Althouse: "Small government at its best" or "embarrassing" "19th century piece of legislation"?

November 3, 2011

"Small government at its best" or "embarrassing" "19th century piece of legislation"?

It's a bill that permits school districts to choose abstinence-based sex education, passed yesterday by the Wisconsin State Senate, voting along party lines.

103 comments:

bagoh20 said...: What a strange world where people are vehemently against teaching kids to NOT make a serious lifelong mistake.; 11/3/11, 9:09 AM
prairie wind said...: I'll tell you what's embarrassing: Having the legislature determine what kids should be taught about sex.

State Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, said supporters of the bill do not understand today’s sexually proficient youth culture.

Is sex really different for today's kids? Doesn't every generation believe they invented sex?; 11/3/11, 9:13 AM
Dad29 said...: Local control, first, last, and always.

This is NOT a public-policy issue which overrides local considerations. And we note that it does not remove current sex-ed guidelines.

For that matter, the whole damn sex-ed curriculum should be dropped, but the Pubbies don't have the nerve.; 11/3/11, 9:13 AM
garage mahal said...: This is embrassing from Club for Grothman:

"Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, said the drop in teen pregnancy in Milwaukee happened before the implementation of the 2009 Healthy YouthAct and said it was likely caused by members of the clergy and parents’ request for abstinence-only education".

How stupid do you have to be to vote for this moron?; 11/3/11, 9:13 AM
m stone said...: Actually clergy and, especially, parents getting involved instead of the legislature, is refreshing.

We really shouldn't let the facts get in the way, should we?; 11/3/11, 9:16 AM
Henry said...: Compared to what?

The answer is in the article "This effectively repeals former Gov. Jim Doyle’s 2009 Healthy Youth Act that required schools with sex education programs to teach about safe sex practices."

But what does "schools with sex education programs" mean? It sounds like Wisconsin schools don't actually need to have sex education programs. But if they do, they can only teach one thing.

I like giving local school boards control over their curriculum but I hope all local school boards figure out some better use of students time.

State Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, said supporters of the bill do not understand today’s sexually proficient youth culture. By allowing schools to take an abstinence-only approach to sex education, Risser said teachers will not need to not tell the truth.

Again, a school doesn't have to teach sex education at all, right? The "no approach to sex education" was always an option.

p.s. Fred Risser is 84 years old. You gotta love the old man who thinks he's plugged the youth culture. All it takes is a nudge of the frame and the concerned liberal turns into the reactionary crank complaining about "those kids today."; 11/3/11, 9:18 AM
edutcher said...: Well, of course the Demos are against abstinence, or, at least, restraint.

If people start behaving responsibly, where will all the people the Left needs to fill the welfare rolls come from?; 11/3/11, 9:18 AM
gerry said...: CHOICE IS GOOD.

Unless it involves anything but killing unborn humans.; 11/3/11, 9:21 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Sex education as a panacea for out of wedlock births and venereal disease has failed utterly.

Takes an idiot like garbage to fail to notice this.

Decades of sex education have been accompanied by an astonishing increase in the number of out of wedlock births (up to 70% in black communities), and equally astonishing increases in the prevalence of VD.

But, idiots like garbage keep insisting that the problem is that the right people haven't been in charge, that more money must be spend and that even more control should be wrested from parents and ceded to schools.

A classic case of liberal stupidity.

The clear evidence of failure in the instance of social engineering cannot be admitted into evidence. All that matters is the stupidity of good intentions.

Everybody knows that sex education works.

Except it doesn't.; 11/3/11, 9:22 AM
Scott M said...: Yes...liberty is sooooo 19th century.; 11/3/11, 9:24 AM
Scott M said...: Perhaps one could ask opponents of this bill if they are pro-choice or not.; 11/3/11, 9:25 AM
ndspinelli said...: Politicians could use classes on marital fidelity..write that into the bill.; 11/3/11, 9:26 AM
MadisonMan said...: I think it's a great Jobs Bill! Thanks Republicans. This Special Jobs session is oh-so-worthwhile!; 11/3/11, 9:27 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: The problem here is that the public school systems have taken upon themselves the teaching of sex ed, and the way that they teach it appears to have become ever more egregiously indoctrination.

Maybe I am of an older generation, but sex ed is something that I think should be taught by the parents, not the teachers. And, yes, this was a small part of why I spent all that money to send my kid to private school. So, again, why, if a lot of the students are graduating functionally illiterate, are they spending valuable class time on what looks more like indoctrination than the three R's?; 11/3/11, 9:29 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: MadisonMan,

It's not the job of government to create jobs.

It's the job of government to get the hell out of the way of the private sector, so that the private sector can create jobs.

Take some time off and try to get this through your thick skull.; 11/3/11, 9:30 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "State Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, said supporters of the bill do not understand today’s sexually proficient youth culture. By allowing schools to take an abstinence-only approach to sex education, Risser said teachers will not need to not tell the truth."

