# What do you think about sex ed?



## Caligirl (Jul 19, 2009)

I am curious for your honest feedback.



> *Pregnancy, STDs on the Rise Again Among U.S. Teens
> 
> Birth rates among U.S. teens increased in 2006 and 2007, following large declines from 1991 to 2005, according to a new U.S. government study*
> 
> ...



Pregnancy, STDs on the Rise Again Among U.S. Teens - ABC News

Is this partly attributable to abstinence only education? What might be leading to worse trends (STDs and etc)  among teens?


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 19, 2009)

I thought this was going to be a really fun thread...  Then I saw that last word, "ed".  Darn it.  Well, seeing as how you asked.  I'm a bit old fashioned when it comes to sex ed.  Both of my kids are grown and left the nest long ago and are parents on their own.  I would not have wanted some school teacher giving them the low down on sex.  Sex ed, if the parents are responsible like they should be, is something that should be taught in the home.  I think it should be a private matter so the morals and ethics that go along with sex could be taught by the parents along their own religious guidelines (if that would apply) or according to the values the parents want the kids to learn.  This is just my opinion, but the school system has no business teaching kids this stuff.


----------



## editec (Jul 19, 2009)

*



What do you think about sex, ed?

Click to expand...

* 
*Generally speaking, I approve of it.*

*Thanks for asking.*

*editec*


----------



## Caligirl (Jul 19, 2009)

> I thought this was going to be a really fun thread... Then I saw that last word, "ed". Darn it. Well, seeing as how you asked. I'm a bit old fashioned when it comes to sex ed. Both of my kids are grown and left the nest long ago and are parents on their own. I would not have wanted some school teacher giving them the low down on sex. Sex ed, if the parents are responsible like they should be, is something that should be taught in the home. I think it should be a private matter so the morals and ethics that go along with sex could be taught by the parents along their own religious guidelines (if that would apply) or according to the values the parents want the kids to learn. This is just my opinion, but the school system has no business teaching kids this stuff.


Thanks -

If STDs and pregnancies continue to rise, then does that mean that the schools should step in more? Is there a point at which a person changes their mind and says "this isn't working, our kids are getting sick because too many parents aren't teaching them how to protect against STDs."?

Sorry the thread isn't more fun.


----------



## Caligirl (Jul 19, 2009)

editec said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL I knew you would make it fun.


----------



## Toro (Jul 19, 2009)

There is nothing wrong with teaching abstinence as long as other forms of birth control are taught.


----------



## Dis (Jul 19, 2009)

Back when I was in school, the very basics were taught, and that's it.  There was no "If you're going to do this, then you should do that."  It was more "This is what happens when two people do this."

The very basics should be taught in school.  All the "extras" should be taught at home by parents, and they should start teaching around the same time, IMO.


----------



## chanel (Jul 19, 2009)

I think its important informatuon but I don't think too many kids are ignorant about what causes pregnancy. I think the statistics have less to do with the actual curriculum but more to do with more liberal attitudes toward sex in general. Are teenagers going to listen to their parents and their teachers during the heat of the moment? Of course not.And there is no shame anymore when it comes to teen pregnancy. Unwed motherhood in my district is celebrated like someone getting into Harvard. What an accomplishment!

I do like the fake screaming babies though. I'd like to see some stats on the effectiveness of those programs.


----------



## PixieStix (Jul 19, 2009)

It is nothing more and nothing less than indoctrination


----------



## Dis (Jul 19, 2009)

PixieStix said:


> It is nothing more and nothing less than indoctrination



How is teaching kids how the reproductive system works an indoctrination?  And into what, exactly?


----------



## Toro (Jul 19, 2009)

[youtube]QLKMQtfZLUw[/youtube]


----------



## PixieStix (Jul 19, 2009)

Dis said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > It is nothing more and nothing less than indoctrination
> ...


 
LOL, do you really think that is all they teach them? Sorry Dis, but they teach them how to put a condom on a banana 

Teaching biology is one thing

Sexual matters is up to the parents to teach their children, I did not need a teacher outside my family and a system of beurocrats and government officials overseeing what I already knew naturally. And could ask a parent if I had a question and I know, I know, what about the kids who don't have good parents, yada yada, strawman

I would NOT send my child to public school, if I had one of school age. I would home school my kid.


----------



## Dis (Jul 19, 2009)

PixieStix said:


> Dis said:
> 
> 
> > PixieStix said:
> ...



But nobody's asking what it is.. They're asking if it should be taught.  And yes.. The reproduction system should be studied in school.  The rest, on the other hand...


----------



## PixieStix (Jul 19, 2009)

Teacher leave them kids alone...another brick in the wall of socialism

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_bvT-DGcWw"]YouTube - Pink Floyd - Another Brick in the Wall[/ame]


----------



## editec (Jul 19, 2009)

To be perfectly honest I think sex ed is a huge waste of everyone's time.

It should be taught the old fashioned way all morality issues are taught to Americans

Incipiently, via situation comedies aimed at children and people with very low IQs.

If they want to start teaching it earlier than early teens, then I suggest we add characters like _*Oscar the Herpes Simplex Monster*_, and *Bert and Ernie Tertiary Siphilis Patients* to Sesame Street cast personae


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 19, 2009)

It would be useful to know what the proportion of the kids who got the sex ed got the STDs and the teen pregnancies vs the group who did not.  All we have is a statistic on the rise of a problem sex ed was meant to combat.

I kind of think the way sex ed was done in my time was the cause of the rise of homosexuality.  All sex ed did for my generation was squick out the kids, as it was horribly clinical.

And since my generation was among the first to get it, it was a horrible failure.   What was rare before became common after.

I do talk to my kids about it.  But they find the discussion squicky.   It is too uncool to hear about it from your very old man.


My main issue is they seem to be getting the same level of instruction in sex ed as they are getting in math, statistics and and english.  The schools can't teach english, they can't teach math, and now we are going to have them teach sexual continence?  No wonder the bellies of little girls are getting so big.


----------



## probus (Jul 19, 2009)

sorry, but i think home schooling is the absolute worst thing u can do for ur kid-- most kids need the discipline of a school based environment and unless u'r home all the time u just can't make sure the kid keeps up with what he/she has to learn-- quote me stats. all u want but later in life when that child has to interact with others they won't have the foundation of socialization with their peers-- i think it stunts their development honestly-- to think that abstinence works is tough to believe as well-- young budding kids are "hard pressed to keep it in their pants" so to speak-- parents should start very early making sure that kids are not ashamed of their bodies and make sure they know how to respect one another-- i also don't see a lot wrong with making a child wait until say 17 or so to "date"-- it's when they have no guidence and discipline that they stray-- keep them away from all the biblical crap if u can as that will just make them want to rebel against those fairy tales when they are able-- nothing wrong with instilling a healthy fear of STD's either-- it still boggles my mind to hear of ANY unwanted pregnancies anymore in this nation-- there is simply no excuse for it other than a poor upbringing-- just my two cents-- Regards, probus


----------



## Dis (Jul 19, 2009)

probus said:


> sorry, but i think home schooling is the absolute worst thing u can do for ur kid-- most kids need the discipline of a school based environment and unless u'r home all the time u just can't make sure the kid keeps up with what he/she has to learn-- quote me stats. all u want but later in life when that child has to interact with others they won't have the foundation of socialization with their peers-- i think it stunts their development honestly-- to think that abstinence works is tough to believe as well-- young budding kids are "hard pressed to keep it in their pants" so to speak-- parents should start very early making sure that kids are not ashamed of their bodies and make sure they know how to respect one another-- i also don't see a lot wrong with making a child wait until say 17 or so to "date"-- it's when they have no guidence and discipline that they stray-- keep them away from all the biblical crap if u can as that will just make them want to rebel against those fairy tales when they are able-- nothing wrong with instilling a healthy fear of STD's either-- it still boggles my mind to hear of ANY unwanted pregnancies anymore in this nation-- there is simply no excuse for it other than a poor upbringing-- just my two cents-- Regards, probus



I agree homeschooling isn't the best thing to do to your child.  Now granted, I only have one actual example to go off of..

