show is that most aspects of human sexuality are on a fluid spectrum. Even if you sorted by male and female and found that arousal/orgasm patterns clustered in slightly different places along the spectrum according to sex, looking person-to-person (let alone the same person over time, whose responses would not doubt vary enormously), wouldn't the variety be such that the generalization was meaningless?

Abstinence only education scares the crap out of me.

It actively encourages ignorance and, as a result, leads to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies because teenagers don't know about birthcontrol.

The figures show that teenagers are having sex anyway, it's best to teach them (and by them, I mean us) that there are ways to keep yourself safe while doing it.

[b]At what point did the federal government forget that their religious beliefs have no place in the classrooms of American youth.[/b]

Apparently crockpots are turned on by personality and are very picky appliances.

My microwave always calls me a cranky bitch. It's nasty, but essentially honest, I guess. Damn hard-to-please kitchen appliances.

At least my stainless steel cookware loves me, even if I am a degraded horrrrr who's had (*gasp*) lots and lots of premarital (or, rather, extramarital, since I doubt I'm going to get married at all) sex...

As a high school teacher, I've been pretty disgusted by the abstinence seminar that's given every year to our 9th graders. Mostly because the two pregnant students I've had got pregnant in the 8th grade (too late!) and because it's such BS. I hope my state will be among those to start refusing this crap that masquerades as education.

Not to be a Negative Nicky but...

This sounds like a continuation of a trend where there will be two different social worlds for women.

There will be the liberal states where girls get good access to information on contraceptives on STDs and contraceptives are widely available, which will lower the accidental pregnancy rate. If that fails, they will still have the opportunity to seek an abortion.

Then there are the conservative states, where students will hear misinformation about contraceptives and STDs, there is restricted aspect to birth control, there will be a rise in unplanned pregnancies, and these women will not have the freedom of choice regarding abortion.

I was at a UN youth conference in August in NY and a huge chunk of the attendees were from CARP, essentially the youth version of the Moonies. One night they had a Performance night where delegates could show off their work and talent.

One group was from a youth org whose main tack was that Abstinence curbs the spread of AIDS. they had a skit which went like this:

Quiet shy girl goes into new city, wants to get to know people.
Girl goes into nightclub and falls in love with a guy.
Guy and girl have sex.
Girl feels sick, goes to doctor.
Doctor tests for AIDS, finds out that girl is HIV+ (without any discretion on his side).
Girl informs guy.
Guy and girl both repent and stay abstinent for the rest of their lives.
Therefore, if you want to stop AIDS and HIV, you have to stay abstinent!

I was so pissed off I went back to our residence after that "skit" and didn't stay on for anything else.

No mention of contraceptives. No mention of getting the guy tested. No mention of testing BEFORE sex. Because they DARED to have sex, they got AIDS!

And what good would them staying abstinent forever and ever do? They still have HIV. Would it be such a danger if they still had sex with Each other? Does being a non-virgin mean that you're automatically promiscuous? Sure, don't have sex with anyone else, but since when does being a non-virgin mean you'll cheat on your partner?

dear God.

And we definitely wouldn't want young people to miss out on the fact that gay people don't exist

This is definitely true about abstinent-only education. I had to sit through an abstinence talk in school and the topic of queer relationships and sex was completely ignored.

I had a few other people at my school approach me after and asked if I was choosing to be abstinent. And I said, "Why would I be? As if this even applies to me." Because really... these people can go on forever about pregnancy, STDs, emotional risks, etc., but the truth is they don't care about any of that. They care about religious beliefs and the belief that sex before marriage is a sin.

And the sad part is, they suckered all my female peers into thinking it wasn't about that. It was about self-respect and about how men can't love you if you sleep with them. God was rarely mentioned, which was most likely intentional. I think the abstinent-only crowd has caught on to how students aren't going to respond to God talks. They just brought in some young, funny guy who can be "hip" with the teens. It all just seems so sleezy.

I just thought of a good comeback to the 'rose' analogy...

Roses lose their petals eventually anyway and I'd rather chose who to give them to... Either way I still won't be giving anyone a thorny stem, it doesn't take much for a rose to bloom again. :)

(not that I agree with the whole 'giving away' thing... bleh, just trying to form an argument using their analogy)

I was very excited to see that some of the states are seeing the light and acting on it. I get very upset about abstinence only education. The only "sex ed" I had in school was a so-called "hygiene" class in fifth grade; the boys and girls were separated and we discussed puberty, but not sex. Not at all. And there was a brief discussion of STDs in health class, but that's it. However, my little sister was subjected to an abstinence-only education class in seventh grade, along with a few girls that she still goes to school with (they are seventeen now.) At the time of the class, abstinence-only ed was sort of pointless because there were 3 girls in the grade who had already had babies (in seventh grade people! And this is a relatively small school; we're talking 3 girls out of roughly 80 students in that grade.) Fast-forward a few years: my sister's best friend and two other girls the same age, all of whom took the ab-only class and the "virginity pledge" that culminated it, lost their virginity within a week of each other. Two of them did not use condoms, and none of them had access to birth control pills or other hormonal contraceptives. And about a year and a half ago, my sister comes to me asking me for contraceptive advice and help acquiring birth control pills, not because this is what she learned to do in school, but because I had told her before she started high school that sexual activity and condoms/contraceptives should go hand in hand, at least outside of marriage/comparable monogamous relationship. Basically my sister's experience with abstinence-only sex education got me very pissed off. And with that rant done...

What about the girls without older sisters or understanding moms? What about the BOYS for that matter? It seems like abstinence only education places all sexual responsibility in the hands of the girls. The girls are supposed to fight off the boys that want to unwrap them like a Hot Pocket and stick them in the microwave. The girls are the ones who have to stay pure for the wedding night. Where's the mention of the boy's purity? I'm having trouble coming up with an analogy for boys that corresponds with the rose petal thing. Maybe he goes around the room and hands out all his M&Ms and on his wedding night his wife gets the empty, crumpled packet.

