From Bookworm Room:

England has the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe.  The British government, faced with this problem, decided to act.  Now, it might have acted by pushing abstinence and seeking ways to encourage intact families.  Concerned, though, that this would have been just too Victorian and moralistic, the British government opted for a different approach:  it decided to teach teenage girls how to have sex.  The results were predictable (emphasis mine):

A multi-million pound initiative to reduce teenage pregnancies more than doubled the number of girls conceiving.

The Government-backed scheme tried to persuade teenage girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex.

But research funded by the Department of Health shows that young women who attended the programme, at a cost of £2,500 each, were ’significantly’ more likely to become pregnant than those on other youth programmes who were not given contraception and sex advice.

A total of 16 per cent of those on the Young People’s Development Programme conceived compared with just 6 per cent in other programmes.

The British government is not wholly to blame.  Apparently it was modeling itself on a New York based program that also claimed that by having the government prepare girls to have commitment-free sex, it had reduced teen pregnancies.  That seems to have been, to put it nicely, a lie:

The failed YPDP, launched in 2004, was based on a similar scheme in New York claimed to have significantly reduced teenage pregnancies.

However, attempts to replicate the work elsewhere in the U.S. did not lead to a fall in teenage pregnancies, casting doubt on the project as a whole.

Teaching Girls How to Have Sex Increases Teen Pregnancy Rate

When teenage boys were included in the program the percentage of participants getting pregnant was cut in half.

How does one get a job as teacher?

Perhaps it’s time to resurrect the Episcopal Church’s “pet project”. Unsure what I mean, head on over to this link, go about 1/2 way down the page to “Safer Sex Practices”. Of course, you get a lot more information here to counter that:
http://www.abstinenceassociation.org/docs/NAEA-Straight_from_the_Source.pdf

at a cost of £2,500 each

In America, teenaged girls get taught how to have sex for free.

It is simply amazing. I am astonished that such a thing should be true.

...and in other news, bank robberies are on the rise after students in Denmark were given a 3-week course on “How to Rob a Bank” at a cost of $5,000 USD. 

Doesn’t it all just make you scratch your head and wonder??  But I guess there are those that really believe that sex is an “education” issue vs. a “moral” issue…

Me, I resort to scare tactics.  Two of my children were conceived when using two different forms of birth control.  My children are well aware of this.  They are also well-versed on how (in)effective condoms really are.

If you really want to make your teenager think, ask just one question - “So, what is your plan when you get (or get someone) pregnant?”  Don’t lecture them…this one question will do.  They aren’t stupid - just haven’t thought it all the way through in most cases, as to the incredible impact it can have on the rest of their life.

All it takes is one sperm to slip through the net, B Hunter.

I can really never quite figure the feminists out on this one. Groups like NOW, NARAL, and PP will shout until you’re deaf about how abstinence-only programs won’t work. Telling teenagers to go crazy, and do whatever they want as long as they’ve got prophylactics, in addition to being ineffective against preventing pregnancy, only contributes to societal objectification of women.

How abstinence-only sex education is ‘anti-woman’ is one of those mysteries that I guess we’ll never know.

Those programs encourage girls to have sex, and to feel that there’s something wrong with them if they aren’t sexually active.

LDW1988 is right about them only contributing to societal objectification, but not just of women, but teenagers and children, both male and female. It’s the reason why some organizations now feel entitled to demand age of consent laws be over turned, and the media doesn’t bat an eye.

Teenagers being taught how to have sex?  Hmmmmm.  How strange.  Makes you wonder how any of us got here.

Does anyone have specific information about this study? Its full name , when published, authors, any links to its full content would be helpful.

Well, of course.  The goal isn’t to reduce teen sexuality.  The goal is to use sexual desire as a lever to disconnect the morality of children and the morality of their parents.  The goals is to establish the following logic in the minds of the student:

1.  You are the master of your own sexuality.
2.  We will ameliorate the consequences of pre-maritial sex (i.e pregnancy and disease.)
3.  We won’t tell your parents.
4.  We know you want to do this, so we give you permission to do it safely.
5.  The stuff your parents told you about sex ... that was all wrong.