But, one of my employees homeschools her daughter.. Her daughter is almost 18 years old, has very few social skills, is always depressed, and doesn't seem to know much about the "in" things that are going on around her.  She has very few friends, and doesn't know what to do with herself if they happen to not be available.  I don't actually know much about the level of education she's at, but overall it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 19, 2009)

Caligirl said:


> I am curious for your honest feedback.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm curious..how can it be attributed to "absintence only" education when "abstinence only" education doesn't exist except in tiny, isolated groups.

These increase is not in populations of home-schooled Christian kids. It's in the cities. And it's more evidence that making abortion available, teaching kids that it's okay to have sex because there's a "cure" for whatever results, and refusing to teach them any sense of responsibility has negative consequences. Not positive.


----------



## probus (Jul 19, 2009)

yeah dis, i used to work in my community library and they'd come in all the time-- a lot were very bright kids, some very knowledgeable too but they seemed very socially insecure-- ya gotta wonder how that's going to affect them in later life and not just the here and now-- Regards, probus


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 19, 2009)

i taught sex ed....it is very needed...the reason...most adults have no clue about sex...much less how to explain or teach anything about it....too embarressed ...or get this....only know slang terms...kids should be taught about their bodies in proper terms..you do not have a wee wee or a pee pee...its a penis or vagina....and then the misconceptions on when one can become preggies....but dont worry....what i have notice of late in the teenage girls is when they get clap..its clap of the throat.
oral sex is the rage now days....seems they do not think it counts...at a time when having sex can result in your death...(aids) i am all for freedom of information...parents can teach morals...let schools teach facts.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 19, 2009)

You can thank Clinton for that.


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 19, 2009)

i dont think clinton invented oral sex....i can see their little bean brains points and logic.....no chance of getting preggies...they do not have a clue of the other risks...most do not know you can, in rare, cases get aids from oral sex.  then there is the concept of "rainbow" parties....


----------



## Fatality (Jul 19, 2009)

Dis said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > It is nothing more and nothing less than indoctrination
> ...



they teach em about gay sex, an anus is not part of the reproductive system


----------



## Dis (Jul 19, 2009)

Fatality said:


> Dis said:
> 
> 
> > PixieStix said:
> ...



Once again, the question, as I understood it, was "Should sex-ed be taught in school?"  Not "What do you think is going on right now?"  That is what I answered.. It in no way solicited a comment about it being an indoctrination.


----------



## Fatality (Jul 19, 2009)

Dis said:


> Fatality said:
> 
> 
> > Dis said:
> ...



discuusions of reproduction are fine, anything more than that is indoctrinaton


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 19, 2009)

probus said:


> sorry, but i think home schooling is the absolute worst thing u can do for ur kid-- most kids need the discipline of a school based environment and unless u'r home all the time u just can't make sure the kid keeps up with what he/she has to learn-- quote me stats. all u want but later in life when that child has to interact with others they won't have the foundation of socialization with their peers-- i think it stunts their development honestly-- to think that abstinence works is tough to believe as well-- young budding kids are "hard pressed to keep it in their pants" so to speak-- parents should start very early making sure that kids are not ashamed of their bodies and make sure they know how to respect one another-- i also don't see a lot wrong with making a child wait until say 17 or so to "date"-- it's when they have no guidence and discipline that they stray-- keep them away from all the biblical crap if u can as that will just make them want to rebel against those fairy tales when they are able-- nothing wrong with instilling a healthy fear of STD's either-- it still boggles my mind to hear of ANY unwanted pregnancies anymore in this nation-- there is simply no excuse for it other than a poor upbringing-- just my two cents-- Regards, probus



Home schooling has it's cons, but so does public education.

I think we've seen the results of teaching kids all about sex without giving them any moral compass. Except in the most rural of areas any youngster can get birth control. And I live in the most rural of areas...we have a clinic right here that will provide free care and birth control. I think the experiment that was "all kids are going to have sex so let's accomodate them" has failed miserably, so we need to come back to the middle...teaching them about their bodies while sending a clear message that they aren't old enough to shoulder the responsibilities of an active sex life.

And the people who have babies are the ones who want to. You tell kids they can have sex, they'll think they're old enough to have babies. And part of being a child is play-acting at adulthood.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jul 19, 2009)

I think part of the reason that I think sex ed might be counter productive is that people's emotional and physical growth vary so very much.  What might be imperitive for one kid to learn (I found an article on line about a girl who of 14 who was trying to raise her 3 year old daughter) and for others it is very counter productive and emotionally traumatizing. The folks who have the most knowledge of the kids needs  should be responsible for handling this very delicate issue.
Not that the teachers aren't trying hard on this, but they really have a hard time making math lessons that can spread across 25 intellects.  Working across the minefields of intellect, emotion and all the other stuff seems way too much for folks who are having trouble making them understand ordinary english conjugation, let alone the the reverse english conjugation that is sexuality.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 19, 2009)

My two older boys weren't allowed to date until they were 16. Neither ever complained about it. They did social things, as a group. It effectively removed them from the awful mess that is being 13-16 and going through adolescence, and also trying to manage a love life.

I think they were relieved. And when they turned 16 they both had girls waiting to date them.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 19, 2009)

Dis said:


> Fatality said:
> 
> 
> > Dis said:
> ...



You misunderstood the question, then. Try reading the thread title. It's "what do you think about sex ed?"


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jul 19, 2009)

LOL...  

Well this is beautiful... as it is a CLASSIC illustration of what's wrong with Sex Ed...

First, Sex Ed is presented as "Education"... when it's indoctrination...  

Let just examine the following couple of posts, by a self professed teacher of "Sex Ed..."

Notice how she presents Sex Ed... highlighted in Blue...  It's all about the SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING; EDUCATING CHILDREN IN THE BIOLOGY OF THEIR BODIES!



strollingbones said:


> *i taught sex ed*....it is very needed...the reason...most adults have no clue about sex...much less how to explain or teach anything about it....too embarressed ...or get this....only know slang terms...kids should be taught about their bodies in proper terms..you do not have a wee wee or a pee pee...its a penis or vagina...





strollingbones said:


> .and *then the misconceptions on when one can become preggies*



But when the conversation turns to the RESULTS of 'hookin up...' the _SCIENCE_ quickly returns to slang... quaint little terms to reduce the stigma; thus offset the ramifications; the judgement... disarmed.  "You didn't get PREGNANT!  No, no sweety... you're just a little "_preggers_"...  and while I wish you woulda avoided that, we 'can take care of it'..."





strollingbones said:


> i dont think clinton invented oral sex....i can see their little bean brains points and logic.....*no chance of getting preggies*...they do not have a clue of the other risks...most do not know you can, in rare, cases get aids from oral sex.  then there is the concept of "rainbow" parties....



Here, the same member simply rejects the YEARS of Clinton leadership which blazed the Oral-Sex trail... wherein he 'de-Personalized' oral-sex; which demonstrates PERFECTLY the indoctrination element... 

