3 ms·
> It's a fairly settled issue in social science, though, that abstinence-only sex ed doesn't work. So? The alternative to abstinence-only sex ed isn't perfect
by anamax 14y ago
> It's a fairly settled issue in social science, though, that abstinence-only sex ed doesn't work.
So? The alternative to abstinence-only sex ed isn't perfection, it's a bunch of stuff that doesn't work all that well either.
Your links are all behind paywalls. That said, they're probably just like the other work on the subject. Their "measure of success" is curious at best. (No, reducing teen pregnancy isn't the only goal.)
As to "telling teaching inaccuracies", no other teaching is held to that standard, so why is abstinence-only sex ed held to that standard?
Note - I think that abstinence-only sex ed is a bad idea. My point is that the arguments are not "scientific" or fair. That said, they are doing a great job in discrediting science. If that's your goal....
- rayiner 14y ago> As to "telling teaching inaccuracies", no other teaching is held to that standard, so why is abstinence-only sex ed held to that standard? Because kids going around with misconceptions about what really caused the American Revolution is less dangerous than kids going around with misconceptions about reproductive issues.
- anamax 14y ago> Because kids going around with misconceptions about what really caused the American Revolution is less dangerous than kids going around with misconceptions about reproductive issues. Umm, if it doesn't matter whether it is true, why are we teaching it? And no, sex ed isn't the only dangerous thing that we mis-teach kids about. But, thanks for demonstrating your priorities. However, I'm still unclear on why I should be paying for them.