"Sexually proficient" is the journalist's paraphrase. I think it's a hilarious phrase. "Proficient"... it's like what they'd say about students who can read at or above their grade level. What would the corresponding capability be with respect to sex?!

Do you consider yourself "sexually proficient"? Answering that question, exactly what are you thinking about?

Is that what Risser was thinking about with respect to kids?!; 11/3/11, 9:30 AM
MadisonMan said...: It's not the job of government to create jobs.

Then why did the Governor call a special jobs session of the Legislature?; 11/3/11, 9:32 AM
Curious George said...: I think everyone is missing the issue here, that the Democrats think that they know better than parents and local school boards what's best for their kids and students.

Trust me, Milwaukee will not change a thing. And young girls will still have kids, with baby daddies that will not help support them, and the cycle of certain poverty (and future Democratic voters looking for handouts) will not be broken. The "plantation" will survive.; 11/3/11, 9:32 AM
Calypso Facto said...: If we had truly open school choice with portable tax credits, we wouldn't be getting wrapped around which version of sex-ed the State mandates, or in this case, un-mandates.; 11/3/11, 9:33 AM
Robert Cook said...: Sex education offered by the schools should be concerned only with relating in a neutral manner the biological facts related to human sexual behavior, including the means of preventing unwanted conception and the transmission of STDs.

It is the responsibility of the parents to provide whatever morals-based teaching regarding sexual activity as they deem necessary and preferred.; 11/3/11, 9:33 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Once again, the evidence that sex ed in schools has failed is incontrovertible.

Sex ed has always been sold, as I recall, as a preventative for unwanted pregnancy and VD.

The era of sex ed has produced an astonishing increase in out-of-wedlock pregnancy and VD.

Is there something I'm missing here?

This liberal social engineering program has failed as miserably as it is possible to fail.

As with all liberal social engineering programs, is proponents keep insisting that they just need more money and power.

What we need is the end of the liberal social engineering program. It failed. Demonstrably.; 11/3/11, 9:33 AM
MadisonMan said...: Shouting, perhaps you can explain this link to me. The Republican Governor called a special jobs session of the Legislature.

Why?; 11/3/11, 9:34 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Right on cue, Kookie proves my point.

He wants more of what has already failed.

Kookie, sex ed produces more unwanted pregnancy and VD.

You have eyes that cannot see.; 11/3/11, 9:34 AM
Scott M said...: Maybe I am of an older generation, but sex ed is something that I think should be taught by the parents, not the teachers.

My first sex ed class was in sixth grade back around 1980. We were taught very blandly the biology of how it works and what puberty was. That's it.

What my nieces and nephews have been taught, though, goes far, far beyond the simply biological and into value judgements. The common ground should be education on the biological aspects and allow the schools to choose the rest and/or leave it up to the parents.; 11/3/11, 9:35 AM
Scott M said...: including the means of preventing unwanted conception and the transmission of STDs.

Abstinence is 100% effective at preventing unwanted conception and transmission of STDs.; 11/3/11, 9:36 AM
ndspinelli said...: Professor, Every dude thinks he's sexually proficient. What about dudettes? I think not.; 11/3/11, 9:36 AM
traditionalguy said...: The family that cannot guide its children in sexual matters cannot retain its authority.

So I am Pro-Choice.

With the internet there is little chance that sex education is not going on at a very detailed level.

But labeling immorality as immorality rather than labeling all free sex as a community approved sport should be a local parental option.; 11/3/11, 9:37 AM
Robert Cook said...: If someone asks if one is "sexually proficient," one's default answer should be: "Well, I'm no Jamie Gillis, but I do all right."

Females can substitute Seka or Jenna Jameson or other female porn star of choice.; 11/3/11, 9:37 AM
MadisonMan said...: Or, shouting, how about this puff piece?

Does the bill on teaching abstinence in Schools create a job? Does it improve the business climate? After all, that's why this Republican Governor called this special Legislative Session to order.

It's all about jobs baby!!; 11/3/11, 9:38 AM
garage mahal said...: The clear evidence of failure in the instance of social engineering cannot be admitted into evidence. All that matters is the stupidity of good intentions.

Did you even read the piece you raging idiot? Even Grothman agrees teen pregnancies have dropped significantly since implementation of the Healthy Youth Act. Do you honestly think Grothman is right that it can be attributed to clergy and parents requesting abstinence-only education? Honestly I don't think you could find your ass with both hands.; 11/3/11, 9:39 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: It's not the job of government to create jobs.

Then why did the Governor call a special jobs session of the Legislature?

Because it sounds better than the ordinary waste of time bullshit session?

Government needs to get OUT of indoctrinating children about sex. Local control of the ciriculum is putting the parents back into control of their own children.

Since we can't seem to keep the government from meddling and trying to control.... a good voucher system with plenty of charter school choices would be a great solution.