The fact is, where one takes morality out of the equation; all that's left is the biology... and where one believes that they understand the biology, they can safely engage in the behavior by simply utilizing that knowledge; where the worst case scenario is they 'get a little preggies' or some other disease they can get a shot to 'cure'...


----------



## xotoxi (Jul 19, 2009)

Sex with Ed?

I think I'll pass...


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 19, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> I thought this was going to be a really fun thread...  Then I saw that last word, "ed".  Darn it.  Well, seeing as how you asked.  I'm a bit old fashioned when it comes to sex ed.  Both of my kids are grown and left the nest long ago and are parents on their own.  I would not have wanted some school teacher giving them the low down on sex.  Sex ed, if the parents are responsible like they should be, is something that should be taught in the home.  I think it should be a private matter so the morals and ethics that go along with sex could be taught by the parents along their own religious guidelines (if that would apply) or according to the values the parents want the kids to learn.  This is just my opinion, but the school system has no business teaching kids this stuff.


Obviously, from the facts presented, some parents fail to educate their kids about pregnancy and std prevention.
Europe has far fewer incidents of both.


----------



## Dis (Jul 19, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Dis said:
> 
> 
> > Fatality said:
> ...



You're right.  My bad.  I misread it.


----------



## garyd (Jul 19, 2009)

Fiorst there is no place in the country of which I am aware that doesn't have sex education. So unless it's all home schoolers leading the way sex ed has nothing to do with it. And the corresponding information regarding kids saying that haven't heard about birth control or condoms just reveals that kids don't pay much if any more attention to what is being taught in those classes than they do to say math, science, geography, and history. Neil Boortz has quoted at least one study in which there apppeared to be no difference in outcome between kids with abstinence only sex ed and kids who are cycled through condom give away programs.

By the way I find it at least mildly interesting that when Republicans control congress the rates go down while the rates appear to go up when the Dems are in charge of congress.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 19, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> You can thank Clinton for that.


Sure, kids would never have "discovered" oral sex if Clinton hadn't done it.
Of course it was Ken Starr who publicized every graphic detail, wasn't it?


----------



## Caligirl (Jul 19, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Caligirl said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious for your honest feedback.
> ...



Well, that was why I asked whether it *was* attributable, I didn't say it was. 

I don't know how the stats break down, but I do recall hearing somewhere else that rural areas are having an explosion of syphilis and gonorrhea. 

It might have been this but this is pretty old so I think it was something more recent (>2000) :

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/143/3/269.pdf


FTR I am not concerned about the pregnanices but am about the STDs that include AIDS (which has increased).


----------



## garyd (Jul 19, 2009)

Yes there is a huge percentage increse in rural areas. Exactly what it means is largely debateable. The only thing it almost certainly means is there weren't very many cases there to begin with.

You've got two cases of gonorrea in your small town you get a third and voila you have a fifty percent increase. The same raw number increase in New York wouldn't even show up in percentage data.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 19, 2009)

Caligirl said:


> I am curious for your honest feedback.
> Pregnancy, STDs on the Rise Again Among U.S. Teens - ABC News
> 
> Is this partly attributable to abstinence only education? What might be leading to worse trends (STDs and etc)  among teens?



I don't have empirical evidence to support my opinion, so accept it as such.

Sexual education in the school system is unnecessary and is now being used as a crutch by parents that are failing to fulfill their parental obligations.

I think schools can and should fulfill the biological facts and education about the human body which would include subjects such as pregnancy and STD's.  It is not the schools responsibility to teach things such as proper condom usage, oral sex, mutual masturbation, etc.
Parents have the responsibility to provide sex-ed to their children.  My parents did it for me and my siblings, I did it for my children.
I think some parents want to abdicate that responsibility to the schools because they are too cowardly to be parents, then they want to blame the education system for failing as soon as an unwanted pregnancy or STD rears it's ugly head.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 19, 2009)

If kids are taught sex is ok in school, they are offered up the notion that no sexuality is bad sexuality, and they come home to see mom with her boyfriend du jour on the couch, you're going to continue to have pregnancy and std issues.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 19, 2009)

> If STDs and pregnancies continue to rise, then does that mean that the schools should step in more? Is there a point at which a person changes their mind and says "this isn't working, our kids are getting sick because too many parents aren't teaching them how to protect against STDs."?



I still stand by my guns.  Our school system has absolutely no business teaching anything sexual in nature besides the basic biology you generally get in junior high school.  There is a rise in the number of STD's and pregnancies.  There is no way that can be denied.  That doesn't mean the school should step in and begin to teach all of these "special" social issue driven classes.  They need to stick to the basics of the 3 "R's".  We have fallen very behind in this as a nation.  Teenagers today flaunt pregnancy as some sort of badge of honor and something to be proud of.  This is because we as a nation have changed our core beliefs in what is right and wrong.  This is one of the reasons there is a rise in STD's.  We live in an anything goes world.  Parents need to "parent" their children and begin to put a stop to this "anything goes" world we live in.  Believe it or not, everything that goes down in our country really isn't "all right".  We have ignored too many things because people are afraid to say anything about what is right and wrong. Because of this, it's all coming home to roost now.  You really do reap what you sew.


----------



## Dis (Jul 19, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> I still stand by my guns.  Our school system has absolutely no business teaching anything sexual in nature besides the basic biology you generally get in junior high school.  There is a rise in the number of STD's and pregnancies.  There is no way that can be denied.  That doesn't mean the school should step in and begin to teach all of these "special" social issue driven classes.  They need to stick to the basics of the 3 "R's".  We have fallen very behind in this as a nation.  Teenagers today flaunt pregnancy as some sort of badge of honor and something to be proud of.  This is because we as a nation have changed our core beliefs in what is right and wrong.  This is one of the reasons there is a rise in STD's.  We live in an anything goes world.  Parents need to "parent" their children and begin to put a stop to this "anything goes" world we live in.  Believe it or not, everything that goes down in our country really isn't "all right".  We have ignored too many things because people are afraid to say anything about what is right and wrong. Because of this, it's all coming home to roost now.  You really do reap what you sew.



Insisting parents parent their children?  How dare you? 

  If only more parents thought that way...


----------



## alan1 (Jul 19, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> > If STDs and pregnancies continue to rise, then does that mean that the schools should step in more? Is there a point at which a person changes their mind and says "this isn't working, our kids are getting sick because too many parents aren't teaching them how to protect against STDs."?
> 
> 
> 
> I still stand by my guns.  Our school system has absolutely no business teaching anything sexual in nature besides the basic biology you generally get in junior high school.  There is a rise in the number of STD's and pregnancies.  There is no way that can be denied.  That doesn't mean the school should step in and begin to teach all of these "special" social issue driven classes.  They need to stick to the basics of the 3 "R's".  We have fallen very behind in this as a nation.  Teenagers today flaunt pregnancy as some sort of badge of honor and something to be proud of.  This is because we as a nation have changed our core beliefs in what is right and wrong.  This is one of the reasons there is a rise in STD's.  We live in an anything goes world.  Parents need to "parent" their children and begin to put a stop to this "anything goes" world we live in.  Believe it or not, everything that goes down in our country really isn't "all right".  We have ignored too many things because people are afraid to say anything about what is right and wrong. Because of this, it's all coming home to roost now.  You really do reap what you sew.



Well said BBD.
Parents need to parent and not gaff off the responsibility to teachers and/or government.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 19, 2009)

> Parents need to parent and not gaff off the responsibility to teachers and/or government.



Absolutely true.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jul 19, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Caligirl said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious for your honest feedback.
> ...



No, but you do have an avatar of a masturbating cheeto and gosh darn it, that's good enough for me!


