John Hawkins from Right Wing News posted a list of 20 issues which are considered too politically incorrect to discuss openly in America anymore.
(Number 2) — Most people who remain poor over the long haul in America stay that way because of their own poor life choices.
This is one of those truths that isn’t obvious because of where some people begin to measure poverty. Many who will not accept this as a truth don’t begin early enough into the person’s life when considering poor life choices.
One’s opportunities don’t begin in adulthood, they begin much earlier in life. The main causes of poverty are not graduating high school and single motherhood.
Individuals choose to hang out with friends instead of attending classes and studying. They choose to stay out late and drink or do drugs — possibly end up with arrest records early. Remember felonies never come off a criminal record.
When young girls choose to not wait until they are in financial, educational, and overall stable place in life (or even better, married) before they begin a sexually active life style, they are at a greater risk of becoming a single mother. Why? Because many men are too immature or perhaps more accurately, scumbags who are just looking to “score”. Young men, by and large, aren’t looking for long-term stable relationships. They make babies and are either unprepared or unwilling to care for their child and its mother. As a result she ends up raising a baby alone. Many young mothers drop out of school.
Success in life is directly tied to the choices you make early in life. Setting your priorities high help your odds of success later in life. We don’t all get second or third chances to get it right. Most of us only have one shot at it.
So what can one do to have the best chance at avoiding a lifetime of poverty?
- Wait until marriage (or at least until you are financially and educationally stable) to become sexually active and a possible parent.
- Take your early educational opportunities seriously. Don’t squander your high school years; study, go to class, and graduate.
- Choose your compatriots wisely. Surround yourself with success-minded peers.
These alone will increase your odds of avoiding a life of poverty.
What role do one’s personal life choices play in whether you succeed in life? How much responsibility does one own for their lot in life? Is anyone determined to be poor because of their environment?
Sifting Reality 
Not a bad list of suggestions on how to avoid poverty. I concur. My only disagreement would be that “these alone” will increase your odds of avoiding a life of poverty. Being a hard worker, being honest, being loyal to your employer… we could probably agree on a longer list of suggestions.
My only other disagreement would be in your tone towards the poor. Have many who are poor made poor choices? Of course, just like many who are not poor. Is it helpful to blame the poor for their poverty? No, I do not see how that is doing anything other than kicking someone who’s already down, which is poor form and not helpful.
Besides, beyond their own life choices, their are other influences/circumstances that can and do contribute to poverty. As it turns out, being born poor (or very poor) contributes to the odds of your being poor. Does it condemn you to poverty? No, but it contributes to the odds, just as following your list of suggestions contributes to the odds of you not staying poor. Being born with disabilities (cultural, physical, mental), these all contribute to the odds of a person being poor. Being raised poorly contributes to your odds.
For example.
By all means, let’s encourage and empower people to not be stuck in poverty, assist them in finding the tools they need to get past poverty and make better choices. But let’s not kick the down and out because they’re down and out.
Perhaps we can agree on all of this?
~Dan Trabue
Dan
I think your attitude toward the poor is part of the problem. “We know they made bad decisions repeatedly throughout life and thats the reason for their poverty, but lets not bring it up, it might hurt their feelings. Let’s tell them they’re poor for some other reason”.
No, I’m not saying “Don’t bring it up.” I’m saying it does no good to blame the poor as a group and it is, therefore, irrational and, for Christians and those who believe that God has a heart for the poor, immoral to do so.
Where, in the Bible do you see Jesus castigating the poor as “lazy bums…”? Where in the Bible do you see God blaming the poor as a group for their circumstances? Does the Bible not, in fact, castigate those who blame, put down and oppress the poor?
But let’s set aside the Biblical witness: If it does no good to blame “the poor” as a group for their circumstances, if it is irrational because “the poor” are in poverty for a variety of reasons not merely because “it’s their own darned fault! They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps!” Why would we blame the whole for a problem that is unique to some subset? It is irrational and, I’d say, morally wrong to do so.
Rather, “We know that SOME who are poor have made bad decisions – just like the rest of us – but what can we do as a people to help the poor – all the poor, including those who’ve made bad decisions – rise above their circumstances?”
How is that not more rational and less evil than blaming “the poor” for their own poverty?
