Bear with me folks... this is a long one but I think I address the issue very thoroughly.
As has been the case with nearly every issue pertaining to public health that has been contested in a public forum in the United States, there has been a tremendous controversy surrounding the issue of sex education in our public schools. While the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s provided America’s youth with a sense of sexual freedom, it also failed to de-politicize public discourse about sexuality, a fact that numerous public health educators have discovered to their dismay as they have been handed severance pay by leaders as liberal as former President Clinton, for actions as innocuous as mentioning masturbation. The resultant mess is a society that is completely enraptured with sexuality but that lacks a means to discuss the very images that are reflected back at it from Narcissus’ pond.
The consequences of this dichotomy are not to be ignored: “Half of all new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in the United States and two thirds of all sexually transmitted diseases (STD) occur among young people under the age of 25” (Starkman & Rajani, 2002, 313). HIV, the virus that causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), remains one of the most fatal, and 100% incurable, epidemics in the modern world. One of the primary means of transmission of HIV is through sexual intercourse (vaginal, anal, or, less frequently, oral and manual) with someone who is already infected with the virus; this association, therefore, is extremely problematic, for we are a population struggling to deal with an epidemic that is spread through a means of contact that we have a great deal of difficulty discussing, especially with adolescents.
Despite America’s distaste for open sexual dialogue, “According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2002), approximately 34 percent of ninth graders in the United States reported having engaged in voluntary sexual intercourse” (Zanis, 2005, 59). Similar statistics have been reported in numerous other journals, with sexual encounters being positively correlated with age. This is not a statistic of which the government is unaware, nor is it oblivious to the great danger posed by HIV/AIDS and other STDs being spread among adolescents.
To this end, our country has been involved in substantial efforts to educate our nation’s youth about sexuality through the public school system. However, teen sexuality has become a sort of American Gorgon, a monstrous problem with which we must somehow deal without ever looking directly at it. And it is herein that public health experts encounter a controversy. “For the past 20 years, the U.S. government has been funding abstinence-only programs. In 1981, the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) was passed to fund programs that promote chastity and self-discipline to prevent teen pregnancy” (Starkman & Rajani, 2002, 315).
Even in 1981, public support for a more open discourse concerning sexual risks was growing. According to one report, “Parental desire for sex education in schools has increased dramatically in the past two decades. In 1981, a Gallup Organization survey revealed that 84 percent of parents favored teaching about sexually transmitted diseases (compared to 98 percent today), 54 percent of parents wanted the topic of abortion covered (compared to 79 percent today), and 45 percent supported some discussion of homosexuality (compared to 76 percent today)” (Melby, 2000, 2).
Despite the apparent direction of public opinion, the government has continued to focus on abstinence-only sexual education: “For the fiscal year 2003, President Bush is seeking an additional $135 million. The programs are prohibited from discussing contraception or condoms as a way to prevent unintended pregnancy and the spread of STIs and HIV/AIDS, except to discuss their failure rates…” (No Author, Contemporary Sexuality, 2002, 9). The specific criteria outlined by Title V are as follows:
- Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
- Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;
- Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
- Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity
- Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
- Teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;
- Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances, and
- Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.1
Substantial amounts of funding are available from the federal government should a school or school district decide to teach an abstinence-only program, and, in today’s financially tight marketplace, this is an extremely lucrative reason to use government-sponsored and government-approved programs in public schools. Many public health experts, however, decry abstinence-only education as ineffective and irresponsible; they find their voices competing both with the millions of dollars of government block grants, and with organizations like Focus on the Family, which center on abstinence as a moral choice to be propagated through federal policy. In addition, there are some experts who have come forward in support of abstinence-only education, citing studies in which it produced sufficiently significant results in case-control studies that it should be accepted as a valid means of sexual education.
PRO: IN SUPPORT OF ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION
As outlined in the Background section of this paper, there are typically two different reasons used to justify abstinence-only sex education, although supporters often remain ambiguous as to which legitimizing position they endorse. The first, and, according to this author’s rather extensive search of the relevant literature concerning sexual education, the more prevalent position of support, is that of the “moral defense.” Although the term “moral” is linguistically ambiguous, one must only consider the fact that all but one of the Presidents of the United States have been white, Protestant (Christian) males, and the exception was a white, Catholic (Christian) male, in order to hazard a guess as to the context in which the word “moral” is usually understood.