----------



## Dis (Jul 19, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Caligirl said:
> ...



Doesn't that make you wonder just a little bit what he was looking for when he found it?


----------



## alan1 (Jul 19, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Caligirl said:
> ...



Nothing says sex-ed like a masturbating cheeto.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 19, 2009)

Dis said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Sometimes you find things you aren't looking for, that doesn't make them any less than what they are.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jul 19, 2009)

The best tasting cheetos are the unexpected ones.


----------



## Dis (Jul 19, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> The best tasting cheetos are the unexpected ones.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 19, 2009)

You can teach your kids till the cows come home, if you are conducting your dating and sex lives in the open and the kids see it, they will emulate.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 19, 2009)

Dis said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > The best tasting cheetos are the unexpected ones.



Oh, quit acting shocked.


----------



## Dis (Jul 19, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Dis said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



But..I thought that was Eve's cheeto you were talking about tasting...


----------



## alan1 (Jul 19, 2009)

Dis said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Dis said:
> ...



Me or ZB?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jul 19, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Dis said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...



Eve has a cheeto?  I thought she was a girl.


----------



## 007 (Jul 20, 2009)

strollingbones said:
			
		

> *oral sex is the rage now days....seems they do not think it counts..*.





			
				AllieBaba said:
			
		

> You can thank Clinton for that.





strollingbones said:


> *i dont think clinton invented oral sex*....i can see their little bean brains points and logic.....no chance of getting preggies...they do not have a clue of the other risks...most do not know you can, in rare, cases get aids from oral sex.  then there is the concept of "rainbow" parties....



No he didn't invent it bones, but as it was pointed out already, he was the cause for starting the BLOW JOB craze... 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDZrMemRQak]YouTube - hillary, oral sex and 'the children'[/ame]


----------



## Dis (Jul 20, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Dis said:
> 
> 
> > MountainMan said:
> ...





Zoom-boing said:


> MountainMan said:
> 
> 
> > Dis said:
> ...



Nevermind.. I'm SOOOO confused!


----------



## G.T. (Jul 20, 2009)

Anything-ed, is good.


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 20, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> LOL...
> 
> Well this is beautiful... as it is a CLASSIC illustration of what's wrong with Sex Ed...
> 
> ...



lets see...am i teaching anything now?   i told you..teach morals at home..facts in school...you have a problem with that?


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 20, 2009)

pale i really think people were having oral sex long before clinton...i dont think you can blame it all on clinton...young girls think that is they have oral sex they can remain virgins...seems you can have oral sex with many people and not be a slut...go figure..plus the younger one think oral sex is safe.


----------



## editec (Jul 20, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> pale i really think people were having oral sex long before clinton...i dont think you can blame it all on clinton...young girls think that is they have oral sex they can remain virgins...seems you can have oral sex with many people and not be a slut...go figure..plus the younger one think oral sex is safe.


 
I suspect most younger girls give oral sex to have some degree of control over their targeted sexcual partner as anything else.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 20, 2009)

> lets see...am i teaching anything now? i told you..teach morals at home..facts in school...you have a problem with that?



I think this is excellent advice, bones.  Too bad most of the schools don't agree.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 20, 2009)

> i really think people were having oral sex long before clinton...



Why do you think George Washington was always such a happy guy?  Could it be?


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 20, 2009)

Sex ed in schools is important ... it's just lately they have been pussy footing it all with this "don't do it" crap ... hell, if kids always listened they wouldn't need detention. Instead, tell them the safety precautions and go back to the slide shows ... of diseased genitals ... that was what kept us from doing it ...


----------



## 007 (Jul 20, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> pale i really think people were having oral sex long before clinton...i dont think you can blame it all on clinton...young girls think that is they have oral sex they can remain virgins...seems you can have oral sex with many people and not be a slut...go figure..plus the younger one think oral sex is safe.



Well of course. I'm not saying oral sex is something new. But I am saying that slick willie brought blow jobs to the fore front of America by proclaiming that oral sex was NOT sex. All of America was watching as he said that, including kids. I do believe he's very instrumental in the rise in oral sex as you have noted. These kids were told by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES that blow jobs were NOT SEX. That had an effect bones... just as you've noticed.

Like AB said, you can thank clinton for it. Maybe not entirely, but he deserves a large part of the blame. Morality is not a strong suit for liberals. They harp against morals all the time. They want to make up their own.


----------



## Arawyn (Jul 20, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Sex ed in schools is important ... it's just lately they have been pussy footing it all with this "don't do it" crap ... hell, if kids always listened they wouldn't need detention. Instead, tell them the safety precautions and go back to the slide shows ... of diseased genitals ... that was what kept us from doing it ...



I entirely disagree. As others in this thread have stated, our generation was told the facts (reproductive system and STDs) and the rest of it was left to the parents. Kind of like how the media SHOULD be (just presenting the facts). My mom was of the mindset, don't do it. Her advocation of abstinenance didn't make me (or my brother) run out the door and find the first person with which to have sex.


----------



## Yukon (Jul 20, 2009)

editec said:


> "...I think sex ed is a huge waste of everyone's time...Incipiently, via situation comedies aimed at children and people with very low IQs..."
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 20, 2009)

Arawyn said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Sex ed in schools is important ... it's just lately they have been pussy footing it all with this "don't do it" crap ... hell, if kids always listened they wouldn't need detention. Instead, tell them the safety precautions and go back to the slide shows ... of diseased genitals ... that was what kept us from doing it ...
> ...



There are always exceptions to the rules.  Also, I never said that every kid will, just that teaching abstinence until ready (and an adult) as being the better choice without offering enough reasons will not effect most kids, but one great motivator for it is truth, facts as you said, disease slide shows do just that. Ask any teenager, with raging hormones and no common sense, what syphilis is ... they simply don't know now, much worse, they don't even know what it looks like until they catch it.


----------



## Arawyn (Jul 20, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Yes, there are. I believe that Sex ed in schools should only deal with facts, parents give morality (abstinence if it is their wish, which I do advocate) w/reasons why abstinence should be followed. I did that when raising my daughter. Giving ultimatums w/o underlying reasons (logically presented) usually create the "rebel" aspect. 

I also do think kids today (the ones w/o common sense) KNOW what syphillis is, I just think they don't think it'll happen to them. 

And education never seems to help on the common sense front, iykwim.


----------



## renoite (Jul 20, 2009)

I think sex ed is fine. I had it in the fourth and 5th grad. so did my brothers.


----------



## renoite (Jul 20, 2009)

I learned alot from that class in school. I think it is helpfull. When I took it. At the start of class boys and the girls are in the same room still later when they start talking about other things then they put them in diff rooms. my little cuz is taking that class or did in the 6th grad. I do think kids should take it kids area having sex now a days.


----------



## joeyc (Jul 20, 2009)

I think sex ed is a waste of money. What drives up the rate of teen pregnancy is 1) parents who don't give enough of a shit about their kids to teach them about the birds and the bees, 2) our culture applauds hypersexuality, and pushes it on young kids who don't know shit about processing the information, 3) poverty, and 4) the idea a lot of girls have (but we don't talk about it) that if they get pregnant they can just have an abortion.

Sex ed is just a way for liberals to blame Republicans and conservatives for more of societies ills. They try to make it seem like someone going to a school and telling kids "wait until you're married to have sex" is responsible for kids doing the exact opposite...and people buy into it! They say the school should just tell kids about birth control and pass it out. Because as we all know, the main problem with teen pregnancy is that they knew absolutely nothing about the Pill or condoms.