Indeed, in the social work, teaching, psychological, medical and other fields who deal with the poor, WHEN they come across someone who is making bad decisions, they strive to help them realize that and change their decision-making processes/approach. THAT makes sense. Blaming “the poor” as a group though, that is irrational and, I say, evil. Especially for those of us who follow the One who came to bring good news to the poor, who taught us…
Those who mock the poor insult their Maker…
Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor….
Blessed are you who are poor… blessed are you who are hungry…
But woe to you who are rich… woe to you who are well-fed now…
Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love God? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy…
Beyond the irrationality of blaming “the poor,” I just want to be on God’s side and, mocking/blaming the poor as a group, well, that does not seem to be the right place to be.
~Dan Trabue
If a man doesnt work neither shall he eat
also, a man who doesnt take care of his family is as bad as an unbeliever
“If a man does not work” and “a man who doesn’t take care of his family” is person-specific. Just as I said: In the SPECIFIC instances of a person who is making bad decisions, his/her social worker/teacher/mentor/pastor, etc can speak with them about making better decision.
But where in the Bible can you find anything but contempt for those who mock the poor as a group? Where in the Bible can you find anything but God expressing love and a special concern for the poor as a group?
And, again, aside from the biblical evil of mocking/blaming the poor as a group, how is it rational?
~Dan
I dont have contempt for the poor as human beings, as people. I have contempt for the ideas that they are victims of society, that they are destined to be poor, and that they are poor through no choices of their own. That’s a significant distinction. One you refuse to make or accept.
? I, too, have contempt for the idea that the poor are victims or are destined to be poor, so I am not “refusing” to make or accept since I, too, believe it. And I don’t say that people’s choices do not contribute to their problems (that’s true, rich or poor). So that sort of dismantles your claim that I’m refusing to make or accept something that I actually believe!
But when you blame a group (“The poor”) as a group, that is a way of slandering them, of oppressing them, of mocking them, of belittling them. And that is both irrational and immorally poor form. Not to mention being unbiblical as hades.
ARE some of the poor sometimes victims of policies or behaviors beyond their control? Well sure they are. The child whose mother drank or smoked or drugged during pregnancy may well have some physical or mental damages that increases the odds that they might one day be poor. The child whose parent(s) do not value education or who abuse them has had their odds that they might be poor increased due to circumstances beyond their control.
Factually speaking – observably, demonstrably – there are sometimes situations beyond the control of “the poor” that contributes to the likelihood of their being/staying poor.
What percentage of “the poor” are poor ENTIRELY due to their own choices? I don’t know. What percentage of “the poor” are poor ENTIRELY due to situations beyond their control? I don’t know.
And neither do you. Regardless, blaming “the poor” as a group for their own poverty remains irrational and immoral and just ugly. That’s my point. But rather than defending your blaming the poor (I notice you ignore the huge biblical witness against maltreatment of the poor), why not just agree that, yes, there ARE things we all can agree will help the poor, as a group: Encouraging and supporting families, encouraging hard work, encouraging education… these are positive and helpful things we should all be able to agree to and work together on.
Give up the character assassination and blind prejudices and stake a claim on positive action, that seems reasonable to me.
~Dan
Ok dan, do you want me to reference specific individuals?
? No. I want you to give up blind character assassination of a whole group of people, 99.99999% of whom you don’t know in the least.
If you want to say, “My neighbor’s kid got pregnant and didn’t complete school… I think she’s likely going to be poor…” by all means, say that (although I’m not sure what purpose that would serve, either).
It’s the blind demonization of a whole group of people (a people WE who follow Christ have been told to side with and watch out for, and we’ve been warned AGAINST demonizing, slandering and oppressing them) that I take issue with.
Really, John, do you find that unreasonable?
~Dan
John,
I could be wrong, and I know that actual statistics can be problematic in these discussions, but I seem to recall that there is a fair degree of evidence to point out that your three bullet points are the best predictors of people not being in poverty. As you quite correctly pointed out the individual choices made by individual people have profound effects on their financial success. Your questions are excellent, and I’d love to see them answered by those on the left. There is no question that “poverty” is a family legacy to some degree, it is also almost impossible that there are still some significant systemic hurdles to overcome for many who are poor. I just don’t see how anyone could possibly disagree with you point that if individuals make choices based on the long term potential consequences, rather than the short term. Their chances of living in poverty decrease dramatically. Just one example 80% of poverty occurs in single parent homes. Think about that. A simple decision to say no to pre or extra marital sex decreases the likelihood of family poverty by 80%. That seems pretty significant. Why aren’t the “I want to help the poor” folks shouting that from the rooftops? Why don’t we start a government program to teach kids “If you don’t have sex/get/impregnate someone, you are much more likely to not be poor”? Why hasn’t the fantastically high rate of abortion in the poor (especially black) community helped turn this situation around? Lots of questions here, both yours and mine, but not many answers.
