Here it is - the final segment you’ve all been waiting for…

As I wrap up this series I hope you’ve found it both “entertaining” and helpful. I hope you’ll be able to put together a strong, logical argument in favor of programs that actually have been shown to help youth rather than just determine how many more are having sex and using “protection” (a very illogical and destructive outcome to measure your success on when health and life are at stake). 

The final 2 Assumptions and related Realities drive home the point that you know what assumptions do – ‘they make an #*! out of ‘u’ and ‘me’ (you can fill in the first three letters from the word assume)! The 9^th assumption simply points out the different emphasis that these 2 competing ideologies use – CSE using a static ‘medical’ model that doesn’t hold up in behavioral and social science research but they stick with it nonetheless; and AE/HR using social science research that begins with positive attitude change that ultimately leads to behavior change which is actually what shows up in the studies that truly reflect real-life outcomes. Which would you rather have your child learning about and included in as a function of their data - one who succeeded by wearing more condoms and/or partaking of more birth control or one who actually practiced self-discipline and took responsibility for their actions borne out of respect for self and others? The choice and the outcomes are pretty simple and straightforward – your choice!?! 

Assumption # 10 closes us out by looking at actual CDC data that shows very clearly the increase of CSE funding that directly correlates to the increased (or at least never decreased) number of teen births and the direct drop in this category once private (late 80s/early 90s) and then especially public funding (mid 90s) of AE/HR programs! It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to see and figure out the corollary relationship of CSE funding/programs and higher teen births and the positive and inverse relationship between increased AE/HR funding and programs and the reduction of teen births! 

Assumptions 7 and 8 and the accompanying Realities will help you to see which programs truly are “comprehensive” in teaching young people what is the best and healthiest choices and which ones are “just say yes”, not a healthy option from any angle. 

Please read on…

Assumption # 7 – AE/HR curricula are “just say no” programs?!?

Reality # 7 – Here is another shameful approach to try and gain credibility for their flawed and dangerous programs while discrediting good AE/HR programs. Even in the recent past with the positive outcomes associated directly with the increased funding of AE/HR programs, the CSE programs began to report them and take credit for them, even though they had never had any previous success in these outcomes that really matter (see Reality # 5 above). They then began renaming their programs as ‘Abstinence-based’ (that should reveal a lot). In studies of these newly termed “abstinence based programs” the average mention of ‘abstinence’ was 4 – 7 times in the entire curriculum with hundreds of mentions of sexual activity and condoms/contraception. The percentages and actual numbers bear out that they were ‘abstinence-based’ in name only and had no, or very little, desire to really promote good AE/HR education, simply the continued presentation of the physical act of sex! On the other hand every good AE/HR program was found to be full of personal efficacy, responsibility, respect and character development along with building and developing relational skills and respect for others that empowers young people to avoid risky sexual activity that can harm them now and almost certainly create problems and struggles later in life and relationships. AE/HR programs also cover the true efficacy/inefficacy of condoms and contraceptives so that the youth have a clear picture of what they may be getting into rather than just a physical act and a few moments of pleasure, if that, as many young girls report very little enjoyment or pleasure. AE/HR programs are much more that ‘just say no’ as they truly empower youth with medically accurate info on many levels, including reproductive anatomy and defining sexual activity (not demonstrating as is often the case, in some form, with CSE programs), not just whether a condom may or may not protect them as CSE programs base their ‘medical accuracy’ on. Perhaps it would be appropriate to state that CSE curricula are ‘just say yes’ programs in spite of all the evidence of risk and harm that accompanies unwed sexual activity (as they admit there is risk and they simply want to reduce it which they never really have been able to do on a Public Health level)! Sad statement regarding their approach to our youth and the expected outcomes! We can and have done much better and AE/HR programs are what make the difference.

Assumption # 8 – CSE is “comprehensive” sex education?!?