Don't like the school teaching your child how to 'fist', that anal sex is ok and how to put condoms on at the age of 7? Go to a school that doesn't teach those things.

Maybe that WILL create jobs. More charter schools = more jobs

CHOICE...not just for abortion anymore!!; 11/3/11, 9:39 AM
sean said...: Most research shows that no sex ed program "works" in the sense of reducing teenage pregnancy, STDs, etc. This is usually reported in the NYT as "Study Shows Abstinence-Based Education Ineffective," but those who actually study the literature know that all programs are ineffective. Therefore, the legislature might as well indulge in expressive legislation, no instrumentally-driven legislation being possible.; 11/3/11, 9:39 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: The only jobs that government can create are government jobs.

Cut taxes, reduce regulation.

Those are the only sensible remedies available to government.; 11/3/11, 9:40 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: garbage, you are such a fool.

At the beginning of the era of sex ed, blacks were more likely than whites to live in a family headed by a mother and father.

Now, the out-of-wedlock birth rate among blacks is over 70%.

No, garbage, you fool, your great social engineering program produced precisely the opposite result of what you thought would happen.

As usual.; 11/3/11, 9:42 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: The answer is in the article "This effectively repeals former Gov. Jim Doyle’s 2009 Healthy Youth Act that required schools with sex education programs to teach about safe sex practices."

And, I think the answer to Doyle, et al., is the question of whether any sex, under the age of, say 16-17, can be safe, physically, and not result in long term physical effects, at least to the girls involved. And, there is some evidence, apparently, that girls quit maturing mentally when they start having sex, if underage.

I don't know how much of these dangers are real, and how much they are imagined. But, I would suggest that there is more evidence and the reasoning is more credible there than for AGW.

So, can we afford to sacrifice the physical and mental health of a generation or two of our children on the chance that their isn't a physical and mental danger here to the kids, and, esp. to the girls, of pushing sex too early on them? If the educrats are wrong, what is our recourse? There isn't one - too bad, so sad, the school districts and the educrats are protected from suit by sovereign immunity.; 11/3/11, 9:43 AM
madAsHell said...: whoa.....abstinence based sex education!!

Do you really need to teach someone to jack off??; 11/3/11, 9:44 AM
cubanbob said...: If the goal is to reduce teenage pregnancy then eliminating teenagers from any pregnancy related welfare will radically curb teenage pregnancies. If that isn't enough Plan B in addition would include prosecuting the girl and the father for statutory rape.
That should do the trick.; 11/3/11, 9:46 AM
m stone said...: Is what the senate proposing "expressive" legislation, sean, by deferring to the locals?; 11/3/11, 9:48 AM
prairie wind said...: Do you really need to teach someone to jack off??

Joycelyn Elders thought so.; 11/3/11, 9:48 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: cubanban,

You are correct that shaming is the correct and workable method of limiting out-of-wedlock pregnancy and VD, but I don't think I agree with your method.

The old fashioned method, which predates the great Sexual Revolution, of indoctrinating kids in religion, and public shaming and denunciation of underage sexual activity worked quite well.

Then, along came liberals (and I was one of them at the time), who invented the wonderful ideal of transferring all the power of the home and parents to the state.

Sounded great. No rational person could possibly disagree.

Worked out great, didn't it?; 11/3/11, 9:50 AM
ndspinelli said...: Mad AS Hell, It could be a positive role for those guys who jerk off in front of strangers on the street. Just take them to the classroom and let them teach. It's a win/win!; 11/3/11, 9:50 AM
garage mahal said...: No, garbage, you fool, your great social engineering program produced precisely the opposite result of what you thought would happen.

From the article which you probably not even read:

"But Democratic senators cited the success comprehensive sex education has had, particularly in Milwaukee County, which has seen a significant drop in teen pregnancies since the Healthy Youth Act"

What caused the significant drop in teenage pregnancies, Thomas?; 11/3/11, 9:53 AM
MadisonMan said...: Shouting, per you 9:40 comment, perhaps you can explain this current Legislative session to me. They're talking about sex ed in a jobs session, not about reducing regulations. Or cutting taxes.

Is Gov. Walker really a Republican?; 11/3/11, 9:55 AM
Scott M said...: What caused the significant drop in teenage pregnancies, Thomas?

A significant increase in the number of ugly chicks and/or a significant decrease in beer sales.; 11/3/11, 9:56 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: It's a significant drop from the historically high levels produced by decades of sex ed, garbage.

First, liberals create a problem. Then they solve it. Solving it creates yet another problem, which only more government intervention and spending can cure.

You're a pro at this scam, garbage.

The solution isn't to fiddle with the programs you favor that caused the damage, garbage.

The solution is to get idiots like you out of the business social engineering.; 11/3/11, 9:56 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: It's almost impossible for you to let go of your treasured ideals, even when they produce the opposite of the predicted result, right garbage?