I also struggle with this uniquely American notion that cone can live in “poverty”, yet still have things like clean water running into their domicile, reliable electrical service, the ability to store food for extended periods of tie (refrigeration), either a personal vehicle or access to reliable subsidized transportation, TV, AC. Not to mention, government (read taxpayers) subsidized, food, housing, and K-12 education. I’m not sure that most folks in the US actually understand what real poverty is.
Craig…
Why don’t we start a government program to teach kids “If you don’t have sex/get/impregnate someone, you are much more likely to not be poor”?
Umm, it is. One place you can find such teachigns would be Sex Ed classes, which can be found in many public schools and other programs (except where it’s opposed by some, mainly on the religious right). Also many home ec-type classes would teach this, if they have those anymore…
As I said to John, I agree about his three points and think we all – Left, Right, Up or Down – could work together to promote healthy homes, good work ethics, good schooling and good choices.
Dan,
Thanks so much for sharing your wise answer to one of many questions posed. Do you really think that the concept of choosing to avoid sex/pregnancy in order to become more financially successful is being taught in sex ed? Do you mean to suggest that abstinence is being taught as an economic advantage? If you are correct, why is it failing? If you are correct, then why isn’t this wonderful message being spread even wider? Where are the well produced PSA’s? I mean seriously we’re talking about one simple, easy, free choice that reduces the likelihood of poverty by 80% . Can we not agree that an 80% reduction in poverty would be huge? Can we not agree that this is big news? Can we not agree that no cost poverty reduction programs like this would be the way to go?
“(except where it’s opposed by some, mainly on the religious right).”
Actually this little generalization is an example of a mistaken presumption on your part. It is highly unlikely that any on the conservative side objects to an age appropriate biology based sex ed curriculum. What many object to is a curriculum that is age inappropriate or moves away from biology into technique. Since you are so open to correction I am sure you will acknowledge your mistake and respond accordingly.
Craig…
Do you really think that the concept of choosing to avoid sex/pregnancy in order to become more financially successful is being taught in sex ed?
I can only speak of our schools here in Louisville, KY, where yes, this sort of thing is taught, in sex ed, among other places.
Why is it failing/being spread more widely? Because school-based sex ed only gets you so far, would be my guess. We really need families, churches and communities to support/promote this message.
Why do you think it is failing?
Craig…
Thanks so much for sharing your wise answer to one of many questions posed.
You’re welcome. Most of what you’ve said/questions you raised doesn’t deal with anything I’ve said, so I had no huge need to answer them. I only see one other question you raised, about abortion. But since I had not said anything about abortion as it relates to the poor, I didn’t know it was directed to me.
What question SHOULD I have dealt with?
Craig…
What many object to is a curriculum that is age inappropriate or moves away from biology into technique. Since you are so open to correction I am sure you will acknowledge your mistake and respond accordingly.
Again, I can only speak of the area I am familiar with, which is here in Kentucky. Here in Kentucky, any and all sex ed classes in schools is often opposed by religious folks. They say that public school is not the place for it.
I’ll gladly acknowledge my mistakes when I have made one. I did not make one here. Are you open to correction, sir, and willing to acknowledge your mistake (in this case, your ignorance of my particular state)?
~Dan
Schools might say “no sex is the best way to not get pregnant” but its followed up with “but we know you’ll have sex so heres a hand full of condoms, cvs is down the street if you need the morning after pill, and a counselor is on hand to drive you to planned parenthood in case you dont want to tell mom and dad”.
So you tell me, why doesnt it work?
So, is it your suggestion that teaching “abstinence is best, or, if you’re going to engage in sex, wear protection,” is somehow contributing to increased pregnancies? I don’t know, I’ve not seen any research to support that theory.
Do you have any evidence for that or is it just a hunch?