One of the more powerful groups on the side of the abstinence-only education is Focus on the Family, headed by Dr. James Dobson. Their official position on abstinence-based education is found on their organizational webpage: “Only relatively recently has the act of sex commonly been divorced from marriage and procreation. Modern contraceptive inventions have given many an exaggerated sense of safety and prompted more people than ever before to move sexual expression outside the marriage boundary. When adhered to strictly, marital fidelity has always protected individuals and society. This site is dedicated to calling society back to the sure and safe boundary of abstinence until and faithfulness within marriage” (Focus on the Family, 2005).
While the official governmental position on sexual education typically avoids mentioning any religious doctrine or affiliation, official White House statements sound very similar to the position presented by Focus on the Family. “‘President Bush favors abstinence-only sex education. Counseling abstinence-only, preferably until marriage, is the best message because it is clear and consistent,’ said Wade Horn” (Tanner, 2005, 1). Other groups favoring abstinence-only education echo Horn; a representative of one such group told the New York Times: “‘If you have a standards-based approach to sex that says abstinence is what we expect from you, teens will live up to that’” (Melby, 2000, 2).
The second means used to defend abstinence-only education is much more empirical, although it is much more difficult to locate (perhaps, this author speculates, because statistics are not nearly as attention-grabbing on the news as controversial statements); the scientific evidence used in support of abstinence-based educational programs rarely supports the conclusion that sexual education should be only based on abstinence, but there is some data that suggests that abstinence has some positive effects in prevention the transmission of HIV/AIDS and other STDs. For instance, one study reported that SAO (an abstinence-only educational program) was effective in reducing the number of female students who intended to enter into relationships with older men (Zanis, 2005). Age disparity in a relationship is commonly understood in the public health community to contribute to increased risk for the contraction of HIV/AIDS and other STDs; therefore, it might be said that, in this particular instance, an abstinence-only program was successful in mitigating some of the targeted adolescents’ risk factors.
Another study of abstinence-based educational curriculums conducted by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. found that “Program youth reported views that, on average, are more supportive of abstinence and less supportive of teen sex than did their control group counterparts” (Maynard, Trenholm, Devaney, Johnson, Clark, Homrighausen, & Kalay, 2005, 32). The study’s authors later conclude that “The programs affected significantly youth’s perceptions of the potential adverse consequences of teen and nonmarital sex” (Maynard et al., 2005, 33). Most individual behavior theories (such as the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Health Belief Model) hold that the changes in perceived benefits and perceived social norms of an action will reduce the likelihood of its performance, and, as such, it is possible that these findings support the assertion that abstinence-based sexual education is effective at reducing HIV/AIDS and other STD transmission. However, this author must note that the study did not ask the students about their actual sexual behavior in order to determine the extent to which their intentions and beliefs influenced the realm of action.
CON: IN OPPOSITION TO ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION
Adversaries of abstinence-only education are quick to cite numerous studies that have found an exclusive focus on sexual abstinence to be ineffective at preventing (unprotected) adolescent sexual activity, and, thus, unsuccessful at reducing adolescent risk for HIV/AIDS and other STDs. For instance, despite the reduction in female risk factors noted in the aforementioned SAO study, “One month after completion of the SAO curriculum, all students who had been sexually active before the study reported that they continued to engage in sex” (Zanis, 2005, 62). Another report notes that “No evidence exists to date that these programs are effective at delaying sexual activity or reducing unintended pregnancy or the spread of disease” (No Author, Contemporary Sexuality, 2002, 9)
Other authors have reported similar findings in the literature; in a case-control study of 7th and 8th grade students in which one group received an abstinence only curriculum and one group did not receive a special sex-education curriculum, there was no statistically significant difference in the groups’ intentions to engage in premarital sex at either the pre- or the post-test stage (Sather & Zinn, 2002). To be fair, however, it must be noted that the study did provide several provisions for abstinence-based techniques to be taught in the context of other information.
