You are absolutely right Paul. The problems with ignorance and abstinence-based approaches to child education extend out well beyond the Bible Belt, and can be found all over the US. I should have cast a wider net. Also, great job at ruining a good laugh.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/abstinence07/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/18/AR2009031801597.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/03/19/teen_birthrate/index.html http://dir.salon.com/topics/sex_education/ The point here is that while education is valuable -- *comprehensive* education is even more valuable. This is a loaded subject and people with belief-system drivers can get quite passionate about it. I'm not interested in a passionate discussion about this subject. I think the thread will turn into the tarpit of insanity if it goes further so I suggest we be done, --- Arian Evans On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com> wrote: > --On Tuesday, April 13, 2010 15:21:26 -0700 "Arian J. Evans" > <arian.ev...@anachronic.com> wrote: > >> Keyboard Cowboy, >> >> Education is always a good thing. I think kids should have the opportunity >> to >> learn both sides of software security. Great suggestion. >> >> Kids, by nature, are drawn to things that are taboo and demonized. Which >> hacking no doubt falls into, and according to Daniel, also Angelina Jolie. >> >> We can find great analogies to the "hacker kids problem" in recent studies >> done on teenage behaviors: >> >> The Bible Belt, particularly evangelicals in the south, have the highest >> rates of teen sex and pregnancy in the US. Telling kids to "abstain" >> clearly >> doesn't work as well as teaching them how things work, and in particular >> careful education surrounding the use of safety devices. To the exact >> point >> you made in your blog. > > This is totally off topic, but I simply cannot let this slide. People like > to throw out canards like this as if they are facts, and seldom are they > ever questioned. > > First of all, your assertion isn't borne out by the data. Secondly, you've > not cited a single study to back up your assertion, in particular the claim > that the lack of sex education (which you assume occurs due to religious > objections) is responsible for the claimed, but not factual, higher > pregnancy rates. > > According to a study done by the Guttmacher Institute in 2000 [1] (The > Guttmacher Institution is a pro-choice group that advocates for sex > education), here are the state rankings by rates of pregnancy and rates of > abortion > > 1) Nevada 4 > 2) Arizona 19 > 3) Mississippi 28 > 4) New Mexico 18 > 5) Texas 26 > 6) Florida 7 > 7) California 5 > 8) Georgia 22 > 9) North Carolina 17 > 10) Arkansas 41 > 11) Delaware 8 > 12) Hawaii 6 > > Of the top twelve states, only half are what could be considered Bible Belt > states, so I think you have to look elsewhere for your explanation of teen > pregnancy rates. OTOH, it's pretty clear the Bible Belt states are > significantly less likely to abort a teen pregnancy, which may or may not be > an indicator of religious influence. (I'm not prepared to say it is without > data to support it.) > > About.com also has statistics about teen birth rates [2], and their > statistics don't bear out your assertion either. Their stats are based on > the 2006 Guttmacher Institute report, and the rankings have changed very > little. > > States ranked by rates of pregnancy among women age 15-19 (pregnancies per > thousand): > > 1. Nevada (113) > 2. Arizona (104) > 3. Mississippi (103) > 4. New Mexico (103) > 5. Texas (101) > 6. Florida (97) > 7. California (96) > 8. Georgia (95) > 9. North Carolina (95) > 10. Arkansas (93) > > States ranked by rates of live births among women age 15-19 (births per > thousand): > > 1. Mississippi (71) > 2. Texas (69) > 3. Arizona (67) > 4. Arkansas (66) > 5. New Mexico (66) > 6. Georgia (63) > 7. Louisiana (62) > 8. Nevada (61) > 9. Alabama (61) > 10. Oklahoma (60) > > Again, the so-called "Bible Belt" doesn't demonstrate a propensity to get > pregnant at any higher rates than other parts of the country but clearly > bears those children to term at a higher rate than other areas. > > Furthermore, the most recent statistics from the government [3], while they > do show a change in the rankings, still do not bear out your assertion that > the Bible Belt, "particularly evangelicals in the south", have the highest > teen pregnancy rates. As I've shown birth rates do not equal pregnancy > rates. You have to factor in abortions as well. > > You may well have been misled by MSNBC [4] (but then who hasn't been misled > by MSNBC), because they recently reported a study that found a correlation > between the Bible Belt and birth rates, but that study doesn't address > pregnancy or abortion, so it's misleading. The study also appears to be > biased toward its conclusion by the failure to even consider pregnancy > rates. Birth rates are not an indicator of teen pregnancies. They are an > indicator of teen births, which may be an indicator of choices between > abortion and bringing a baby to term that are based on religious factors, > but I haven't found any data to support that conclusion. > > I would have preferred to use the CDC data, but their data takes a lot more > work to extract than I had time for. I suspect it would reveal the same (in > general) information that the Guttmacher institute produced. > > [1] > http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:2pauuI7VVBoJ:www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf+statistics+on+teen+pregnancy+by+state&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjJ1Yt7cIlu5z8STulZhAV2cMQnBegPj0drpWSbOq47UR8qRmEv9XgUpJvXaDQik5-q_VqtvI4lGQ5CY_UUzzUFuVFyPu0l6o7casH7DIlOW5t7k4O5J_SFJgY6d5BtFBctb0V7&sig=AHIEtbQiPQuCASJ8Pe1yKqjPfd8vF4rKuA > > [2] http://womensissues.about.com/od/datingandsex/a/TeenPregStates.htm > > [3] > http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2009/01/08/teen-birthrates-where-does-your-state-rank.html > > [4] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32884806/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/ > > -- > Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst > As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions > are my own and not those of my employer. > ******************************************* > "It is as useless to argue with those who have > renounced the use of reason as to administer > medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Join us on IRC: irc.freenode.net #webappsec > > Have a question? Search The Web Security Mailing List Archives: > http://www.webappsec.org/lists/websecurity/archive/ > > Subscribe via RSS: http://www.webappsec.org/rss/websecurity.rss [RSS Feed] > > Join WASC on LinkedIn > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/83336/4B20E4374DBA > > _______________________________________________ Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com) as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community. Follow KRvW Associates on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/KRvW_Associates _______________________________________________