The ideal is more important than the result.

Humans don't work according to the rationales of political dialectics.; 11/3/11, 9:59 AM
Curious George said...: "garage mahal said...
Did you even read the piece you raging idiot? Even Grothman agrees teen pregnancies have dropped significantly since implementation of the Healthy Youth Act."

Actually, did you read the piece? Grothman points out that the drop occurred before the Healthy Youth Act. Here, let me help:

"Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, said the drop in teen pregnancy in Milwaukee happened before the implementation of the 2009 Healthy Youth Act".

Don't worry garage, Milwaukee won't change a thing, and teen pregnancies will continue, as will the poverty that comes with it. Milwaukees inner city will remain the shithole it is today. And Madison's problems will continue to grow.; 11/3/11, 10:05 AM
MadisonMan said...: A significant increase in the number of ugly chicks and/or a significant decrease in beer sales.

Hey, maybe you're on to something. Wisconsin's Beer Tax is the lowest in the nation. Raise the beer tax, driving down beer sales, and maybe unwanted pregnancies will drop as well!; 11/3/11, 10:06 AM
Calypso Facto said...: Even Grothman agrees teen pregnancies have dropped significantly since implementation of the Healthy Youth Act.

Grothman argues that rates were dropping BEFORE the implementation of the HYA. And...whadya know? That "moron" is right.

"Between 1993 and 2004, a steady decrease in teen birth rates is shown in Graph 1 for the US, the 25 largest cities, and Milwaukee"

It's almost as if Doyle's feel-good authoritarianism accomplished nothing! Gasp.; 11/3/11, 10:06 AM
Christopher said...: MM,

Have they not addressed jobs at all? Or is this just something they dealt with while there?

(I'm not from Wisconsin so I haven't paid attention to any of this); 11/3/11, 10:07 AM
Dan in Philly said...: Anyone know of a reputable test of how effective sex ed is, and how effective the different approaches are? Give the world as it is, I wonder if no sex-ed at all would be better than what's going on. I wonder if the question is studied they were to find that ab-only ed is actually far more effective than any other type, if that would change their minds...; 11/3/11, 10:07 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: Don't worry garage, Milwaukee won't change a thing, and teen pregnancies will continue, as will the poverty that comes with it. Milwaukees inner city will remain the shithole it is today. And Madison's problems will continue to grow.

And, of course, that is precisely what the Democratic Party wants.

Dependency on the welfare dole ensures that the dependent votes Democratic.

The perfect circle jerk.; 11/3/11, 10:07 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Abstinence is 100% effective at preventing unwanted conception and transmission of STDs."

Sure, and any course that teaches the means to prevent unwanted pregnancy or transmission of STDs would necessarily include abstinence as an option.

But this is not what those who champion "abstinence-based sex education" want. They want a morals-based plan of instruction that emphasizes abstinence as the best or only method to prevent STDs or unwanted pregnancies.

In short, they want a "Just Say No" educational program. Again, a school's program should relate all options for prevention of pregnancy and disease and the relative success rates of each, and allow the students to draw their own conclusions. If the parents want to supplement the plain biological facts of life with their preferred morals-based teaching, that is their prerogative and responsibility.

And let's face it, human beings, once sexually mature, are essentially in perpetual heat, and thus emphasizing abstinence will likely have little influence on young people who have their blood up. It would help--and be more effective--if the young people have knowledge of their other options than just not doing it.; 11/3/11, 10:08 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: And let's face it, human beings, once sexually mature, are essentially in perpetual heat, and thus emphasizing abstinence will likely have little influence on young people who have their blood up. It would help--and be more effective--if the young people have knowledge of their other options than just not doing it.

And, yet, Kookie, in the dark ages of no sex ed, illegitimacy was virual unknown in most white communities, and far lower in black communities.

The rates of VD were, likewise, minimal compared to those produced by the era of sex ed.

You're too much of a blockhead to see the hand in front of your face.

There are ways to control those teens in heat. Family, parental authority, religion... all those things that a fool like you is too smart to understand.; 11/3/11, 10:13 AM
Known Unknown said...: Should schools even handle sex-ed?

We need a referendum!; 11/3/11, 10:14 AM
Shouting Thomas said...: In short, Kookie, the old fashioned patriarchal, traditional family, religiously indoctrinated approach worked very well in limited illegitimacy and VD.

Sex ed failed horribly.

But, I know that actual human experience has no meaning to you.

You're an intellectual idiot.; 11/3/11, 10:15 AM
Calypso Facto said...: And here's where things stood in 2008 right before the Democratic legislature and governor decided they needed to step in and "solve" this terrible problem with new proscriptive legislation:
Teen birth rate falls to 28-year low; 11/3/11, 10:15 AM
Christopher in MA said...: You know, as much as I hate to agree with either MadMan or Cook, this is rank stupidity. Even though they are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the government, the legislature should not be in the business of determining what - beyond basic biology - should be taught in schools under the all-encompassing rubric of "sex ed," going along with whatever the perversion du jour might be.