Although there are a few instances of opposition to abstinence-only sexual education that result from a desire to remove systems of sexual thinking from public schools entirely, the majority of the opposition to this particular pedagogical technique comes from supporters of an alternate theory: comprehensive sexual education. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a scientific arm of the same federal government that tacitly endorses abstinence-only education through its financial policy,2 “Messages must be provided to the public that emphasize the ways by which individuals can protect themselves from acquiring the virus. These methods include abstinence from illegal use of IV drugs as well as from sexual intercourse except in a mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. For those individuals who do not or cannot cease risky behavior, methods of reducing their risk of acquiring or spreading the virus must also be communicated” (CDC, 2004, 1). In other words, while abstinence-based education, in and of itself, is not problematic, supporters of comprehensive sexual education believe that the provision of additional information concerning contraception, health behaviors, and risk reduction is necessary in an era of HIV and AIDS.
The CDC’s findings echo a report issued over a decade before by the World Health Organization (WHO), which “conducted a review of the evaluations of 35 sexuality education programs and concluded that the programs that are most effective in reducing sexual risk-taking behaviors among young people are programs that provide information on abstinence, contraception, and STD prevention (comprehensive sex education programs)” (Starkman & Rajani, 2002, 315). Once again, it is important to note that this report does not oppose the idea of abstinence, but merely the proposition that abstinence is the only acceptable means of sexually educating adolescents. Therefore, it is a fallacy to state that all opponents of abstinence-only education do not believe in the value of choosing abstinence.
Other public health experts, however, more stringently oppose both abstinence-only education and the propagation of pro-abstinence theories in general. One such set of authors provides, and agrees with, the contention that “Sex is not primarily a rational activity. Thus, factual information may impart knowledge about what is safe, but it does not change attitudes about what is satisfying and erotic. Explicit material can show people how to adopt safer sexual practices through a process of adaptation rather than a lifetime of self-sacrifice (p. 387)” (Olsen, Weed, Ritz, & Jensen, 1991, 634).
While this last example in opposition to abstinence-only education is not based on any hard data or specific, factual evidence, it is no more abstract a qualitative statement than many of the contentions that have been made in support of abstinence-only pedagogical programs by the federal government, by religious groups, and by so-called family-oriented groups.
THE AUTHOR’S OPINION
Although I have attempted to keep as much bias out of the previous sections of the paper as is possible, it seems as though the evidence points very clearly in one direction: away from abstinence-only education. My primary point of interest in this matter, however, is the fact that our nation’s leaders, both political and social, are dogmatically remaining loyal to an idea that has proven to be ineffective.
The White House, for example, supports abstinence-only education under the pretense that it is the best system of education. “HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson recently announced 95 new community-based abstinence education grants totally $27.7 million to assist communities in the creation and implementation of abstinence-only education and related programs…” (No Author, American Family Physician, 2002, 364). This is occurring in spite of the numerous studies that have been published and that have been made accessible to our nation’s leaders that objectively establish effective abstinence-only education as the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow: oft imagined but never discovered.
If supporters of abstinence-only programs honestly wish to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, and other STDs, and if the wish to minimize the risk factors for the other “side effects” of teen sexuality, then they will choose the program that has demonstrably accomplished these goals. Comprehensive sexuality education programs have been proven, time and time again, to be the most effective form of sex education that can be implemented in public schools. Yet, once again, there exist people who are choosing to ignore indisputable empirical data when making policy decisions.
Despite the contentions of many liberal leaders, I do not believe that President Bush is stupid, nor do I believe that his assistants are foolish. This means, however, that they are not behaving in a consequentialist fashion: they are less concerned with the results of the educational programs and more concerned with the means: moral ones! This is not uncommon in modern philosophy but I find numerous problems with it.
