Ben, whether it is possible to guide an educational policy in a given manner, and whether you are suggesting doing so are separate questions are they not?

Jason: hmm. That's kind of what I mean, really. I never said anything even close to "polyamory is really cool", only that Patrick Fagan's definition of polyamory was complete nonsense, associating polyamory with atheism, sexual abuse, serial monogamy, and abortion. I took issue with his use of "polyamory" as a free association writing experiment with stuff Christians don't like. It's obviously nonsense to say "polyamorists stand for _____" if there is no real agreement among polyamorists on that issue, or even worse, if they almost uniformly stand *against* it.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-042-c

Likewise, the argument about Peter Singer was whether Singer was advocating the death of our species. My position was "Look, he says right in his article that he's not advocating this, and that he's glad humans are around. Why is this even an argument?"

If I recall correctly, Singer said that we should think about the kind of world we're bringing our kids into and whether the world is better with humans around. You took this as "everyone should die", and then suggested that Singer could kill himself if he really believed what he was saying. I mean, *really*? If you don't understand the other person's point, why not ask for clarification? - rather than just assuming that "think about this" means "take action NOW!!!", or "healthy body image" is just code for "shamelessness".


If, in a discussion, I take the stance that you (generic you) are misrepresenting people and their arguments, it does NOT mean I support them or their views. It just means I think you are mistaken about what they stand for. I know that I can sometimes seem pedantic when I'm so focused on understanding an opponent's position. I will argue with y'all about whether Peter Singer has morals, because although he is fine with infanticide, he is also quite focused on helping the poor and treating animals properly, which doesn't jibe with the idea of Singer as a person without any kind of moral system.. And when you dig deeper, you find that his moral system makes sense with his definition of "person". Ah... that makes more sense.

But, back to this discussion. Let's say I was actually using "scientific method" to mean "I am better than all you miserable proles". Is it even possible to use that kind of "science" to guide educational policy? ...That obviously doesn't work, right? So it's a safe bet to say that it is probably not what I meant. Can you think of any other definition of "science" that might make more sense in the context of this conversation, like perhaps "careful studies of what kinds of curricula work"?

"Jason, it sometimes seems as if you try to interpret what I say in the worst possible way."

Ben in the first place you have already tried to bring up arguments for positions that I would consider completely beyond the pale at times like "polyamory is really cool", or "Peter Singer is not a mad scientist espousing murderous theories", so I cannot really know what to interpret. In the second place, different words just have different connotations for different people. A lot of people I have met do in fact use the words "scientific method" to mean,"I am better then all you miserable little proles."

Ben wrote
Chris said, " It's a myth that parents don't teach their kids about sex. Fiction."
I have to wonder where this comes from. Did you read a survey? Or is this from just you and your friends' experiences (and presumably WASPish background)?

Aren't you asking me to prove a negative? The question should be, "What proof of a need to teach sex ed exists?" Probably it should have been asked 50 years ago (and likely was).

Once again, there was no need. If you look for a "study" to demonstrate that need, you won't find one. What you may find is some cliches in the popular culture, like "Catch 22" or "The Oldest Confederate Widow"...but those are fiction. Written after the fact that professional educators informed us of the need for this class. (And the former was parody!) And if there's a need now, it's self-fulfilling prophecy.

But if you ask for evidence of my posiition, it's readily available. Simply look at history.
1. There was no discussion of "teen pregnancy" for the first 40% of the 20th C b/c the word "teenager" didn't even exist. Look it up, at that time only a small fraction of people graduated from HS, and many got married in their teen years. They had kids, and life went on. No doubt they knew just fine what caused pregnancy.

2. Even though the industrial revolution sent people migrating to cities, many lived in the country. Procreation is all around the agriculture world. They certainly knew what caused pregnancy.

3. Take a look at what happened after WWII. YOUNG people got married and had kids. Even those in college http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1838306_1759875,00.html (Caption to Slide 4 if this link isn't right). There was no secret as to what led to pregnancy. And it's more than a little ironic to suggest baby boomers needed special classes to teach them what their parents obviously knew so well.

