Does sex education reduce teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted infections?

The American Thinker evaluates Planned Parenthood’s sex education strategy for reducing teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections.

Excerpt:

Planned Parenthood’s anointed sex missionaries received their first federal funding in the Lyndon Johnson administration. The sort of “sex education” now pushed in Santa Fe and elsewhere started in 1968 when the National Education Association Journal called for “sex education as an integral part of school curriculum beginning in early grades.”[3] Planned Parenthood, the NEA, and herds of shrill progressives were following a behavioral pattern characteristic of the 1960s left.

An early example of the pattern emerged in the reactions to Rachel Carson’s 1962 Silent Spring scare-book, which got DDT banned and still enables the malaria deaths of about 3,000 children a day. Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 Population Bomb — turned dud — warned of mass starvations unless humanity curbs its reproductive enthusiasm. Then also in 1968, the NEA Journal demanded solutions to imagined problems.

Imagined, because calls for sex education were based on “problems” that lived only in the minds of anointed ones seeking to spread agendas. “Contraception education” would allegedly reduce unwanted pregnancies and illegitimate births.[4] A “crash educational program”[5] would arrest out-of-control venereal disease, while general sex education would address “the emotionally disastrous results of irresponsible sexual behavior.”[6] The claims shared a common thread: fictitious bases.

Not only were there no disease and illegitimacy crises, but indicators were solidly improving at the time of the alarmists’ claims. As Sowell documents in The Vision of the Anointed,[7] teenage pregnancies and venereal disease declined during the 1950s and 1960s. Yet over skeptics’ protests that sex education would increase sexual behavior, Planned Parenthood and public schools forged ahead to curtail behaviors that were already fading. Sex-ed was off and running.

And results followed.

During the 1970s, pregnancies among fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds jumped 41 percent.[8] Between 1970 and 1984, abortions among unwed fifteen- to seventeen-year-olds more than doubled and birth rates jumped 29 percent.[9] By 1976, five years of data showed unmarried girls fifteen to nineteen having sex at increasing rates.[10] And not only did venereal disease not subside, but teen gonorrhea rates tripled between 1956 and 1975.[11]

In the 1950s, 13 percent of teen girls had been sexually active. By the late 90s, the figure had tripled. Premarital intercourse, approved by less than a third of women in the 1950s, was acceptable to 91 percent by the late 80s. By 2005, over two-thirds of Blacks and half of Latino high-schoolers were having intercourse, while over half of all teens fifteen to nineteen were performing oral sex. By 2006, babies born to unmarried women accounted for 37 percent of all births, [12] 70 percent among Blacks. The Black illegitimacy rate reflected a 218 percent explosion over forty-five years.

Such realities have drawn dismissive responses from sex-ed advocates. Incredibly, the horrific trends of the 1970s and 1980s were offered as reason for more sex education.[13] Yet amid cover-ups and excuses, the sex-ed crowd’s true motives were exposed in 1978, in of all places, Congress. One committee report noted that despite sex education’s stated objective of reducing teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted disease, the real goal “of most sex educators appears to be encouragement of healthy attitudes about sex and sexuality.”

This is the same thing that happened in the UK – it’s not just here.

So there was no crisis for the pro sex-education to solve.

Sex education was always about indoctrinating children against the wisdom and morality of their parents. And they got their funding and their access to the public schools from the Democrat party. A vote for a Democrat politician is a vote for sex education. A vote for sex education is a vote for teen pregnancies, abortions, and sexually-transmitted diseases. And according to the research I posted about before, the premarital sex in and of itself is lousy preparation for a stable, fulfilling marriage. The left is ruining the lives of our children, and our children’s children by deliberately lying to them about right and wrong. There is also this new Oxford University Press book that links premarital sex and promiscuity with reduced mental health.

Why do they do this? They do this because they think that the best way to stop people from having feelings of shame and guilt is to break down the moral boundaries that specify what is right and wrong. That’s what’s behind this – normalizing risky, irresponsible behavior. And the way that the left deals with the skyrocketing numbers of teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted infections is to double down with more sex education – and more government spending on social programs, followed by tax hikes to pay for all the lifestyle-equalizing. And then, of course, fewer men can afford to marry because of those tax rates, and fewer women can afford to stay home and raise their young children.

After all, there’s no social problem in the world that can’t be fixed by a little more government intervention and public school indoctrination. If worse comes to worse and the health care costs costs increase, we can just make health care “free” by nationalizing it to completely separate behaviors from consequences. That should get rid of the problem. And if all of these broken homes create children who commit criminal acts, we can always ban guns and legalize drugs. That should get rid of the problem.

That’s how the left thinks. Or rather – that’s how the left feels.

3 thoughts on “Does sex education reduce teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted infections?”

  1. I graduated high school in a class of 32. Of those 32, I was the only virgin, and I was one of only a few girls who had made it to graduation without a child. Most of them had children who were now cared for by their parents, or they had been forced to drop out.

