tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post5023696806277033305..comments2023-07-15T04:20:16.543-05:00Comments on Almost Diamonds: Political CamouflageStephanie Zvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-7886101349349967832009-06-23T08:02:05.585-05:002009-06-23T08:02:05.585-05:00I'm looking at the study now, and on first ski...I'm looking at the study now, and on first skim my impression is that the "sexual activity" portion of the study is inherently flawed.<br /><br />First, it begins with the presumption that high school students having sex is a problem behavior in and of itself. The goal of Positive Action in this regard is in question before it gets to the starting line.<br /><br />Second, though it specifically references intercourse when discussing the high school students, there is no indication that the students at the beginning of the study even knew what that meant. (Remember, these are first and second grade students. ...in America.) This introduces the distinct possibility that the lower instances of self reported "sexual activity" at the end of the study could be entirely due to the students having been educated on what that means, while the control group was still clueless.<br /><br />Further, reading the paper gives me the distinct impression that "sexual activity" has just been thrown in for no apparent reason here and there (but not addressed in any serious or meaningful way). The paper itself admits to one aspect of this part of the study:<br /><br /><i>"There are some limitations to this study that require attention. First, the reports of negative behaviors were collected only during 5th grade and only for the two cohorts followed in the study, and therefore, may not be reflective of the behavior of the entire student body. This limitation was an outcome of the study design and restrictions placed by the Institutional Review Board who prevented the use of sensitive questions with younger (i.e., 4th grade and lower) students."</i><br /><br />I'll give it a more thorough read, but as of now I'd say the "sexual activity" part of this study is well-nigh worthless.Lou FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13975892485240863279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-54868018950847259452009-06-22T20:34:57.417-05:002009-06-22T20:34:57.417-05:00Juniper, these things are cyclical, unfortunately....Juniper, these things are cyclical, unfortunately. Every time they come around again, we lose more kids to the kind of nonsense you've been hearing. On the other hand, that means your experience and your insights are still relevant.<br /><br />Lou, I noticed that, and it annoyed me, but without having the study itself in front of me and being able to see what kinds of questions they actually asked, I don't know what kind of judgment they're actually making. There are some early sexual behaviors that do correlate with poorer outcomes for kids, probably because they reflect abusive situations more than anything else. I would suspect that the decrease in sexual behavior generally reflects a decrease in that abusive behavior, because I saw nothing in the curriculum that's specific to sexuality. It has a lot more to do with teaching kids to respect themselves and resist peer pressure. That should mean the kids are doing what they want to do and not what someone else wants them to do.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-74134153032117795972009-06-22T18:52:38.946-05:002009-06-22T18:52:38.946-05:00Interestingly, I had a problem with the article yo...Interestingly, I had a problem with the article you quote well before the one you mentioned.Lou FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13975892485240863279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-11866200124478611852009-06-22T05:09:55.117-05:002009-06-22T05:09:55.117-05:00"Character" is one of those words, right...<i>"Character" is one of those words, right up there with "class" and "breeding," that generally tells me someone is trying to separate the "deserving" and the "undeserving" for their own exclusionary purposes.</i><br /><br />What an astute observation. I struggle daily with this, because I grew up thinking that this behavior was not only "okay" but imperative to the success that I can't live without. This is a digression, however. And not a very pleasant one, either.<br /><br /><i>Because if we instill self-esteem and teach kids to analyze behavior and view influences skeptically, they might turn out to be too radical or something.</i><br /><br />There's a whole blog post of mine in there, somewhere. I underwent years of DARE and sex ed classes on military bases; immediately afterwards, I departed for Catholic school.<br /><br />All of <i>my</i> sex education was framed in terms of (female) "purity". But I'm old. Meanwhile, during my last foray into graduate school (at a large public SoCal university), I was stunned to <i>frequently</i> overhear male undergrads-- tiny tots born in the late '80s and early '90s; members of a generation allegedly more enlightened than mine-- in the ATM and food court lines saying things to their buds like, "Me, I have a lot of experience. But I don't want to <i>marry</i> a girl with a lot of experience. I don't really want a wife who's been with too many men besides me".<br /><br />Dude, I'm a virgin, and I still thought this was archaic. All this "abstinence-centered" education, with its (female) purity and "character building" schtick in lieu of a value-neutral presentation of facts and emphasis on critical thinking, would be hilarious to me if I didn't think that there was some reason for concern.Juniper Shoemakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12139181817352528656noreply@blogger.com