For example - my nieces (now beginning college) have been taught in grammar and high school how to roll a condom onto their lover. They have been taught about dental dams, should they decide to explore their sexual boundaries. They have been instructed in sexual preferences and positions that would, were such conversation used in a workplace, rival the Cain kerfuffle. Imagine a teacher or student from 1961 being transported to a 2011 school.

And what happens when sexual enthusiasms change? Right now, it's practically a hate crime to suggest any disapproval of a homosexual lifestyle. In 1961, it wasn't. Who is to say that in 2051 the pendulum won't have swung back? Schools should not be teaching either abstinence-only or let it all hang out, in my opinion.

And Cook, your knowledge of porn is beyond me. When you mentioned "Jamie Gillis," all I could think of was William Holden putting the moves on Gloria Swanson.; 11/3/11, 10:16 AM
Scott M said...: They want a morals-based plan of instruction that emphasizes abstinence as the best or only method to prevent STDs or unwanted pregnancies.

Incorrect. Lesson plans centered around abstinence that I've seen, outside private schools, concentrate on the biological facts that not having sex is the best way to not get pregnant, along with entire sections devoted to the negatives of teen and unwed pregnancy, and to not get STD's is not...to...have...sex. All of this can be done without values-based instruction.; 11/3/11, 10:17 AM
cubanbob said...: Robert Cook said...

The girls are less likely to put out if they know getting pregnant means financially they are on their own. End welfare for teenage pregnancy and the problem is largely solved. You of course can always volunteer to pay someone else's child support if you wish.; 11/3/11, 10:18 AM
garage mahal said...: Actually, did you read the piece? Grothman points out that the drop occurred before the Healthy Youth Act. Here, let me help:

Grothman versus data:

The newness of the Healthy Youth Act limits data measuring its effectiveness, but the available statistics are favorable, especially in Milwaukee. In 2009, the teenage birth rate in the city was 41.3 births per 1,000 women, about half the rate in 2008. Link

But you don't care, you claim nothing will change, but your answer is to do nothing.; 11/3/11, 10:24 AM
madAsHell said...: It could be a positive role for those guys who jerk off in front of strangers on the street. Just take them to the classroom and let them teach.

I prefer my women without emotional scars.

....but I'm sure you could find a university study that would find this a win/win!!; 11/3/11, 10:26 AM
Scott M said...: @Garage

You posted;

From the article which you probably not even read:

"But Democratic senators cited the success comprehensive sex education has had, particularly in Milwaukee County, which has seen a significant drop in teen pregnancies since the Healthy Youth Act"

What caused the significant drop in teenage pregnancies, Thomas?

Given that the data in question did not back up your original assertion (some people call that being wrong), what is the answer to the question you posed?; 11/3/11, 10:29 AM
garage mahal said...: Teenage pregnancies dropping by half in a year in Mlke after the Act was implemented doesn't prove my assertion?; 11/3/11, 10:39 AM
ic said...: Keyword: choose

Meaning school districts are already teaching sex education without teaching abstinence. The new legislation does not take anything away from the inquisitive, sexually proficient little mites.; 11/3/11, 10:39 AM
Carol_Herman said...: To be really "abstinence" based ... they should put teachers into empty classrooms. Claiming there would have been students. But adults chose to abstain becoming parents.

Where's the problem? Oh, about 80% of the students are too stupid to learn much beyond just tying their shoelaces. Some won't even be able to read to a degree that they could handle an employment form. Will they be credentialed?

Sure. Our "credentials" are now like sub prime mortgages. You can get them if you sign away any potential you may have to earn a living.

(And, yes. Over in Greece, the Germans are applying pressure ... so that for the next 20 years ... all "surplus" funds are sent directly to Dusseldorf.)

Nothing fails!

Politicians are making sure that NOTHING FAILS!

While living in a free world gets swallowed up.

And, kids? They know where babies come from ... even if all sex education classes are not only debunked, but unfunded.; 11/3/11, 10:55 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: among 15- to 17-year-old girls in Milwaukee have dropped to their lowest level in 28 years, according to data released Wednesday by public health officials.

Births declined to 50 per 1,000 girls in 2007, the lowest rate since 1979 and just over half the highest rate on record.

Garage said: "Teenage pregnancies dropping by half in a year in Mlke after the Act was implemented doesn't prove my assertion?"

No it doesn't prove your point at all.

The above is tracking BIRTHS.....not PREGNANCIES. Since abortion is freely available and often obtained without any parental notificiation and facilitated by the schools...Who knows how many pregnancies were terminated before becoming BIRTHS.