Given the specific content of this programs that are being implemented under the guise of abstinence-only education (they decry contraception and attempts to establish sexual and moral norms through governmental channels), one must assume, at some point, that religion has indeed begun to encroach, or rather, continues to encroach on the sacrosanct boundary between the church and the state. Perhaps even more disturbing are the false statistics that have been distributed both by religious leaders and by right-wing politicians. Numerous informational pamphlets, web sites, and other such channels of information have provided false information about rates of contraceptive failure (note, for example, the fact that contraceptives are only allowed to be discussed in an abstinence-only program in terms of their failure).
REFERENCES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2004). Proposed Revision of Interim HIV Content Guidelines for AIDS-Related Materials, Pictorials, Audiovisuals, Questionnaires, Survey Instruments, Marketing, Advertising and Web site Materials, and Educational Sessions in CDC Regional, State, Territorial, Local, and Community Assistance Programs. Retrieved July 18, 2005, from:
Focus on the Family. (2005). Abstinence Policy. Retrieved July 19, 2005, from: http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/abstinence/
Maynard, R., Trenholm, C., Devaney, B., Johnson, A., Clark, M. A., Homrighausen, J., and Kalay, E. First-year impacts of four Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2005.
Melby, T. (2000). Sex education in America. Contemporary Sexuality, 34(12), 1-3.
No Author. (2002). HHS awards grants to promote abstinence education for teenagers. American Family Physician, 66(3), 364.
No Author. (2002). SIECUS campaign combats abstinence only appropriations. Contemporary Sexuality, 36(10), 9.
No Author. (2003). What exactly is abstinence education? Contemporary Sexuality, 37(1), 7.
Olsen, J.A., Weed, S.E., Ritz, G. M., and Jensen, L. C. (1991). The effects of three abstinence sex education programs on student attitudes toward sexual activity. Adolescence, 26(103), 631-642.
Sather, L., and Zinn, K. (2002). Effects of abstinence-only education on adolescent attitudes and values concerning premarital sexual intercourse. Family and Community Health, 25(2), 1-15.
Starkman, N., and Rajani, N. (2002). The case for comprehensive sex education. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 16(7), 313-318.
Tanner, L. (2005). Pediatricians denounce abstinence-only education. Associated Press. United States.
Zanis, D. A. (2005). Use of a sexual abstinence only curriculum with sexually active youths. Children & Schools, 27(1), 59-63.
[1] (No Author, Contemporary Sexuality, 2003, 7)
[2] While the support for abstinence-only education that has been enacted by the federal government isn’t precisely ‘tacit,’ officially, “…there is no federal mandate to teach sex education in public schools, and less than half of all public schools in the country offer information on how to obtain birth control” (Starkman & Rajani, 2002, 313).
Wow, you really did go into detail on this. Good job. I don't think abstinence only education would work. It just simply won't...no matter what, people are GOING to have sex. It's the least the schools can do to make sure the teens know how to do it safely.
Now TAKE SOME RUBBERS
Yes, abstinance is primarily a moral stance. It is the best policy individually but teaching it in schools hasn't seemed to work,
It DOES need to come from parents, not from gym coaches (aka health ed teachers).
So the government should do one of two things. Forswear responsiblity and get out of the sex ed buisiness, or use what works
The reason that abstinence-only education seems to be failing, is not so much because abstinence is a flawed stance to take, it's because kids may face a few hours throughout a semester regarding abstinence, and then leave that classroom to be attacked by a 24/7 commercial for sex.
The way kids dress, television and advertising, movies that are marketed to teens, internet porn, photos of celebrities, the 'private' lives of the parents and older siblings, the news, other kids... all conspire desperately to make it seem to young teens that sex is the only thing that matters. If you really think about it, how much of what you see and experience on a daily basis has to do with sex? The world is obsessed with it.
The only way to make abstinence seem like a viable choice is to remove some of the influences that kids face. And the only way to do that is for parents to step up and participate in their kids' lives. But we couldn't possibly do that, now could we? Nah, let's ignore the problem and blame the school's curriculum when my 17 year old comes home pregnant or with an STD.
You had a Pro section, but it seemed like you were taking a contrary position with it. Now I know I'm not as nuanced as others, but it seemed more like you had a con and con article here.