----------



## renoite (Jul 20, 2009)

joeyc said:


> I think sex ed is a waste of money. What drives up the rate of teen pregnancy is 1) parents who don't give enough of a shit about their kids to teach them about the birds and the bees, 2) our culture applauds hypersexuality, and pushes it on young kids who don't know shit about processing the information, 3) poverty, and 4) the idea a lot of girls have (but we don't talk about it) that if they get pregnant they can just have an abortion.
> 
> Sex ed is just a way for liberals to blame Republicans and conservatives for more of societies ills. They try to make it seem like someone going to a school and telling kids "wait until you're married to have sex" is responsible for kids doing the exact opposite...and people buy into it! They say the school should just tell kids about birth control and pass it out. Because as we all know, the main problem with teen pregnancy is that they knew absolutely nothing about the Pill or condoms.



That is not what they teach in sex ed. AND I AM NOT A LIBERAL.  I think this class is good for kids. They teach on what is going through your body and about your body and safe sex when your older when the time is right. AND they talk about brith controll and condoms ect. GREAT CLASS FOR KIDS TO LEARN WHAT THEY NEED TO LEARN. if they parents want there kids to go and learn it.


----------



## renoite (Jul 20, 2009)

So you also think killing the baby is the answer instead of teaching them wait till your ready to have sex. Because having sex can cause std and getting pg. and If you are not ready for a baby then you should not have sex.


----------



## joeyc (Jul 20, 2009)

renoite said:


> joeyc said:
> 
> 
> > I think sex ed is a waste of money. What drives up the rate of teen pregnancy is 1) parents who don't give enough of a shit about their kids to teach them about the birds and the bees, 2) our culture applauds hypersexuality, and pushes it on young kids who don't know shit about processing the information, 3) poverty, and 4) the idea a lot of girls have (but we don't talk about it) that if they get pregnant they can just have an abortion.
> ...



That's what they teach in abstinence-only classes. What you described can be summed up as "Health class". Sex ed is more applied than Health. If they're going to have sex ed. that discusses birth control, they need to have sex ed that discusses sexual behavior as well. Both are equally important if we simply must educate kids on sex.


----------



## bill777 (Jul 20, 2009)

Sex Ed isn't necessary. Girls and Boys figure this stuff out on their own. I remember laughing during my sex-ed classes. I didn't need their help, and I think that most of my classmates didn't either.


----------



## renoite (Jul 20, 2009)

joeyc said:


> renoite said:
> 
> 
> > joeyc said:
> ...



\
The class I took 2 years in a row taught all about that and and us kids could ask ?? about the things we wanted to know. They talked about sex and You should wait till your older because are not ready to have sex its a growen up act that children should not take part in. I have seen 12 year olds haveing kids maybe if they had a sex ed class or parents who tought them not to have sex till they are ready for what fellows the sex act. They teach on alot of stuff it was a good class that I think every kid in those grad should take 4th-6th grad  I took it my 4th and 5th grad year and I turn out fine. I am 22 and no kids and no stds


----------



## joeyc (Jul 20, 2009)

I can go for the comprehensive approach. I still don't think it's worth the money we've spent on it.


----------



## Fatality (Jul 20, 2009)

so libs, when you gonna start calling for live demonstrations as part of sex ed?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTMlZSKEu-Y[/ame]


----------



## joeyc (Jul 20, 2009)

They'll start with talking about the joys of fisting and the right lube to use during anal sex.


----------



## Fatality (Jul 20, 2009)

joeyc said:


> They'll start with talking about the joys of fisting and the right lube to use during anal sex.



of course two girls one cup will be mandantory viewing


----------



## joeyc (Jul 20, 2009)

How could it not?! We're talking about _comprehensive_ sex ed, right? Leaving anything out is nothing more than bigotry and discrimination.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 20, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> I thought this was going to be a really fun thread...  Then I saw that last word, "ed".  Darn it.  Well, seeing as how you asked.  I'm a bit old fashioned when it comes to sex ed.  Both of my kids are grown and left the nest long ago and are parents on their own.  I would not have wanted some school teacher giving them the low down on sex.  Sex ed, if the parents are responsible like they should be, is something that should be taught in the home.  I think it should be a private matter so the morals and ethics that go along with sex could be taught by the parents along their own religious guidelines (if that would apply) or according to the values the parents want the kids to learn.  This is just my opinion, but the school system has no business teaching kids this stuff.



Yessirreee Bob! Damned school sytem should not be teaching kids anything about sex. The local Red Necks will gladly supply that education. 

Did you not read the post? Your stupid thoughts have been followed and now we have a much higher incidence of teenage pregnancy and sexually related diseases among teenagers than we had. In other words, that policy is a proven failure.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 20, 2009)

Toro said:


> There is nothing wrong with teaching abstinence as long as other forms of birth control are taught.



Exactly, because there is a percentage of more adventurous teens that will try out their new sexuality.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 20, 2009)

Dis said:


> Back when I was in school, the very basics were taught, and that's it.  There was no "If you're going to do this, then you should do that."  It was more "This is what happens when two people do this."
> 
> The very basics should be taught in school.  All the "extras" should be taught at home by parents, and they should start teaching around the same time, IMO.



However, as we can see by the results, they are not teaching those extras at home. Repeating the same action, time after time, and expecting a differant result from that that you have been getting time after time, is insanity.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 20, 2009)

chanel said:


> I think its important informatuon but I don't think too many kids are ignorant about what causes pregnancy. I think the statistics have less to do with the actual curriculum but more to do with more liberal attitudes toward sex in general. Are teenagers going to listen to their parents and their teachers during the heat of the moment? Of course not.And there is no shame anymore when it comes to teen pregnancy. Unwed motherhood in my district is celebrated like someone getting into Harvard. What an accomplishment!
> 
> I do like the fake screaming babies though. I'd like to see some stats on the effectiveness of those programs.



Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs - washingtonpost.com

Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs

By Laura Sessions Stepp
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 14, 2007; Page A02

A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.

Authorized by Congress in 1997, the study followed 2000 children from elementary or middle school into high school. The children lived in four communities -- two urban, two rural. All of the children received the family life services available in their community, in addition, slightly more than half of them also received abstinence-only education.


By the end of the study, when the average child was just shy of 17, half of both groups had remained abstinent. The sexually active teenagers had sex the first time at about age 15. Less than a quarter of them, in both groups, reported using a condom every time they had sex. More than a third of both groups had two or more partners.

"There's not a lot of good news here for people who pin their hopes on abstinence-only education," said Sarah Brown, executive director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, a privately funded organization that monitors sex education programs. "This is the first study with a solid, experimental design, the first with adequate numbers and long-term follow-up, the first to measure behavior and not just intent. On every measure, the effectiveness of the programs was flat."


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 20, 2009)

So abstinence only is just as effective as education only.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 20, 2009)

editec said:


> To be perfectly honest I think sex ed is a huge waste of everyone's time.
> 
> It should be taught the old fashioned way all morality issues are taught to Americans
> 
> ...



But the ussual suspects here still would not get it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 20, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> So abstinence only is just as effective as education only.



Well, just as effective in preventing them from expermenting with sex. The ones that have the knowledge to protect themselves from the results of early and indiscriminant sex will suffer less for their foolishness. 

Of course, I realize that you would rather see them get STDs, pregnant, or both for their sins.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 20, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dis said:
> 
> 
> > Back when I was in school, the very basics were taught, and that's it.  There was no "If you're going to do this, then you should do that."  It was more "This is what happens when two people do this."
> ...



You do understand that the current results include the current educational systems of sex ed, don't you?
I made the point earlier, and I'll make it again-----
Parents are failing to parent, because they believe the school is teaching sex ed, and that is where the problem lies.