I'm having trouble coming up with an analogy for boys that corresponds with the rose petal thing. Maybe he goes around the room and hands out all his M&Ms and on his wedding night his wife gets the empty, crumpled packet.

Or here is one... "He goes around dipping his stick in every yummy candy along the way and on his wedding night hands his wife his stick which by now is sticky and gross to touch, moldy and smells of rotting sugar."

Who'd want to touch that?

*dies*

Taisa-Marie - Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Maybe if he'd had some comprehensive sex-ed, he'd have known to use a condom before dipping his stick in all that candy eh?

“Each time a sexually active person gives that most personal part of himself or herself away, that person can lose a sense of personal value and worth. It all comes down to self-respect.�

Am I just completely nuts, or does this remind anyone else of the plot to the 7th Harry Potter book? Honestly, make that "personal part of the self" the soul and replace "sexually active person" with "murderous wizard" and that's Deathly Hallows in a nutshell.

Jessica (or anyone), do you have a list of the 14 states? I'm curious (and hopefully for my state!)

Also, the dipping the stick in sugar thing would be a very nice demonstration of the benefits of condoms (at least for the guys). If you put the condom on the stick, all that gross sugar stuff can be removed because of protection!

As for the rose analogy, wtf. No part, real or perceived, of me is a flower. Or a crockpot. If you can't call something by it's real name, then you shouldn't be teaching about it.

The way some conservative types go on about how different men and women are, I'm REALLY surprised they aren't more in favour of homosexuality. I mean from what they are saying, men and women are SO incompatible that we are practically doomed to failure from the start.

"Because really... these people can go on forever about pregnancy, STDs, emotional risks, etc., but the truth is they don't care about any of that. They care about religious beliefs and the belief that sex before marriage is a sin."

Exactly.

"The girls are the ones who have to stay pure for the wedding night. Where's the mention of the boy's purity?"

The hymen = virginity contingent probably doesn't care about that.

"The way some conservative types go on about how different men and women are, I'm REALLY surprised they aren't more in favour of homosexuality. I mean from what they are saying, men and women are SO incompatible that we are practically doomed to failure from the start."

I thought that's why some conservatives out there are in favor of arranged marriage and against divorce - assuming men and women are SO incompatible that they can't get and stay together using their personalities.

“One thing that sex education and the media fail to communicate is the power of sex. Spies, who are trained not to give away government secrets, even lose their sensibilities and give in to the power of sex, often because of what a woman is wearing.�

"The girls are supposed to fight off the boys that want to unwrap them like a Hot Pocket and stick them in the microwave. "

Hahahahahaha... that made my day.

"The girls are supposed to fight off the boys that want to unwrap them like a Hot Pocket and stick them in the microwave."

That has got to be the funniest thing I've read all day.

"I'm having trouble coming up with an analogy for boys that corresponds with the rose petal thing. Maybe he goes around the room and hands out all his M&Ms and on his wedding night his wife gets the empty, crumpled packet."

Hmmm...how about he's handed a breadstick and goes around dipping it into various cups of water? By the time his wedding night rolls around, his breadstick will be all limp and soggy...

"Quiet shy girl goes into new city, wants to get to know people.
Girl goes into nightclub and falls in love with a guy.
Guy and girl have sex.
Girl feels sick, goes to doctor.
Doctor tests for AIDS, finds out that girl is HIV+ (without any discretion on his side).
Girl informs guy.
Guy and girl both repent and stay abstinent for the rest of their lives."

So crazy. Another message I got from this is that they are essentially saying if you have HIV, then you should never again have sex...for the rest of your life. It sets them up as people who should be punished or barred from enjoying all aspects of life, which completely ignores the reality that you can be HIV+, or be with someone who is, and have a happy and fulfilling sex life. Something we should be teaching in sex ed. Not setting up this horrible and twisted dichotomy between Hiv+ and HIV- people.

Just my 2 cents.

And yet we'd never see a federal mandate, or federal appropriation of money for a specific nutrition curriculum or history curric. People'd go apeshit, yet that's exactly the case we have here.

Everyone else, spot on. I just wanted to point out that little fact.

" It sets them up as people who should be punished or barred from enjoying all aspects of life, which completely ignores the reality that you can be HIV+, or be with someone who is, and have a happy and fulfilling sex life. Something we should be teaching in sex ed. Not setting up this horrible and twisted dichotomy between Hiv+ and HIV- people."

Now I'm wondering who's more influential, the ones who'd claim "he should never have sex again, he was bad enough to get HIV" or the ones who'd claim "don't care if he's HIV+, as long as you're a virgin until you marry him you'll be fine"...

For more gems like these click on my username and scroll down, both for my needlework treatment of the quotes, and scans of actual stuff from one of the programs used around the country.
In particular, check this out:
http://picasaweb.google.com/anna.faherty/Artwork/photo#5083942312887631474
Sort of another way of putting the crockpot/microwave analogy. Speaking of which, I'm thinking I should embroider those on some hand towels or something . . . a "his and hers" kind of thing . . .

So where can you find information about sex ed in your state? I've looked it up on Guttmacher before and I know that sex ed in Connecticut is not mandated. I just remember when I took health class in 2000, we were shown a bunch of pictures of genitalia with STDs (I was pleasantly surprised to learn that most are cleared up with antibiotics), we quickly went over ever conceivable method of birth control, were told about abstinence, and we were also told that HIV CAN PASS THROUGH CONDOMS!! And I remember thinking well what is the point of a condom then if almost everything else is curable?