For a variety of reasons I won’t go into, I no longer use this blog.
You can go to Kevin Holtsberry Dot Com, or use the feeds and icons in the footer below, for more information on where to find me.
The archives are available to your right as well.
For a variety of reasons I won’t go into, I no longer use this blog.
You can go to Kevin Holtsberry Dot Com, or use the feeds and icons in the footer below, for more information on where to find me.
The archives are available to your right as well.
That is the question, right? An odd one to be asking yourself just past what was Good Friday – now Saturday. But such is my life.
Lisa and Ella are sleeping in a tent in the back yard. It has been so nice today that Ella wanted to camp out. She already “camped out” in the living room two nights ago so I guess she was in the mood for the real thing.
Max – who was scared of the dark outside I think – is sleeping upstairs. So I am in the basement online. I can’t seem to focus on reading so I started playing around with websites (this one in particular).
So that led me to the question that is the title of this post.
Interesting column from Ross Douthat on the battle over sex ed. I don’t want to get into the back forth on the topic but it is worth nothing this section:
The evidence suggests that many abstinence-only programs have little impact on teenage sexual behavior, just as their critics long insisted. But most sex education programs of any kind have an ambiguous effect, at best, on whether and how teens have sex. The abstinence-based courses that social conservatives champion produce unimpressive results — but so do the contraceptive-oriented programs that liberals tend to favor.
[...]
What is taught in the classroom is vastly less important than the matrix of family, culture and economics: the values parents impart and the example that they set, the friends teenagers make and the activities they join, and the cross-cutting effects of wealth, health and self-esteem.
But the point I really wanted to highlight, and one I find incredibly frustrating, is this:
None of this renders the abstinence-versus-contraception debate pointless. But we should understand it more as a battle over community values than as an argument about public policy. Luker describes it, aptly, as a conflict between the “naturalist” and “sacralist” approaches to sex — between parents in Berkeley, say, who don’t want their kids being taught that premarital intercourse is something to feel ashamed about and parents in Alabama who don’t want their kids being lectured about the health benefits of masturbation.
The debate might be less rancorous if the naturalists and sacralists didn’t have to fight it out in Washington. This is the real problem with federal financing for abstinence-based education: It drags the national government into a debate that should remain intensely local.
We federalize the culture wars all the time, of course — from Roe v. Wade to the Defense of Marriage Act. But it’s a polarizing habit, and well worth kicking.
This strikes me as one of the epic failures of conservatism or the Right writ large. Power continues to flow to Washington and the federal government. Issues are increasingly nationalized and local control lost or subverted.