My suggestion as to why we’re having so many teen pregnancies is that it’s a combination of things, but primarily because sex is pleasing and kids want to do it and we have collectively failed to find an effective way to teach them to wait. This is true whether or not you teach abstinence, protected sex and abstinence, protected sex alone or nothing at all.
Do you disagree (that we have failed collectively to find an effective way to teach young people to wait)?
~Dan
what I say is prior to the 60s, teen pregnancy was extremely rare. since then liberals have permeated the education system. just sayin’
Dan,
Do you have any actual evidence to support your hunch or should we just trust your anecdotes?
A quick count shows a total of about 13 questions asked by me plus 3 by John in his original post. By your own admission you’ve answered one, and chosen not to answer one.
“Are you open to correction, sir, and willing to acknowledge your mistake (in this case, your ignorance of my particular state)?”
I’m always open to correction. The problem is that in this case I’ve made no comments or assumptions about your state. Therefore, it would be impossible for me to have made a mistake about your state. I asked you a series of questions, which you’ve mostly not answered, while suggesting that I’ve made some sort of comment about KY. It seems as though your response to correction is to falsely accuse me of something that is quite clearly a figment of your imagination.
Now, if you can provide some actual proof that “religious folks” oppose all sex education that would be a start. If you could prove that your hunch is true outside of your relatively small city in KY, that would be even better.
But hey, you’ve always been so supportive of others use of anecdotes, why should we not treat yours the same way you treat ours?
And before you even think of playing the “You won’t answer my questions” card. You’re behind about 16-1 right now.
“I can only speak of our schools here in Louisville, KY, where yes, this sort of thing is taught, in sex ed, among other places”
“Do you have any evidence for that or is it just a hunch?”
I have no idea what your point is, Craig, or what questions you’ve asked that you think I should answer.
You asked, “Do really think that the concept of choosing to avoid sex/pregnancy in order to become more financially successful is being taught in sex ed?”
And I answered definitively based on my experience. This IS what they’re doing here where I’ve heard about it/seen it (as a teacher, a student and a parent, as well as worker in the counseling area, as well as hearing about it from my friends who are social workers and teach such classes). I don’t know what they’re teaching anywhere else, but I have no huge reason to assume it’s that significantly different anywhere else.
Are you suggesting that people DON’T teach that one reason not to engage in careless sex is for financial reasons (ie, you might end up poor)? What is your support for that hunch?
Why WOULDN’T places that are concerned about children’s welfare teach kids the fact that having a child early will result in an increased risk of poverty?
Are you making this guess purely out of ignorance and pulling the “fact” entirely from your buttocks (yer butt, in case you’ve never had sex ed) or do you know for a fact that some people involved in children’s welfare issues actively advocate NOT teaching the negative financial results of pregnancy?
More…
Craig…
A quick count shows a total of about 13 questions asked by me plus 3 by John in his original post. By your own admission you’ve answered one, and chosen not to answer one
Craig’s post asked the question:
So what can one do to have the best chance at avoiding a lifetime of poverty?k
And he offered three suggestions, suggestions I AGREED WITH in my very first line, thus answering this question. He asked three other related questions, but since I agree with the gist of his point, I assumed you could read and understand I agreed with the general direction of the questions.
As to your “13 questions,” you asked two similar questions in a row (in a comment addressed to John, so I didn’t know I was responsible for answering his questions)…
Why aren’t the “I want to help the poor” folks shouting that from the rooftops? Why don’t we start a government program to teach kids “If you don’t have sex/get/impregnate someone, you are much more likely to not be poor”?
And I answered them with one answer. We ARE teaching kids that early pregnancies have unsavory financial results. You also asked an abortion question to John which I had made no comments on and had nothing to say about, why should I answer a question to a topic I have not brought up nor commented upon that wasn’t addressed to me? I write too much as it is, according to some… Beyond that, I see no questions that I have not addressed, I certainly don’t see 13 questions. Feel free to ask them again, if it’s on topic and you’re curious as to my opinions.
Craig…
if you can provide some actual proof that “religious folks” oppose all sex education that would be a start.
I’m speaking only from my experience. In the conservative churches I grew up in, visited, ministered to (I was in a Christian band for 10 years and traveled to 100s of churches and church groups to sing, so it’s not some insignificant sampling), I rarely if ever ran across a church group that supported sex education. And, it was a topic that was much talked about.