And the inferred punchline that cannot be missed.

“You’re parents are wrong about a lot of other things as well.  Listen to us, instead.”

 
Modern sex education in five easy steps.  Of course, when Little Muffy gets pregnant, or contracts Herpes, the prophets of the Brave New World will be no where in sight.  Then Mom & Dad can be parents again.  But the damage is already done.

carl

When I was in medical school, one of my med school buddies got his girlfriend pregnant. Last time I checked, things worked out OK for them and baby (who got to live, since he was nominally Catholic).

However, I always think of him when someone suggests that sex ed can prevent pregnancies. We had a lot of good natured fun picking on him during those years too!!

The British government, faced with this problem, decided to act. Now, it might have acted by pushing abstinence and seeking ways to encourage intact families. Concerned, though, that this would have been just too Victorian and moralistic, the British government opted for a different approach: it decided to teach teenage girls how to have sex. The results were predictable (emphasis mine):

Nothing shocking about it. Standard New Labour procedure.

1) Somebody points out that there is a problem somewhere in British society
2) Announce loudly that you are utterly committed to eradicate it
3) Form a committee (funded by public money of course, with generous expenses) and stack it with people committed to placing ideology before evidence (or common sense)
4) Work out the one thing that is most likely to exacerbate the problem.
4) Implement it
5) Notice that things are just getting worse.
6) Completely fail to accept any responsibility.
7) Keep quiet for a few years until everyone forgets about what you did
8) Back to step 1

This is, after all, the government that decided to reduce late night drinking by allowing pubs to open for longer ... (I think that that failed too).

The one that stuck with me was that the most effective barrier to use between sperm and egg was two layers of denim.

#7 and #15 - Amen and Amen!

Tell your teenagers that using a condom is like throwing ping-pong balls at a tennis net.  Only 15% get through…but it only takes one to get someone pregnant.

It is interesting that boys are not brought into the picture. 

I had the mutually embarrassing job of talking to my youngest son about condoms - including a demonstration with the usual piece of fruit. (He had found his married sister’s supply of condoms with many giggles, and I grasped a “teachable moment”).  When it was his chance to “try it”, he did, but used it incorrectly. I gave him a new name - Daddy. 

It was quite effective.

The Good news:

The UK will eventually get it.  The nation will become a bastion of faith and strong family.

Honest.

The Bad news:

It will take between 30-50 years, the total social and economic collapse of the country even leading to mass starvation under a totalitarian regime that will persecute all Christians as harshly as China today and at least two generations that will not learn and will carry on regardless with greater and greater immorality and blasphemy.  Oh, and the conservatives have allied themselves 100% with the Gay agenda in the country now making all mainstream parties pro-homosexual agenda and, thus, anti-Christian, proving my point.

Only through persecution and starvation will the Brits learn why they were once Christian, that, plus the dying out of a further generation or two.

If I read the summary report about the program the group of girls in the study were already classed as “at risk”. That would seem to skew any results obtained from the study. Sounds as if the program design was predicated, intentionally or otherwise, on failure from the beginning.

>If I read the summary report about the program the group of girls in the study were already classed as “at risk”. That would seem to skew any results obtained from the study. Sounds as if the program design was predicated, intentionally or otherwise, on failure from the beginning.

No, it wasn’t, but that may be the spin.  And it won’t stop the Government carrying on teaching our children about sex, sex, sex from the age of six (oh, why can’t it be four?) using porn films.

And the double irony is, this is carried out because “We know what works…”  Here is just one example of the insane repetition of what fails to work. The very phrase is used.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article4175899.ece

[Though it course, it’s nothing to do with preventing pregancy or abortion.  The sex education is really about sexualising our children hard and fast so the sex addicted kids will kick back at any religious control.  Sex is the wedge.  The objective is social revolution.  I WILL NOT bring my children up in the UK!]