----------



## Arawyn (Jul 20, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dis said:
> ...




No kidding. I can't recall the number of irresponsible parents I've met that let the boy/girlfriend spend the night......and expect nothing to happen. 

Not to mention, letting their children date extremely early. Because it's easier to be their friend than their parent.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 20, 2009)

Bingo.
You teach your kids all about sex, you let the schools tell them any sex is A-ok, you tell them the consequences can be dealt with, and you live a promiscuous life in front of them, focusing on your own gratification.

A recipe for teen pregnancy and STDs.


----------



## Caligirl (Jul 21, 2009)

New question.

What do you all think about STD ed? Just the facts, like that condoms reduce transmission of most all STDs by close to 100%.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 21, 2009)

Caligirl said:


> New question.
> 
> What do you all think about STD ed? Just the facts, like that condoms reduce transmission of most all STDs by close to 100%.



First, that is sex ed, at least that's what it was when I was in school. Secondly, it's more like 80% ... there are some STDs that condoms do not protect against now because they only protect the mucus membranes, and some STDs can be transmitted by any form of touch.


----------



## Caligirl (Jul 21, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Caligirl said:
> 
> 
> > New question.
> ...



Which all seems like a good thing to include in education, TY for it. 

Some studies report >95% effectiveness in preventing STD transmission, others report less, and they all talk about difficulties in methodology. Some STDs are very small and can pass through natural condoms but not latex. All good stuff for education. I don't care if the "morality" is left to parents, but it seems like a public health hazard to not educate young people about ways to reduce disease transmission. Heck, handwashing is instilled in the kids when they are 3. Lice outbreaks involves an entire classroom check and notes home to the parents. Swine flu threat shuts down entire schools.  But STDs? Well, that's between the kids and their parents, and no one else's business! 

!!


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 21, 2009)

Caligirl said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Caligirl said:
> ...



Exactly my stance. Good health practices are important and from what I know, that's all sex ed is. Those who rant and rave about how it's "teaching sex to kids" are really full of shit, they are trying to find excuses for their own lousy parenting really. Kids who know nothing about sexual health are more likely to get pregnant or get an STD in their teen years, so silence or just saying "don't do it" is not an option, but show them the possible drawbacks, diseases primarily, that will stop them more than anything.


----------



## The Illusion (Jul 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Caligirl said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



I posted a topic once on another forum regarding "Teaching masturbation in schools" as some schools in the north are using this technique.  What do you think about that?

Jamie


----------



## manu1959 (Jul 22, 2009)

What do you think about sex ed? 

i like the lab work with my partner.....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 2, 2009)

probus said:


> sorry, but i think home schooling is the absolute worst thing u can do for ur kid-- most kids need the discipline of a school based environment and unless u'r home all the time u just can't make sure the kid keeps up with what he/she has to learn-- quote me stats. all u want but later in life when that child has to interact with others they won't have the foundation of socialization with their peers-- i think it stunts their development honestly-- to think that abstinence works is tough to believe as well-- young budding kids are "hard pressed to keep it in their pants" so to speak-- parents should start very early making sure that kids are not ashamed of their bodies and make sure they know how to respect one another-- i also don't see a lot wrong with making a child wait until say 17 or so to "date"-- it's when they have no guidence and discipline that they stray-- keep them away from all the biblical crap if u can as that will just make them want to rebel against those fairy tales when they are able-- nothing wrong with instilling a healthy fear of STD's either-- it still boggles my mind to hear of ANY unwanted pregnancies anymore in this nation-- there is simply no excuse for it other than a poor upbringing-- just my two cents-- Regards, probus



Excuse me, but was this post supposed to convince people what a great idea public school is, or what a terrible idea it is?  I ask, because if I didn't already homeschool, your English skills would have convinced me to.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 2, 2009)

Fatality said:


> Dis said:
> 
> 
> > PixieStix said:
> ...



Many programs also teach them about practices I would likely get banned for naming.  It's always amused me that the same things that are considered unacceptable obscenity among adults is considered acceptable school curriculum for children.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 2, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > I thought this was going to be a really fun thread...  Then I saw that last word, "ed".  Darn it.  Well, seeing as how you asked.  I'm a bit old fashioned when it comes to sex ed.  Both of my kids are grown and left the nest long ago and are parents on their own.  I would not have wanted some school teacher giving them the low down on sex.  Sex ed, if the parents are responsible like they should be, is something that should be taught in the home.  I think it should be a private matter so the morals and ethics that go along with sex could be taught by the parents along their own religious guidelines (if that would apply) or according to the values the parents want the kids to learn.  This is just my opinion, but the school system has no business teaching kids this stuff.
> ...



Do you honestly think that kids are getting pregnant and contracting STDs because they're ignorant about sex and contraceptives?  Well, it's you, so you probably do.

My daughter is nineteen going on twenty.  I've known most of the kids she hangs around with junior high, and I listen to them talk.  They're less technically aware of the mechanics of human anatomy than my daughter - one assumes because unlike her, they didn't have parents formally educated in the subject - but they know more than enough about how to avoid getting pregnant or catching diseases.  A common, and alarming, theme I hear from them is that they "just don't want to be bothered with that".  Condoms are "yucky", the Pill is "a pain to remember", they "don't like getting shots", etc.  Besides, having babies is no big deal.  Lots of their friends have them, and you just get welfare and bug the guy for child support, right?

Teenagers aren't victims of a lack of info.  They're victims of their own hormone- and youth-driven ignorance and a society that has given up on trying to protect them from it.  
Which is not to say that I think it's wrong to teach them the basics of how their bodies work.  I just think it's wrong to believe that pure data will be enough to get them to make mature, responsible decisions on their own.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 2, 2009)

joeyc said:


> They'll start with talking about the joys of fisting and the right lube to use during anal sex.



Some classes already do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 2, 2009)

Caligirl said:


> New question.
> 
> What do you all think about STD ed? Just the facts, like that condoms reduce transmission of most all STDs by close to 100%.



You really think that?  Then YOU need some STD-ed.  Condoms are only about 85% effective, and that's not even counting those STDs that can be transmitted by the genital areas that aren't covered by condoms in the first place, like syphilis and HPV.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 2, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Caligirl said:
> 
> 
> > New question.
> ...


and condoms arent really that effective for birth control
when you remember that women are only fertile for about 5 days a month
how many times did the condom fail but she still didnt get PG because it wasnt at her fertile time?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 2, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Fatality said:
> 
> 
> > Dis said:
> ...



Alright, I'll bight, name one school that does these. Just one, even one that teaches about actual gay sex and not just telling them that gay people exist.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 2, 2009)

> What do you think about sex ed?



The more on hand training I get, the better.

Any other questions?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 2, 2009)

The Illusion said:


> I posted a topic once on another forum regarding "Teaching masturbation in schools" as some schools in the north are using this technique.  What do you think about that?
> 
> Jamie



I'm thinking that if someone can't figure out how to do that for themselves, then they really do need some training and education in that area.


----------



## bugs (Aug 2, 2009)

i am a good teacher..


----------



## chanel (Aug 2, 2009)

In the state of NJ schools have been mandated to teach AIDs ed. substance abuse. black history.. Holocaust ed Constitution Day. fine arts, foreign language, etc Next year we will have to include financial literacy and "sexting" in our curriculum. All of it is important. But if Johnny can't read, tough shit. As long as he knows how to use a condom and can correctly identify a ballet position, the nirmrods in Trenton can justify Johnnys 250,000 educational costs. And their own salaries.

We will soon be offering universal pre-school. Parents will no longer be required to teach toileting skills.it "takes a Village" idiocy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Fatality said:
> ...