But that is entirely anecdotal, I’m glad to say. It’s a good sampling of churches in the Bible belt, but it is not scientific or anything other than anecdotal. Do you suspect that “most” conservative churches support any sex ed in schools? Could be. Perhaps things have changed in the ~20 years since I’ve been less involved in more conservative churches. Could be that my sampling was skewed and didn’t represent conservative evangelical churches well, I don’t know. I didn’t know the concept was in doubt.
Do you have any reason to suspect that it’s not the case that conservative churches don’t support sex ed in schools or is your reasoning, like mine, just based on your own experience?
For both of my anecdotal points (that people ARE teaching that early sex can have bad financial results and that many conservative religious folk tend to not want any sex ed in school), I point out that I offered anecdotal evidence mainly because I did not know the concepts were being disputed. For the latter, here I offer some more scholarly information and I can find some (I’m sure) evidence that people are teaching the harmful financial possibilities if you want some beyond my testimony.
But again, this seems obvious to me: People doing sex ed WANT kids to not have sex, and certainly not unprotected sex. Why WOULDN’T we point out the financial angle? That just is irrational, of course this happens. Is it in serious doubt?
~Dan
I get it Dan, You are convinced that 20+ year old anecdotal experience from when you were in a christian band traveling around asking folks their opinion about sex ed is sufficient for us to accept your point. While you whine about evidence from others. I get it. When you do get around to offering something besides old anecdotes, the first page literally restates to point that both John and i have made, instead of supporting your anecdotes.
What “religious folks” (but lets not make any sweeping generalizations or demonization) object to is not sex ed per se, but, that goes beyond the biological facts into technique or is not age appropriate, or minimizes the fact that abstaining is the most effective way to avoid the unpleasant consequences of sex.
“Do you have any evidence for that or is it just a hunch?”
I seriously don’t understand how you can be so unexcited about a means to so significantly decrease poverty.
Craig…
asking folks their opinion about sex ed is sufficient for us to accept your point. While you whine about evidence from others. I get it.
No, Craig, by all means, ask questions, ask for support. I ALWAYS support people asking for evidence and will gladly either provide it or note that I don’t have any research to support it. Again, read my words and comprehend the meaning: I DID NOT KNOW THERE WOULD BE ANY DOUBT as to what I was saying, it seems abundantly obvious to me. But if you want evidence, then ask for it and I support you doing so.
Just don’t be an ass about it (and, in case you haven’t had sex ed, I don’t mean “ass” in a sexual context, but rather, in the context of don’t be a fool or a jerk about it.)
Now, how about those 13 questions? Because I’ve looked and re-looked and don’t see any more than three questions from you (two of which are the same question and which I’ve answered and another wasn’t addressed to me or anything I’ve said).
Craig…
I seriously don’t understand how you can be so unexcited about a means to so significantly decrease poverty.
Again, WE TEACH THIS. We teach it, we talk about it, we inform folks because it helps make the case and we support decreasing too-early/inappropriate sex and too-early/inappropriate pregnancies. Are you just not able to understand my words and comprehend their meaning or are you deliberately trying to be a jerk?
Here, Craig, answer this question:
Why WOULDN’T we teach this, if reducing unwanted pregnancies is a goal we have?
Is it the case that you believe we WANT to see more teenagers having children? Is it the case that you think we are evil and want to promote kids having sex? What is wrong with your thinking that you don’t understand that, YES, obviously we teach this? How is that not self-evident to you? Do you have ANY REASON AT ALL to think, “Oh, yeah, they don’t talk about that…”?
Craig…
the first page literally restates to point that both John and i have made, instead of supporting your anecdotes.
Again, I have no idea what this means. The “first page…”? First page of what?
“Restates to point…” Restates WHAT to point? I assume that’s supposed to be “the point,” but the first page of what restates what point that you’ve made, instead of supporting my anecdotes? Sorry, but I honestly don’t know what that sentence is supposed to mean.
Again, in case you really have a hard time understanding: I and all my compatriots AGREE that it is good to teach young people to finish school, to not get pregnant outside of marriage, to work hard (well, John didn’t say that, but surely he agrees), to associate with good people, etc… these are all good things to do to prevent becoming poor. None of this is being dismissed or hidden or disagreed with in any circles I know, Left, Right or otherwise.
Do you understand the words that I’m typing for you?