My primary point of interest in this matter, however, is the fact that our nation’s leaders, both political and social, are dogmatically remaining loyal to an idea that has proven to be ineffective.
Hmmm. The government can't do the job right, so maybe folks should grab their gear and do it themselves?
one must assume, at some point, that religion has indeed begun to encroach, or rather, continues to encroach on the sacrosanct boundary between the church and the state.
And there it is. It can't possibly be that some want what's best by similar means. It HAS to be Bush secretly instilling a theocracy! But hey, at least you saved it for the My Opinion part.
I love the kids are gonna screw anyway, so we have to teach them to do it right bit. Yeah and kids are gonna drink, do drugs, fight (and in some cases kill), steal, argue with their parents etc. anyway. So we might as well teach them how to do it right.
Does it bother anybody else that a poll shows that the majority of parents wants somebody else to raise their kids?
And there it is. It can't possibly be that some want what's best by similar means. It HAS to be Bush secretly instilling a theocracy! But hey, at least you saved it for the My Opinion part.
Although it strengthens your position to assume that I was implying the content from your statement in my post, I wasn't, nor was there any reason to interpret my statements in that manner.
My contention is simply this: there is a method of sexual education that has been shown by scientific analysis to work better than the others. If the government is choosing to ignore that evidence when making decisions, then there must be a reason (if you disagree, then you propose that the government makes decisions without cause). I believe that religious influence is a very strong contender for the role of "cause" in this scenario.
This has nothing to do with a "theocracy."
And to address this:
I love the kids are gonna screw anyway, so we have to teach them to do it right bit. Yeah and kids are gonna drink, do drugs, fight (and in some cases kill), steal, argue with their parents etc. anyway. So we might as well teach them how to do it right.
It's not a matter of "teaching kids to screw right." If we presume that our goal is to reduce sexual activity levels among youth, then it is logical to adopt the method of education that is proven to reduce those levels. Furthermore, it is an existent truth that teenagers are having sex, and there is nothing that their parents/"the establishment" can do about it in some cases. No prevention system is 100% effective at preventing sexual activity. Whether or not we agree with the decisions made by those individuals, it is hard to find an ethical standpoint from which we can argue that they should not be given the chance to make decisions from a complete knowledge-base.
I think your article does hint that the wall between church and state is being violated in a small way.
But peoples religious views can't be kept out of their politics. Sometimes they come up with bad ways to mask them because people are so sensitive to a person having an opinion because that is what hteir faith says.
People of faith should produce good reasoning to convince others of what they think if they expect a majority to back the idea, and hence it to become policy.
It all comes back to democracy. It has nothing to do with the "wall" between church and state.
you were right it was lengthy. I was not sure what your def was- so I clicked on the link. Needless to say, I did not read it, lol. I cant focus for that long. But darn it I tried!
In a society where we enjoy freedom, we must know all of our responsibilities with this freedom. The more one knows the more one is responsible for thier actions. If someone doesn't have all the facts, they can't make informed decisions. Abstinence is great, but it is necessary to teach about all options and consequences of the different options for a person to make a sound and rational judgement about what they want to do.
That Blog... WAY TO LONG and Verbose... If I weren't on hiatus from saying insulting things... :-P
Honestly, there are people at my university who not only believe that abstinence-only sex-ed is stupid, but they think there should be a section on masturbation (this is a very small percentage however, that I am not a part of!)
Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, kids are being exposed to sex long before they were 30 years ago, so that means that we have to take the initiative and use knowledge as power; that's the thing, knowledge IS power! The more one knows about sex and how to do it safely, the less likely people are to transmit STDs and prevent teen pregnancy from ocurring.
To be completely honest, I really don't understand the problems people have with sex-ed as it is. I mean, for God's sake, it doesn't even go past a PG rating when it comes to the material. All it covers is the reproductive systems (which are usually covered in BIO anyways) and STDs and contraceptives. That's pretty basic material right there, nothing out of the ordinary.
Then again, there's a fish bowl of condoms in the lobby of the GT Health Center, so I guess I'm just kind of used to it being talked about!