Sorry.  I intended to answer this days ago, and then I got busy and totally forgot.  Better late than never, I hope.

Provincetown, Massachusetts.


----------



## Yukon (Aug 7, 2009)

Is abortion part of the sex education program in the USA or is it still taboo?


----------



## renoite (Aug 7, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Is abortion part of the sex education program in the USA or is it still taboo?



when I had sex ed they didnt teach about abortion just on std and periods for young girls and changes in your body. things like that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

renoite said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Is abortion part of the sex education program in the USA or is it still taboo?
> ...



I can't imagine what knowledge, information, and hard fact one could offer about abortion that would make people MORE inclined to get them.  The abortion industry, and the abortion lobby in politics, rather counts on people's ignorance to further their aims.  So no, of course schools aren't going to explore that subject in any kind of depth.


----------



## chanel (Aug 7, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Is abortion part of the sex education program in the USA or is it still taboo?



Different states have different curriculums. NJ teaches a compprehenive program that includes just about everything. But just like any other subject, there isn't enough time to teach every chapter. Most teachers in my school pick and choose what they feel is most important (and prob what they feel comfortable with) Our health textbook has a supplemental workbook on Aids with graphic diagrams of anal and oral sex. No one uses it.

Abortion is presented in the book as an option but I imagine some teachers might skip that for religious reasons.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> renoite said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...



Planned Parenthood doesn't care about making abortion appealing.  They only care about convincing young ladies that an abortion is their right and anyone that would interfere with that right hates women.  

Immie


----------



## renoite (Aug 7, 2009)

I dont think abortion is right never said that but the ?? was asked does sex ed teach that and for the 3 years I took it in school they didnt


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > renoite said:
> ...



Um, that IS trying to make it appealing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

renoite said:


> I dont think abortion is right never said that but the ?? was asked does sex ed teach that and for the 3 years I took it in school they didnt



And I said that sex ed classes don't teach about abortion because offering any actual information and facts about it would make it less appealing.  Public schools are run by leftists, the same people who militantly promote abortion.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I guess maybe if you consider that appealing.

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



If you're a dumb kid who's running scared because she just found out that her boyfriend knocked her up?  Yeah, it's appealing to think that you can just make it all go away, and tell yourself that you're being a "mature woman" who's just "exercising her rights", instead of doing the equivalent of hiding your head under the blankets.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Though I am against abortion for that purpose, I will ask this:

How do you propose we avoid that situation altogether?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I wasn't aware that I was making any proposals or trying to avoid any situations.  I simply stated a fact.  The rhetoric used by Planned Parenthood and their ilk concerning "rights" and the "hate-filled right" serves no other purpose than to try to make abortion appear more appealing.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Oddly, I don't like Planned Parenthood for a completely opposite reason. I asked out of curiosity more than making a point though, there is a chance I will have a related point to make after hearing the answer but I am not seeking it. The thing is, that abortion is actually a minor technique that PP offers information on, it's just one of many "options" they offer information on really.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Okay, I'll give you that.  I was thinking more of the 5th grade girl being convinced that abortion is her right and no one has the right to take it away from her.

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Planting seeds for later on when that 5th grader is in high school (or middle school, these days) and gets knocked up.


----------



## Yukon (Aug 7, 2009)

I can only assume that there is a least one female posting on this site who can think for herself? Surely one of you wants to control your own reproductive system?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

Yukon said:


> I can only assume that there is a least one female posting on this site who can think for herself? Surely one of you wants to control your own reproductive system?



WTF? Are you going against your own church now?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Planting seeds for later on when that 5th grader is in high school (or middle school, these days) and gets knocked up.



I guess maybe it is just impossible for me to imagine the idea of abortion to be appealing by any stretch of the imagination.  Just a slight hangup I seem to have.

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Planting seeds for later on when that 5th grader is in high school (or middle school, these days) and gets knocked up.
> ...



I'm betting that owes a lot to you being educated and informed about what's actually involved.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Probably so, but I'd rather be in the dark on that one.

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 7, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I hear you.  Man's barbaric inhumanity to man isn't exactly an image one likes carrying in one's head.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 7, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Caligirl said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious for your honest feedback.
> ...



Sure, is that why the rate among Evangelicals is so much higher than for the general population? In fact, the only group with a higher unwed pregnancy rate than white evangelicals, is black evangelicals.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Sure, is that why the rate among Evangelicals is so much higher than for the general population? In fact, the only group with a higher unwed pregnancy rate than white evangelicals, is black evangelicals.



Link? please.

Immie


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 7, 2009)

A handful of social scientists and family-law scholars have recently begun looking closely at this split. Last year, Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, published a startling book called &#8220;Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers,&#8221; and he is working on a follow-up that includes a section titled &#8220;Red Sex, Blue Sex.&#8221; His findings are drawn from a national survey that Regnerus and his colleagues conducted of some thirty-four hundred thirteen-to-seventeen-year-olds, and from a comprehensive government study of adolescent health known as Add Health. Regnerus argues that religion is a good indicator of attitudes toward sex, but a poor one of sexual behavior, and that this gap is especially wide among teen-agers who identify themselves as evangelical. The vast majority of white evangelical adolescents&#8212;seventy-four per cent&#8212;say that they believe in abstaining from sex before marriage. (Only half of mainline Protestants, and a quarter of Jews, say that they believe in abstinence.) Moreover, among the major religious groups, evangelical virgins are the least likely to anticipate that sex will be pleasurable, and the most likely to believe that having sex will cause their partners to lose respect for them. (Jews most often cite pleasure as a reason to have sex, and say that an unplanned pregnancy would be an embarrassment.) But, according to Add Health data, evangelical teen-agers are more sexually active than Mormons, mainline Protestants, and Jews. On average, white evangelical Protestants make their &#8220;sexual début&#8221;&#8212;to use the festive term of social-science researchers&#8212;shortly after turning sixteen. Among major religious groups, only black Protestants begin having sex earlier.

Dept. of Disputation: Red Sex, Blue Sex : The New Yorker


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 7, 2009)

Among blue-state social liberals, commitment to the institution of marriage tends to be unspoken or discreet, but marriage in practice typically works pretty well. Two family-law scholars, Naomi Cahn, of George Washington University, and June Carbone, of the University of Missouri at Kansas City, are writing a book on the subject, and they argue that &#8220;red families&#8221; and &#8220;blue families&#8221; are &#8220;living different lives, with different moral imperatives.&#8221; (They emphasize that the Republican-Democrat divide is less important than the higher concentration of &#8220;moral-values voters&#8221; in red states.) In 2004, the states with the highest divorce rates were Nevada, Arkansas, Wyoming, Idaho, and West Virginia (all red states in the 2004 election); those with the lowest were Illinois, Massachusetts, Iowa, Minnesota, and New Jersey. The highest teen-pregnancy rates were in Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas (all red); the lowest were in North Dakota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine (blue except for North Dakota). &#8220;The &#8216;blue states&#8217; of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic have lower teen birthrates, higher use of abortion, and lower percentages of teen births within marriage,&#8221; Cahn and Carbone observe. They also note that people start families earlier in red states&#8212;in part because they are more inclined to deal with an unplanned pregnancy by marrying rather than by seeking an abortion.

Of all variables, the age at marriage may be the pivotal difference between red and blue families. The five states with the lowest median age at marriage are Utah, Oklahoma, Idaho, Arkansas, and Kentucky, all red states, while those with the highest are all blue: Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey. The red-state model puts couples at greater risk for divorce; women who marry before their mid-twenties are significantly more likely to divorce than those who marry later. And younger couples are more likely to be contending with two of the biggest stressors on a marriage: financial struggles and the birth of a baby before, or soon after, the wedding.