Reality # 8 – If you haven’t figured out by now which programs are truly comprehensive in dealing with all parts of the pre-pubescent and adolescent’s life then you either don’t want to, or have already sold out to the false assumptions and ideologies that have been completely debunked in this blog. If you have the stomach for it and really want to see the CSE agenda exposed for the ‘one-track’ curricula that is truly is, visit Planned Parenthood’s teen website – www.teenwire.com. But be warned as you will see some questionable at best, and pathetic at worst, approaches to “helping” teens navigate their adolescence, personal development and relationships. Once you’ve done this you’ll see that the only real “comprehensive” approach is the “whole-person” approach of AE/HR education. Check out the curricula on both sides and you will see for yourself. Enough said!

I hope you’re enjoying this little series but more importantly I hope you’re persuaded to take a harder look at what has passed for “comprehensive sex education” over the past 3 – 4 decades in our country and the devastating effects it has had on our youth, communities and society as a whole. This week we add 2 more assumptions that really expose the hypocrisy and horror that is CSE. 

Assumption # 5 deals with the implications and inferences that CSE advocates would have you take their word for without ever questioning what is really going on. Find out for yourself what is really happening. Assumption # 6 speaks to the CSE mantra of claiming “fear-based” tactics on the part of AE/HR programs while excusing themselves for doing the same things. After all, the outcomes we are dealing with should be feared and avoided at all costs but CSE proponents would never go there because if they did they would have to show you what their real life outcomes have been, and as the ol’ hillbilly said, ‘They ain’t good!” At the same time fear with positive alternatives is a good motivator! AE/HR programs is full of excellent ways to avoid the feared outcomes (the only way, actually) and replace them with positive alternatives both presently and for the future!

Read on…

Assumption # 5 – If we are getting students to use condoms/contraception based on our research, then obviously you must know and ‘accept’ that the unhealthy outcomes must be improving because we really are “protecting” them!?!

Reality # 5 – This is probably the one that frustrates me the most because it is based on a cover up by education and media in this whole arena of sex education in order to continue to promote CSE (you can figure out from these false assumptions that are easily and logically taken apart as to what their motives might be on your own). What they have done is make all their “medical accuracy” (a term they now attempt to incorporate in legislative language in the very way I’m describing it here – no overt language but “medical accuracy” is used and it applies to what I’m writing here) based on a “medical lab” model that simply does not hold up in behavioral and social science models, or in other words, real life! All of their assumptions are based on simply increasing the number of youth using condoms and from there they leave you to infer based on their “expertise” that everything is (and has been) improving. They never once, until AE/HR programs began to point out the real outcomes, used these outcomes as defense for their ‘success’ as they never could because they never were successful at what really mattered – positive differences in the lives of people!  If they had used these outcomes, prior to the positive ones directly in conjunction with the onset of AE/HR, it would have clearly pointed out the negative and increasingly bad results that were in direct proportion to the ever-increasing CSE funding. In other words, they duped the public into believing that condoms “protect” and if more people are using them (remember that means that ‘more’ people have to be having ‘more’ sex) then there must be less teen/unwed pregnancies, less abortions, less STIs/STDs. So they would report their great "medical accuracy" and "successes" in terms of increased percentages and numbers of people using condoms. However, what they never told you was that the implied and/or your inferred ‘positive outcomes’ never happened rather negative outcomes continued to rise in direct proportion to CSE funding. How many lives have been, and continue to be, ruined by this assumption and the lies that accompanied them?!?

Assumption # 6 – AE/HR programs are “fear-based” and full of shame and guilt, but CSE programs are not?!?

Reality # 6 – This is a simple one – I just ask CSE proponents what they teach? When they say ‘safe sex’ through use of condoms and contraceptives (as they always do in some form), I ask why?  When they begin talking about ‘protecting’ against pregnancy and STDs, I stop them and simply again ask, why? If there is nothing to fear then why are you promoting some form of ‘protection’ (although false and has never worked on a social and public health level)? We both claim to want to “protect” youth from unwed pregnancy and STDs, however their message is one of ‘reduction’ which clearly means that some will get pregnant and diseased but go ahead anyway; whereas, AE/HR programs seek to empower youth to make the healthiest and best decisions for their lives and relationships by eliminating risky sexual activity outside of marriage through practicing “self-control”(that we have now established youth have and can mature in) self-respect, self-esteem and respect for and responsibility toward others that will benefit them both now and in the future!

Please continue to think through these ‘assumptions’ and ‘realities’ with me and join us for the sake of our youth and future generations.