Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Spending Tax Dollars To Tell Adults Not To Have Sex?

That’s how the normally even-handed Glenn Reynolds classifies this news from the federal governments human services bureaucrats:

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it’s a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

“They’ve stepped over the line of common sense,” said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that supports sex education. “To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It’s an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health.”

Abstinence education programs, which have focused on preteens and teens, teach that abstaining from sex is the only effective or acceptable method to prevent pregnancy or disease. They give no instruction on birth control or safe sex.

The National Center for Health Statistics says well over 90% of adults ages 20-29 have had sexual intercourse.

As a conservative I’m not especially enamored with the government spending my tax dollars to tell other people how to live their lives.  That being said, I think describing abstinence programs as “telling people not to have sex” is a little too simplistic.

Abstinence education, at least that which I’m aware of, means telling people not to have sex until they’re either married on in a long-term, committed relationship.  The message of abstinence is, essentially, don’t be promiscuous.  Which shouldn’t really be all that controversial to anyone who is in favor of advocating personal responsibility.  It is certainly not controversial to urge people to exercise moderation in other activities like drinking alcohol or eating, why should it be controversial to urge moderation in sex?  Certainly I think that such counsel is better for people then the message that is implied by handing out bundles of free condoms.

After all, irresponsible sex (even “safe sex” with condoms) can have health and financial consequences every bit as serious as overeating and/or alcohol abuse.

Comments

New Campaign:  Get married, have less sex.

Rob, getting nervous yet?


The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on November 29, 2006 at 10:33 am
Avatar for Bat One

I know conservatives are most often the more optimistic individuals, and that as a rule the cynics congregate on the left side of the aisle.  But I can’t help noting that maybe all those comedy club cliches about having less sex after marriage may actually be true.

After all, the federal government is reportedly targeting only un-married adults with this program.  Obviously, there’s no need to target the married ones.  They’re already doing without.

Bat One on November 29, 2006 at 11:07 am
Avatar for Robert Perry

Have no fear, Rob.  It turns out that the group that, as a whole, enjoys sex the most is those who are married.

Is this a federal issue?  Personally, I think not, but if they must spend money to tell adults about sex, they should at least try to get it right, starting with admitting that married people enjoy sex the most, and condoms don’t prevent STD transmission--the best that can be said is that they slow the spread of AIDS.

But again, I don’t believe that government officials can get such obvious facts right.

Robert Perry on November 29, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Rob
Rob
17182 comments
Send a private message

Robert, I’ve never understood why people think that teaching responsible sex is such a controversial thing.  If you refrain from sex outside of long-term relationships and avoid intravenous drugs your chances of getting AIDS or any other STD drop to near zero.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on November 29, 2006 at 01:33 pm
Avatar for WOOF

People do not think that teaching responsible sex is such a controversial thing.
The Bush administration appoints fanatics who think teaching responsible sex is sin.

A Faith based initiative.

If you and your partner refrain
then your chances drop to near zero.

Takes two to tango, but people sometimes
do the Macarena.

WOOF on November 29, 2006 at 01:44 pm
Avatar for Robert Perry

And when they dance the Macarena, no condom can stop sensible people from pointing out that they have horrible taste. 

In the same way, no condom has been shown to reduce the transmission rate of 27 of 28 STDs--that’s NIH data, friend.  That’s why the “responsible” sex ed you endorse, Woof, has been accompanied by a huge increase in STDs.

Robert Perry on November 29, 2006 at 02:21 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.