There's a really great sociological lecture series into why sex has become so influencial on our culture, it's called "Porn Nation," and although it has a religious portion to it, I definitely will recommend it to anyone, *because before they do the religious portion, they give people the option of leaving if they feel uncomfortable, which I find to be incredibly commendable!
I believe that abstinence is the safest way to go, but I would rather have programs available that teach about protection because I know there are people out there who refuse to give up sex outside of marriage. If you want to have sex, then at least use some sort of protection. These things need to be taught, especially in today's world.
Parents can teach absitance all they want, but they also need to teach ways to have safer sex also. I always thought i would wait till i got married, things change and things happen.
For those of you who are abstinate, way to be! But not everyone is going to choose your life style. In fact, if you get married, you will have sex. Most people will have sex. It's a part of life. It's not teaching kids to have sex, its teaching them to have safer sex! No matter what, we all know some one in high school who was sexually active and those kids need to know! If you dont teach them about contraception, and information about STD's, they can't protect themsevles! Like teaching kids about brushing their teeth, they should know about sex. My parents taught us that we should wait until marriage, but they weren't so niave that they didnt teach us the facts of life and about birth control. Besides, most parents who think their kids arent having sex, their kids probably are! Both is needed! I was taught both, and absitenece is a form of birth control.
could i get this e-mailed to me? That would be awesome.
I believe in abstinence because of the way in which I was raised. My parents instilled a set of moral values and I respect them. There are so many risks to having sex. I guess people have different feelings and needs. They do not see the numerous downsides to having sex such as pregnancy and STDs.
At my high school our sex ed class teaches almost nothing about abstinence, but we learn about every type of contraceptive device and STD. I don't know how beneficial abstinence-only education would be, but they have to at least address abstinence. I'm saving myself for marriage due to my religious beliefs so I know I'm biased on the subject. But in my health class it seemed like the teacher was assuming there was no need for abstinence education since everyone is sexually active anyway. It at least has to be brought up in a discussion. You can't leave it only up to the parents to teach abstinence if you're providing a sex ed class. A sex ed class should inform students of every option they have.
Agreed! Our school did mention abstinence, but it seemed as though it wasn't expected. It was like saying candy can make you fat. You can not eat it or you can run the calories off. No one expects you to simply not eat candy. They expect you to buy the low-fat or run it off or only eat it for special occasions with limitations. The simple answer is never taken seriously. Funny, isn't it?
That's the other end of the spectrum, and isn't really "Comprehensive Sex Education" either, since it's still leaving out a number of protective factors. While I agree that abstinence is most often the result of a belief external to the typical set of health concerns, it should be covered in class along with all of the other preventive measures.
In the words of my calc teacher
"This country, with it billion dollar porn industry. We pretty much invented porn, but when you go out in public, you're supposed to be all *innocent motions with hands*"
Not educating is dangerous, as kids will experiment, and not o by the "lab manual." It is impossible to prevent kids from having sex on a large level. Abstinence needs to be taught by the parents.
i think that abstinence should be tought in Schools like middle school but i do think that in high school every type of birth control should be tought and what are posible sunarios if kids didn't protect themselves. I think to inform kids affectively everything should be tought so that they are informed when they do dicide to take the big step
A little bit of advice that I learned from my news writing class, there is such a thing as an article being too long. The lentgh cuases people not to read it.
On the issue of what teach in sex ed, I think it is an issue of effectiveness vs. ethics, and abstinence is the ethical choice.
You can't really say it's effectiveness vs. ethics, because in this case they're practically the same thing. If the government choose the option that they know will be ineffective in solving the current problem (STDs) for the sake of pleasing the people who seem to be in the minority, then that would be unethical.
And if you're worried about people being forced to take sex ed... don't. Most public schools require some sort of parental consent form before your kid is allowed to take the class. So no problems there.
I agree with the Long part...I looked at it and was like...holy crap I don't wanna read all that...no offense to the person who wrote it...
Brina Freakin Pina
I contemplated moving the majority of the text into a document attachment, but that actually makes it harder for people to access. This way, if they get bored, they can just stop.
Besides, most of my posts are short :)