The drop in births can possibly be attributed to the liberals teaching kids how to put on condoms, but we will never know if that is the case until we know how many pregnancies ended in DEATH by abortion before they became BIRTH statistics.

Correlation is not causation.; 11/3/11, 10:58 AM
Carol_Herman said...: Do you remember hearing how first, second, and third graders, were taught to slip condoms on bananas?

It's interesting that we see the "ocupy" crowd. All "credentialed." But with only vague ideas of how work actually adds value to anything. Nor do they know how to do it!

Missing the finer points seems to be what gets politicians to vote for crap.

Real issues scare them half to death.

Heck, if you want to teach "abstinence" ... all you need to see is how Herman Cain is falling from grace. Because he thinks, instead of the women he's paid off ... who accused him of sexual harassment. All he has to do is become a poster boy for the the crowd that says "there's no sex going on here." No. None at all.

Add that this appeals to people with strong religious convictions.; 11/3/11, 10:59 AM
Anonymous said...: How can you wingers fail to be impressed by the way an act signed by Gov. Doyle on Feb. 24, 2010 caused such a huge drop in teenage pregnancies in 2009?; 11/3/11, 11:00 AM
Calypso Facto said...: "This act is effective when it becomes law and applies beginning
with the 2010-2011 school year."

How much do YOU think these policies that STARTED IN 2010 affected the 2009 birth rates, Garage?

As Grothman said, the trend was already down for the previous 15 years in Wisconsin and across the US. The window-dressing HYA had nothing to do with it.; 11/3/11, 11:01 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: huge drop in teenage pregnancies in 2009?

Births....not pregnancies.; 11/3/11, 11:02 AM
Calypso Facto said...: Oops. Paul beat me to it.; 11/3/11, 11:02 AM
Brian Brown said...: garage mahal said...
Teenage pregnancies dropping by half in a year in Mlke after the Act was implemented doesn't prove my assertion?

Considering you don't umderstand the difference between birth and pregnancy, no, no it does not.; 11/3/11, 11:17 AM
Curious George said...: "garage mahal said...
Grothman versus data:

The newness of the Healthy Youth Act limits data measuring its effectiveness, but the available statistics are favorable, especially in Milwaukee. In 2009, the teenage birth rate in the city was 41.3 births per 1,000 women, about half the rate in 2008. Link

But you don't care, you claim nothing will change, but your answer is to do nothing."

Do you read anything? First, you claimed Grothman agreed that births went down after the HCA...as I and many have pointed out, that is false. Grothman claimed it went down before.

As for my claim that nothing will change, nothing will in Milwaukee. THEY WILL NOT CHANGE THEIR PROGRAM. THE BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TO. THEY WILL USE THEIR CHOICE TO CONTINUE AS BEFORE.

You are really the one of the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet.; 11/3/11, 11:19 AM
ricpic said...: Liberals understand that nothing undermines stability and favors the growth of the state like sex run amok. Ergo the passion for getting rid of all that fuddy duddy 19th century so-called puritanical restraint on glorious polymorphous perversity.; 11/3/11, 11:49 AM
garage mahal said...: How much do YOU think these policies that STARTED IN 2010 affected the 2009 birth rates, Garage? ?

Yea it would help if I pasted the right paragraph that showed a further decrease from 41.3 births per 1,000 to 35.68 after HYA. I admit it looked idiotic, and I'll concede the point, no time right now.; 11/3/11, 12:00 PM
ken in tx said...: I once taught in alternative school—high school level. One girl got pregnant two years in a row, by different guys. She brought her first child to school and was fawned over enormously by the other girls and the female teachers. Clearly, having a baby enhanced her status and encouraged her to do it again. Sex ed had nothing to do with it, except she knew how to make it happen.; 11/3/11, 12:07 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Professor, Every dude thinks he's sexually proficient. What about dudettes? I think not."

You're absolutely right. We don't think you guys are all sexually proficient.; 11/3/11, 12:47 PM
sorepaw said...: What a great argument against governments at any level operating K-12 schools.; 11/3/11, 1:04 PM
Nichevo said...: That's 'cause y'all're stupid, Ann. We are super-proficient. Barring ugly chicks, impotence, coitus interruptus, or other forces majeures, we reach orgasm every time. The ladies? Not so much.

But even that doesn't matter. You can get preggers just fine without an O. Good thing too.; 11/3/11, 1:07 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "We are super-proficient. Barring ugly chicks, impotence, coitus interruptus, or other forces majeures, we reach orgasm every time. The ladies? Not so much."

Thanks for admitting you lack proficiency. Let the "chicks" be warned, even the ugly ones. You do not know what you are doing.; 11/3/11, 1:10 PM
Scott M said...: You're absolutely right. We don't think you guys are all sexually proficient.

As you cannot trust in the least what the person your with has to say on the matter, the best compliment I ever received was from a fling who told a good friend of mine that our frisky play time was one of her primary "alone-time" sources for inspiration.