    Now, the first and most logical-sounding response to this is, “That’s what they get for being unchaste.” Well, let’s just be honest here and admit that expecting kids not to have sex is just dumb when:

    1.) There exists a gender double-standard. Females are supposed to be pure and virginal, while males are not only expected to be experienced, but they get the great cop-out of, ‘monogamy isn’t in our nature’ (cuz we all know women totally don’t desire sex). Add this fact into a high school environment, and you get boys making girls feel ugly, selfish, and outcast if they don’t put out.

    2.) Parents do NOT raise their children. They don’t talk about sexuality, and if they do, they either give the message that they don’t give a crap or they shove their proverbial fists down their kids’ throats telling them that they will be unwanted and unloved if they don’t turn out “right.” (I.e, gay/lesbian, open-minded, metro/tomboy, etc)

    “Risky, irresponsible behavior” has already been normalized. It’s a part of being a kid for most people. It’s what they DO. There’s always gonna be that kid who sticks a fork in a light socket.

    Abstinence-only education DOES NOT WORK. It has been the predominant form of sex-ed in several states for a very long time, and what you end up with is a bunch of very ignorant kids.

    Remember those girls with babies I mentioned at the beginning of this comment? I remember one asking what an ‘egg’ was in our biology class, once. Most of them, ages 12 to 17, thought you could avoid pregnancy by using urban legends. Most did not even know how you got pregnant in the FIRST place.

    SCARE TACTICS like telling kids if they have sex they will have a 100% chance of AIDS will not work. For one, that’s incredibly dishonest, and two, it has the same problem as plain abstinence education, because it just makes ignorant adults who won’t have the capacity or understanding to actually help solve world problems (like, say, being involved in AIDS research). Plus, kids have “It can’t happen to me” syndrome, so they’re going to ignore your threats anyway.

    The only way to properly prepare kids for the REAL WORLD is to give them valuable, realistic sex education.

    That doesn’t mean throw condoms in their face and tell them to go experiment right then. But it does mean that we need to step away from abstinence-only rhetoric and realize that it’s time to switch gears.

    I believe sex education needs to be a mixture of abstinence and healthy sex-ed. We don’t need to ENCOURAGE kids to go have sex, but we also don’t need to stick our fingers in our ears shouting, “LALALALALA YOU WONT HAVE SEX, I TRUST YOU, LALALALA.”

    We also need to bring parents back into the picture. The school does not need to be discussing the morality and appropriateness of sexuality. It’s SCHOOL. School is about math and science and speaking French and Spanish and learning what a conjunction is. It’s not about learning what your core beliefs and standards are supposed to be. Schools need to work with parents so that they can have better tools for dealing with their kids, and maybe even help sync a community’s children’s education, but school is never a replacement for parenting.

    Like

    1. Hey Sarah. Not only am I a virgin, but I am also a romantic. I am saving my first kiss for my engagement.

      “Abstinence-only education DOES NOT WORK. It has been the predominant form of sex-ed in several states for a very long time, and what you end up with is a bunch of very ignorant kids.”

      I know that there are studies that are put out that argue for this, although you didn’t link to any.

      But here is one that makes the opposite point:
      https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/new-study-finds-focus-on-abstinence-in-sex-ed-classes-can-delay-sexual-activity/

      This is my view, and there’s my evidence.

      See, what you gave above was a personal story, followed by a series of assertions. But in my post, and in this comment, I cited evidence. I hold my views because of what the evidence says. The evidence shows that your view – more non-abstinence only education – doesn’t work to reduce teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections. It doesn’t work in the United States (as the evidence I cited in the post showed) and it doesn’t work in the UK (as the evidence I linked to in the main post showed.).

      We do agree on the need for more parental involvement, but I think that requires rolling back feminist laws and policies, e.g. – no-fault divorce, taxpayer-funded contraception, taxpayer-funded abortion, single mother welfare, etc. This will result in men being selected more carefully by women to fill the specific roles of being protectors and providers. Once women become more responsible about their choice of mate, then there will be fathers in the home, and the many of the pathologies we see that are caused by fatherlessness will be diminished, including promiscuity in young women.

      Like

  2. Requiring better parental involvement doesn’t require ‘rolling back feminist laws.’ You seem to want to destroy anything that might put a woman on even footing with a man — the fact of the matter is that those ‘feminist laws’ are there to PROTECT women from horrible men. Why is it always the woman’s fault? Why do you not address the fact that these laws would not be necessary if men took responsibility? You say women should become more responsible about their choice of mate, so why don’t men become more responsible about who they pork?

    I get it, you’re a chivalrous dude who’s waiting for the perfect woman — but guess what, most men aren’t. I find “Christian men” to be some of the most terrifying prospects for a mate BECAUSE many of them think so little of women that they engage in domestic abuse — the kind where they manipulate and verbally abuse their wives, or talk down to them. I don’t really want to get any further into this, as there’s plenty of other places to do it, but you really need to sit back and think on why you hate “feminists” so much.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s