~Dan
Craig…
What “religious folks” (but lets not make any sweeping generalizations or demonization) object to is not sex ed per se, but, that goes beyond the biological facts into technique or is not age appropriate,
That may be in your circles, and good for you. We all agree on that, then. But in my experience, churches did not tend to support ANY sex ed, age appropriate or not, biological facts or not. Now, that may be only my experience, but you can’t deny that my experience is not my experience.
I’m willing to entirely believe that you know religious folks who support some sex ed in school. I’m just telling you that most traditionalist/conservative churches in MY experience did not and would expect the same human decency of accepting that. For all your great knowledge that I’m sure you have, you do not know my experience better than I do. Do you suspect that you do?
Do you have any research to support your experience or are we both relying upon our own experiences?
~Dan
“But if you want evidence, then ask for it and I support you doing so.”
OK, let’s see it. I thank you for your support.
“Why WOULDN’T we teach this, if reducing unwanted pregnancies is a goal we have?”
Nope, you first.
“First page of what?”
Of the document you linked to. The one that maybe you didn’t read so closely before you posted the link.
I’m confused, did you figure out what first page on your own.
The point I made in my post on June 13 at 8:24 AM. Which was also made in an earlier comment by me as well as in a comment by John at 5:07 on June 12th. That point is explicitly supported on the very first page of the document at the link you provided.
“But in my experience, churches did not tend to support ANY sex ed, age appropriate or not, biological facts or not. ”
So, provide some support that would suggest that it is appropriate to extrapolate your anecdotal experience from 20+ years ago to this topic in 2013. You are the one who made the overly broad and general statement, so support it with something non anecdotal.
“Now, that may be only my experience, but you can’t deny that my experience is not my experience.”
Never have, wouldn’t dream of it. However, I can deny that 20+ year old anecdotal evidence from a very limited geographical area has little or no relevance to you supporting your overly broad generalization about what “religious folks” believe or don’t believe in 2013.
“But if you want evidence, then ask for it and I support you doing so.”
OK, let’s see it. I thank you for your support.
“Do you have any research to support your experience or are we both relying upon our own experiences? ”
Are you suggesting that my experience requires proof while I should accept yours at face value?
“But if you want evidence, then ask for it and I support you doing so.”
I know this is new territory for you, but you first.
If you can do it without name calling, that would be even better.
http://standupforthetruth.com/2013/06/students-taught-about-homosexual-foreplay-disguised-as-tolerance//
Maybe this is why those evil “religious folks” get a little concerned by sex ed.
BTW Dan, these “religious folks” you claim to have surveyed 20+ years ago, what religion were they?
“» “Hands on” activities
Activity: “How to make condoms fun and pleasurable” Examples: “eroticize condom use with partner, store condoms under a mattress, use condoms as a method of foreplay; think up a sexual fantasy using condoms; hide them on your body and ask your partner to fi nd it; wrap them as a present and give them to your partner before a romantic dinner; have fun putting them on your partner – pretend you are different people or in different situations” (Be Proud! Be Responsible!, p 80-81)
“If you aren’t sexually active now, one day you probably will be. I believe this information about sexual response is important for you to learn. It might make you feel a little uncomfortable at fi rst as I go through it, but let’s all learn together and have fun.” An explicit excessively detailed step-by-step instructive tutorial on the sex process and manipulations of genitalia is then given. This explanation is specifi cally meant for those who are not yet sexually active in order to make them “aware”. (Be Proud! Be Responsible, p 127, 128)
“Give each participant a condom and lubricant. Each participant should practice putting condoms on their fi ngers. Then let them give you a demonstration.” (Be Proud! Be Responsible!, p 79)
“Student pairs practice condom use: Have students pair up. Distribute a condom and a copy of the condom practice worksheet to each student. Have students begin practicing” (Safer Choices. Level 2, p159)
“Explain that students will now have a chance to work in pairs to practice with condoms. Explain that one person will read the directions on the worksheet while the other practices unrolling a condom over 2 fi ngers.” (Safer Choices. Level 1, p 203)
“The ideal way to demonstrate the proper way to use a condom is to use a plastic or ceramic model of a penis.” (Be Proud! Be Responsible!, p 78) 5 ©2007 National Abstinence Education Association”
Dan, Is this the kind of teaching that will help kids understand the economic benefits of making wise choices regarding sexual activity?