I'd call that proficient.; 11/3/11, 1:11 PM
Nichevo said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/3/11, 2:05 PM
Nichevo said...: Ann, there is no need for ad hominems. I decided not to fuck you a long time ago, because you got married and because Meade seemed a right guy. Please do not make me regret my principled decision.

Defining "proficiency" is at the heart of the joke. In the evolutionary schema "proficiency" can only be defined as the ability to reproduce. Orgasms are irrelevant except as they facilitate reproduction. The man's orgasm is necessary, the woman's is not, to reproduce. (There is some jabber about a woman's O improving odds of conception, but whatever ;>)

So a man who can ejaculate - particularly, who can ejaculate in a woman's vagina - is proficient. Who cannot is not proficient. And frankly, from the evolutionary standpoint, faster ejaculation is adaptive.

What is female proficiency? Answer me that. I joked (you misunderstood me) that females were not proficient because they are not competent to orgasm regularly during coitus, but then again, as I reflected, it does not matter. What does a woman really have to do but lie there, to be bred?

Now of course this is all hooey - there are many women proficient at sex - as we commonly understand this notion it reflects their ability to aid the male in achieving orgasm. Unlike the reverse, this IS a valid index of proficiency, as reproduction will not occur without the male orgasm.

Anyway, it behooves women to be good at sex in order to attract and keep a male. There is really not much point in a man's ability to pleasure a female as no woman will stay with a man just because he is good at sex - money or some other such concern will always outweigh - as long as he is not completely impotent.

Oh and ugly chicks can be great lays - as a rule, they try harder and are not stuck up.; 11/3/11, 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/3/11, 2:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Garage, Grothman is an embarrassment to Wisconsin.; 11/3/11, 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Eddutcher, plenty of teen girls are getting pregnant in families that taught abstinence. The girls are so fearful to come to their mothers regarding their sexual activities that they end up pregnant. Abstinence has never and will never be an effective means of prevention, it's been that way since the days of chastity belts.; 11/3/11, 2:26 PM
ndspinelli said...: To lighten up this profiency debate, there is a great line in the flick 50/50. The lead character has cancer and is not getting laid by his girlfriend. The Seth Rogen character asks him, "Well, you're @ least getting blow jobs aren't you?" He replies sheepishly, "She says she doesn't like it." An outraged Rogen shoots back.."Of course she doesn't like it..it's a Job..That's why they call it a blow JOB!; 11/3/11, 3:09 PM
MadisonMan said...: Grothman is an embarrassment to Wisconsin.

Most state legislators in Wisconsin are an embarrassment to Wisconsin.; 11/3/11, 3:22 PM
Scott M said...: Grothman is an embarrassment to Wisconsin.

Someone get Chip to do a mockup of "Gothman", Wisconsin legislator by day, black lace and leather-wearing vampire wannabe by night.

Most state legislators in Wisconsin are an embarrassment to Wisconsin.

Don't sell your supreme court short...; 11/3/11, 3:26 PM
Synova said...: Freedom is the right to pass embarrassing 19th century legislation.

At what point, when we oppose letting local democratic institutions have the authority to chose their own preferences, are we allowed to cry fascism?; 11/3/11, 5:35 PM
Synova said...: "Shouting, perhaps you can explain this link to me. The Republican Governor called a special jobs session of the Legislature.

Why?"

People who are elected like to make a show of being responsive to the problems of the people.

Most Republicans are more-or-less statist and don't ascribe to the notion that it's not the job of government any more than most Dems do.

Maybe the state lawmakers can figure out some ways to reduce the interference of government and "get out of the way" of the job creators, which would be a good thing.

As this is Wisconsin, maybe they'll try to figure out how to get more businesses to move from Illinois.; 11/3/11, 5:42 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: There are ways to control those teens in heat. Family, parental authority, religion...

Forced marriage of pregnant teens...

All the good stuff for Shouty.; 11/3/11, 5:43 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: A time-based (historical) comparison is bullshit. Too many other uncontrolled and uncontrollable variables.

The only comparison that matters is a cohort comparison.

Do teens in a contemporary sample who are taught abstinence-only education have higher or lower unwanted pregnancy rates than those who are not?

The answer to that question, is the one that the retrogrades don't want to know... because it probably shows that they're full of shit. And fucking up social policy.

And yet, that is the way that science is done and the only way that knowledge can proceed. Typical.; 11/3/11, 5:48 PM
David said...: So "abstinence based sex education" (whatever that is) was prohibited before this law?

Why isn't that just as bad?; 11/3/11, 5:52 PM
Synova said...: "Eddutcher, plenty of teen girls are getting pregnant in families that taught abstinence. The girls are so fearful to come to their mothers regarding their sexual activities that they end up pregnant."

This is only proof of something if girls in families that do not teach abstinence are not getting pregnant.