4. Many bloggers here have commented on the repercussions of The Pill. While I may not agree with those conclusions, there is one that follows necessarily: The Pill was a big deal b/c people knew what caused pregnancy.

So it's a tragedy that the discussion is what content should be in Sex Ed classes, and we've lost the real question of why have them at all?

Because we know the answer to that question to: "Progressives" want control of people's lives.

And yes, I'm aware that this sounds like some paranoid consipracy theory, except there's one thing about it: If you read Sanger, Huxley, Mann, etc, you'll find they weren't the least bit subtle about their aspirations, or their methods.

Taking control away from individuals, and giving it to the "progressive" state was their aim. And education was an explicit tool to get there.

Jason, it sometimes seems as if you try to interpret what I say in the worst possible way. A 'healthy body image' is just "jingo for shamelessness"? ..*really*? Do you really think that's how I meant it or how it is taught, rather than encouraging young women to focus on being healthy instead of accepting the fashion industry's idea of a perfect body?

Some communication skills are taught in English, Debate, and Communication classes, but they don't help much with difficult inter-personal conversations like "I like you, and I don't want to hurt your feelings, but I don't want to get any more physically intimate with you". Most people have a hard time communicating about feelings. It's something that needs to be practiced, and is absolutely essential later on for a successful marriage.

And of course "resistance to peer-pressure" can also be taught, and it is the moral lesson in the Ugly Duckling and Beauty and the Beast. Simply reading books like these and talking about them in class helps teach these values. Teachers, parents, and community can all help kids learn how to be themselves, rather than fitting into their culture's or friend's mold for them. Yes, you could twist my words, if you like, and say that "learning to be themselves" just means breaking off into rebellious, counter-culture groups, but I'd hope it is obvious that this is not what I mean.


I think you also misunderstand what I mean by "science". It's not guys in lab coats running experiments, it's simply a way of measuring what works and what doesn't. A basic example: kids learn faster if you teach them the alphabet before Macbeth, and likewise if they learn arithmetic before algebra. The newer "science" just extends this to other areas: does it make a difference if we teach kids Health in 3rd grade vs 6th? Is this English curricula or that one better at preparing students for SATs/college/life? Which kind of sex ed works better at _____?

Is this really so distasteful?

"Our culture and government are becoming increasingly dependent on scientific/statistical studies to tell us what works and how we should set policies and laws. But can we trust the scientific community to be unbiased? And can we trust the scientific method itself, or should we avoid using secular, irreligious knowledge to direct our country? "

Ben, no we can't "trust" the scientific method. You trust people, if you know them well enough. We can give reasonable reliance to the scientific method, but a free-man does not put his self-respect or common sense in hawk to it. Not only is the scientific method inferential, it is wielded by humans. The "scientific-method" is a contribution to argument, not the final word.

Furthermore your last sentence is a gross either/or.

And why should our country wish to be "directed" by anything, scientific method or no? Being "led", or even "ruled" is one thing, but do I really want to be "directed"?

In any case, I am rather skeptical of the efficacy of scientifically teaching "resistance to peer-pressure" because courage is not something that can be inculcated by science. "Communication skills" are determined by language. And "healthy body image" in modern jingo to often just means shamelessness. I also still remember being a student myself and suspect that this whole thing "abstinence" or "comprehensive" assumes a degree of collaborative tendency with impersonal bureaucratic education that I hope American youths really haven't quite attained. In any case, what I meant by psychology was reading Anna Karena or Scarlet Letter, or even Jane Austen novels and discussing them in class.

In any case, the idea of "science" planning human relations is extremely distasteful. Humans are made up of far more then their calculating mechanisms, and attempting to calculate the incalculable to far is not only offensive but hubristic. Science can plan and direct organizations, because those are machines. But organizations are only a small part of human existence and hopefully will get smaller.