And getting an abortion doesn't make the "pregnant" status go away. It's still an abject failure of "we know you're gonna do it" sex ed.

"Don't have sex, you could get pregnant and ruin your life," wasn't a perfect message, but it was a powerful one. It also gives us a cultural base-line on how often this message failed (often enough). Take that base line and apply it to the promises of the new "we have birth control, we know you're gonna have sex, so use it" message. By any count there is far more pregnancies, far more abortions than there has ever ever been, and even with the option of the abortion "do over", there are far far more teen and out-of-wedlock births.

That girls with parents who teach abstinence give in to powerful biological urges to reproduce and then, almost certainly, have the baby for everyone to see instead of aborting it without the neighbors ever finding out what happened, is not even relevant to how, or not, modern "sex ed" performs as pregnancy prevention.; 11/3/11, 5:58 PM
Synova said...: "The answer to that question, is the one that the retrogrades don't want to know... because it probably shows that they're full of shit."

"Probably" is not a good enough reason to impose social policy by law.; 11/3/11, 6:01 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: I'm pretty sure "abstinence based sex education" doesn't do a damn thing to prevent teen pregnancies or STDs but then again neither does the traditional "Slot A goes into Tab B" sex education that I got in school, so...whatever. Much ado about nothing.; 11/3/11, 7:17 PM
Synova said...: Being right is not actually a good enough reason to impose social policy by law.; 11/3/11, 7:45 PM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: Right. Nonsense and nonsensical "non-law"-based policies are better. Whatever.

Either approach is a policy and either approach is a law. One leads to unplanned pregnancies. To favor that just some because people think sexual ignorance and appeals to tradition are awesome is self-evidently ridiculous, but your inability to mount a serious argument (i.e. "being right is not a good enough reason") shows just how weak the argument for abstinence-based education is.

Also, the difference between whether we teach facts or we indoctrinate, that matters. Abstinence-based education advocates say that the normative message matters more than the facts. Teens are notorious for seeing right through the bullshit of advocacy and right into what the material facts of an argument really are.; 11/3/11, 8:54 PM
Synova said...: The point is that being right does not justify overriding people's right to make their own wrong choices.

Or we don't have freedom.

Being right is no excuse to impose your totally right ideas on anyone.

Or we don't have freedom.

And it's interesting to talk about that is relation to something that touches on religion. Because being right does not give anyone the right to impose the right Way on anyone.

Or we don't have freedom.

Any time that being right is an excuse to suppress those who are wrong, we don't have freedom.

We might as well tell people what is the right way to worship, what they are allowed to eat, how and what they must teach their children, and how much exercise they must have daily.

Yes, local school boards will still be imposing a policy on the people in their district, but that is because we've a system of education that is compulsory and antithetical to freedom of conscience.

But it is still better that the local board, answerable to a local majority, be making those impositions.; 11/3/11, 11:20 PM
Synova said...: My argument is utterly serious. I think that the threat to our liberty from people who think that, for example, bad speech doesn't count under freedom of speech, or who think that being right means it's not wrong to take away choice, is far far more serious than what some school board in some remote town might decide to do. (A side benefit of which would be having better data to compare, eventually. And it's quite probable that local cultural norms make a one-size-fits-all centralized moral planning ill advised.)

Bother to identify the impulse that has resulted in so much oppression of those who are wrong, politically, religiously, scientifically... it is the impulse and feeling of justification that Truth is more important than liberty.

Granted, if you want to ignore that and go with the surface issue, you haven't proven that sex ed done "right" gets the results that you want either. You just suppose so, that it probably does.; 11/3/11, 11:28 PM
Nichevo said...: for the record and not advocating it in any way - but how is teen preg in the hijab/burqa community? somewhere between stoning and "do what you like" might be a livable level of social control.

Or, we could lower the age of consent. Or, encourage marriage of such people. Roll back the social programs that have facilitated single motherhood. I just think the idea of teaching sodomy, onanism or whatever (not to judge; but that's literally hat we're talking about) as alternatives to continence is absurd on its face. It's as if, instead of teaching kids not to steal or kill, you showed them how to avoid leaving fingerprints, GSR marks, hair and fiber, DNA evidence.

Just for the record: you can get to your senior prom a virgin, male or female. You can in fact get to college, male or female, a virgin; indeed, without having shared any of your mucous membranes with another. It will not kill you. You will be just fine.

Oh, and also: HPV cannot be reliably prevented by condom use, oral/anal sex, or any other techniques except abstinence, testing - and apparently males can't be tested for HPV - and now, perhaps and in certain cases only, vaccination. Many other diseases are also marginally protected against by barrier methods.

TW: I'm just sayin'. I don't want to sound like a wariabbi. But perhaps it is better to sound uncool, even to be uncool, than to suffer what in the old days would have been referred to as the wages of sin.; 11/4/11, 10:22 AM