I take no offense. The article Chris linked also had a rebuttal (which I didn't quote) that more or less said "these objections don't matter and shouldn't change the results". But if that really is the case, and this abstinence-only education is the same as the others, then you have about a dozen studies that shows success for abstinence-only, and hundreds that show failure. So we're back to "a balanced view of the studies show that abstinence-only doesn't work".. Because anyone coming at this from the outside, with no prior belief or motive, would end up siding with the hundreds of studies. (After checking into methodology, trying to figure out how the outliers were different, perhaps testing some possible ideas there by running more studies, etc. Using good science).

So I think it's better for the abstinence-only people to say "This study was different", as they'll probably have a better chance of finding educational success with a new method of abstinence-only sex ed than overturning the preponderance of evidence currently in favor of comprehensive sex education (and against current abst-only).

(Now, by all means, if the methodology of earlier studies was flawed, any aspiring Christian sociologist can write up papers on the flaws in the studies and publish. There's no quicker way to get scientific fame than start a good argument, using solid logic/evidence. And indeed, this has been done, but even when flawed studies were corrected for, the vaaaast majority still support comprehensive sex ed.)


Chris said, " It's a myth that parents don't teach their kids about sex. Fiction."
I have to wonder where this comes from. Did you read a survey? Or is this from just you and your friends' experiences (and presumably WASPish background)?
I've had friends whose parents never talked to them about sex, and at the private Christian school I attended, I received plenty of mis-education about condoms, STDs, and abortions (my parents told me about the mechanics, but other than how readily condoms failed, I didn't learn about modern contraception until college).
If I'm wrong, and you're not just speaking from your own experience, or you've had close affiliation with people from all kinds of American cultures, then I apologize. But I'm just trying to emphasize that we can't take the experiences of those here, at ThePoint, a conservative Christian blog, and expect every other American's to be similar.


LQ, in discussions at ThePoint (and indeed, all across the country), there is one important recurring theme, and it is this:

Our culture and government are becoming increasingly dependent on scientific/statistical studies to tell us what works and how we should set policies and laws. But can we trust the scientific community to be unbiased? And can we trust the scientific method itself, or should we avoid using secular, irreligious knowledge to direct our country?

This is at the root of most of our discussions here, and it forms the basis of the liberal/conservative split amonst Christians. It's easily important enough for its own blog post.

But I'll try to leave that aside, for now, because it's just sooo much. Moving back on topic... You're right, we disagree on the pragmatic approach. Of course, it's ok to teach abstinence, but not ok to *only* teach abstinence and not teach about contraception, STDs, etc. And as long as it looks like abst-only education isn't working, I can't see us reconciling our positions.


Jason, comprehensive sex education is indeed comprehensive. It covers not just the physical aspects, but also psychological, emotional, and relational aspects. It discusses abstinence, resistance to peer pressure, healthy body image, good communication skills, etc.

Is it really comprehensive if it stresses the physical aspect of it? That is hardly the most important. Isn't the psychological aspect at least as important?

Christopher, your last comment to Ben was bordering on being rude. Even if I disagree with most of what he says, I value Ben highly enough to defend him against the kind of snide remarks that are common in other blogs but mostly nonexistent here. You can tell him he's wrong, but just do it in a pleasant and respectful way. Remember, he's immortal - just like the rest of us.

Ben, I doubt that "I'll see your study and raise you" will convince anyone on either side, because we're quite familiar with bias in these studied. We've also seen how the popular media will rewrite the conclusions to suit their readership.

Billy's primary point was that teaching abstinence even to the irreligious is a good thing. Ben disagrees, apparently on the basis of studies that most of us here won't accept as valid. We seem to be at a stalemate over the pragmatic approach.

So why not change the discussion to ask if education *by itself* is sufficient? Ben mentioned the parents and the community, and Christopher mentioned the government (via government-sponsored public schools). Clearly if two of those three are teaching a particular message but the third is teaching an opposite message, the child will have conflict. (Billy mentions a fourth participant: lobbyists.)

So is there a message that can stress abstinence, and can be made palatable to all groups involved? Or, as Roberto said, is this a pointless Internet argument (made worse by veering toward incivility)?

You stand by your comment, even though it was proven to be wrong? Not the first time, I suppose.

"So abstinence-only sex ed becomes useless." No, the article I linked disproved that. Your conclusion is invalid, therefore your logic is flawed.

Also, you're not on my side on this issue. I don't see a need for sex ed _at all_. It's a myth that parents don't teach their kids about sex. Fiction. At least it was when this was first pushed. Now we have the state assuming one more role that belongs to parents. That was always the ultimate goal.

I stand by my statement. The 'abstinence-only' education in that study was remarkably different from what Billy is promoting and what has normally been used in this country:

"Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms."

Plus, it's about the first and only study to show that 'abstinence-only' can work in secular education.. so, yes, it's encouraging, but it really just points out two things: (a) the only abstinence-only sex ed that works is quite different from what most conservatives are promoting, and (b) more research should be done on non-traditional kinds of sex ed.

For what it's worth, I really am mostly on you guys' side. I do think that we need sex ed: to help with public health and because kids shouldn't suffer too much for their parents' unwillingness to talk about sex and health (and obviously, the consequences of sex can be pretty harsh. Kids should understand the risks). But the job of instilling values about sex is up to the parents, and to a lesser extent, the community.

I think you need to accept that there are people in the US who don't share your religion or values about sex, and it's to everyone's benefit if they are less likely to get diseases or get pregnant and drop out of school. Teaching abstinence-only sex ed does *not* lay a sufficient moral foundation to change these views - you'd have to teach sex values as well, which wouldn't work for other reasons.

So abstinence-only sex ed becomes useless: for the kids who already are pursuing abstinence (because of the influence of parents or church), the sex ed doesn't add anything. But kids who don't accept abstinence become more likely to get pregnant or spread disease, having not learned about proper sex health.

I might turn Billy's question around: What is the harm in using comprehensive sex education? If a kid believes sex should be saved until marriage, showing him how to use a condom won't change that. He'll stand by his values, and understanding contraception might come in handy later.

Ben wrote, "any fair and balanced look at the studies shows that comprehensive sex ed works better than abstinence-only sex education"

That's not true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html

I think some on the far far left do NOT want abstinence as a choice. Period.

((I know some responsible persons might debate on huw much (or little) one teaches about actual consequences...and on the available preventative methods.Am not talking about them...))

But some on the far far left...seem to want everyone to sleep around, as early as possible.

And they seem to mainly be the same people who INSIST on ignoring the adult stem cell successes---and who still wish to fund the loser cells---the stem cells from a sacrificed embryo...

Is it their "inner Baal" they're listening to???

I will take a look at those studies, but I have yet to see a study with those conclusions that have a decent methodology. They often mischaracterize their results considering the way they conducted the study.

If students are given a moral foundation, then they are more likely to accept abstinence-only sex education. If they do not have that, then they are unlikely to accept anything that annoys them or seems like a barrier to "consequence-free fun"--contraception included.

Billy, you say that "[abstinence-only] education is the only reasonable option for a culture that wants to end out-of-wedlock childbirth, single-parent homes, the spread of STDs and AIDs"..

.. but a casual look at statistics shows that many Western European countries have lower STD/AIDs infection rates among teens [1] and lower teen pregnancy and abortion rates [2]. In most of these countries, abstinence-only sex education is rare. In fact, countries like the US and UK with conservative attitudes towards sex education tend to have higher teen STD and pregnancy rates.

And of course, modern countries can also work to stem the spread of STDs by developing vaccines/medicines and providing them as widely as possible. This is how we've mostly defeated smallpox, measles, syphilis, etc., and STDs are no different from a public health standpoint.

I understand why you oppose regular sex education from a moral/cultural standpoint.. but any fair and balanced look at the studies shows that comprehensive sex ed works better than abstinence-only sex education. Kids start having sex later, have fewer pregnancies and abortions, and are less likely to get STDs.

[1] http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3202400.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy#Global_incidence


PS - thanks for the discussion on your last post. I had a reply mostly set up, but never finished it. I'll get back to that.

Why do we need $1,300,000 to say "knock it off you little brat?"