LiveLeak.com - Why do so many evangelical teen-agers become pregnant?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> A handful of social scientists and family-law scholars have recently begun looking closely at this split. Last year, Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, published a startling book called &#8220;Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers,&#8221; and he is working on a follow-up that includes a section titled &#8220;Red Sex, Blue Sex.&#8221;
> 
> Dept. of Disputation: Red Sex, Blue Sex : The New Yorker



First, thank you for the link.  I would rather read what I know you are reading than searching and finding who knows how many differing sets of statistics.

Second, I did not see anything that supports your statement that says the rate of evangelical unwed pregnancies is higher than that of the general population.  It did say evangelicals are active earlier (note this) than other religious groups.  It said nothing about general population.

Third, the term evangelical means different things to different people.  For instance, I am a Lutheran.  I consider Lutheran to be mainline protestant.  Then again there are people who do not go to any church at all who consider themselves Christian and when asked what faith they are will say Christian many of those will say evangelical christian.  The same goes for the term, "born again".  Many people who have never even entered a church will say they are born again Christians and they don't even know what the term born again applies to edit: but it sounds good to them.

Fourth, would all those people who don't go to church regularly or at all who claim Christianity as their faith and believe me there are millions of them in this country alone be lumped into the category of "evangelical christian"?

I don't know the answer to that.  Just wondering how Mr. Regnerus categorized his sample.  Nor am I saying you are wrong based on my questions.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2009)

Something interesting from your second link and again, thank you for providing it.


> Religious belief apparently does make a potent difference in behavior for one group of evangelical teen-agers: those who score highest on measures of religiositysuch as how often they go to church, or how often they pray at home. *But many Americans who identify themselves as evangelicals, and who hold socially conservative beliefs, arent deeply observant.*
> 
> Even more important than religious conviction, Regnerus argues, is how embedded a teen-ager is in a network of friends, family, and institutions that reinforce his or her goal of delaying sex, and that offer a plausible alternative to Americas sexed-up consumer culture. A church, of course, isnt the only way to provide a cohesive sense of community. Close-knit families make a difference. Teen-agers who live with both biological parents are more likely to be virgins than those who do not. And adolescents who say that their families understand them, pay attention to their concerns, and have fun with them are more likely to delay intercourse, regardless of religiosity.



Immie


----------



## Anguille (Aug 7, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Planting seeds for later on when that 5th grader is in high school (or middle school, these days) and gets knocked up.
> ...



Since you'll never be in a position to need one, you have the luxury of not ever having to find the idea of abortion appealing.
Your hang up is that you are a man.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Thank God for small favors!!!!!!  

Hey! I have two daughters to worry about as well and as a loving and caring dad, well, they're still not appealing.

Immie


----------



## Anguille (Aug 7, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Sure, is that why the rate among Evangelicals is so much higher than for the general population? In fact, the only group with a higher unwed pregnancy rate than white evangelicals, is* black evangelicals*.


Actually it's black Protestants in general, not just evangelicals.


----------



## Anguille (Aug 7, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Second, I did not see anything that supports your statement that says the rate of evangelical unwed pregnancies is higher than that of the general population.  It did say evangelicals are active earlier (note this) than other religious groups.  It said nothing about general population.
> 
> 
> Immie


 
I read that article several months ago and will have to reread it because my memory tells me it *did* state that pregnancies rates *are* higher among evangelicals. But I could be wrong.

However, if evangelicals are active earlier and many evangelicals believe in abstinence only sex ed then wouldn't it be logical to expect they would have a higher rate of pregnancy as a result? And if the pregnancy rate is not higher, what is happening to keep it at the same rate or lower?


----------



## Anguille (Aug 7, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> A handful of social scientists and family-law scholars have recently begun looking closely at this split. Last year, Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, published a startling book called Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers, and he is working on a follow-up that includes a section titled Red Sex, Blue Sex. His findings are drawn from a national survey that Regnerus and his colleagues conducted of some thirty-four hundred thirteen-to-seventeen-year-olds, and from a comprehensive government study of adolescent health known as Add Health. Regnerus argues that religion is a good indicator of attitudes toward sex, but a poor one of sexual behavior, and that this gap is especially wide among teen-agers who identify themselves as evangelical. *The vast majority of white evangelical adolescentsseventy-four per centsay that they believe in abstaining from sex before marriage. (Only half of mainline Protestants, and a quarter of Jews, *say that they believe in abstinence.) Moreover, among the major religious groups, evangelical virgins are the least likely to anticipate that sex will be pleasurable, and the most likely to believe that having sex will cause their partners to lose respect for them. (Jews most often cite pleasure as a reason to have sex, and say that an unplanned pregnancy would be an embarrassment.) But, according to Add Health data, evangelical teen-agers are more sexually active than Mormons, mainline Protestants, and Jews. On average, white evangelical Protestants make their sexual débutto use the festive term of social-science researchersshortly after turning sixteen. Among major religious groups, only black Protestants begin having sex earlier.
> 
> Dept. of Disputation: Red Sex, Blue Sex : The New Yorker


 
It's odd that the stats are separated between mainline Protestants and white evangelicals yet the stas for Jews are lumped all together.


----------



## Anguille (Aug 7, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Your daughters are not appealing? Hard to believe. I bet they are very attractive.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2009)

Anguille said:


> I read that article several months ago and will have to reread it because my memory tells me it *did* state that pregnancies rates *are* higher among evangelicals. But I could be wrong.
> 
> However, if evangelicals are active earlier and many evangelicals believe in abstinence only sex ed then wouldn't it be logical to expect they would have a higher rate of pregnancy as a result? And if the pregnancy rate is not higher, what is happening to keep it at the same rate or lower?



Truthfully, I don't know anyone who believes in abstinence only sex ed.  I'm not so certain is it not a lie of the left.

I believe in abstinence which will work if used, but abstinence only sex ed is a fallacy.  Probably named by PP in order to ridicule their opposition.

Also, as I said, evangelicals is a broad term adopted by many people who are not even religious.  Lumping them in there would bring about a false finding in the survey.

Immie


----------



## Paulie (Aug 7, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Second, I did not see anything that supports your statement that says the rate of evangelical unwed pregnancies is higher than that of the general population.  It did say evangelicals are active earlier (note this) than other religious groups.  It said nothing about general population.
> ...



A lot of evangelicals don't believe in birth control of any form.  The sex is natural, and any children that result...so be it.

This is especially true in mormons.  Many mormon familes have several children.

There was a show on TLC or some similar channel that was about a mormon family that had like 5 kids, all of which had autism of one degree or another.  The ages were varied, from one all the way up to 14.  So this means that by the time they had the second child, it was confirmed that there was a problem with autism, but yet they continued on for YEARS still having unprotected sex, resulting in 3 more autistic children.

To me, willingly continuing to bring children into the world that are all but guaranteed to have a serious disorder like autism is about as irresponsible as it gets.  At what point do your morals about birth control cross the line?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



One, "they're" referred to abortions, but then you knew that.

Two, my daughters are only attractive because they resemble their mother much more than they do me.

Immie


----------



## Anguille (Aug 7, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > I read that article several months ago and will have to reread it because my memory tells me it *did* state that pregnancies rates *are* higher among evangelicals. But I could be wrong.
> ...



I don't know anyone in real life who believes in abstinence only sex ed but there was a guy on my other message board who argued a week straight in favor of it. 
I think AlliBaba is in favor of it, if she is in favor of sex education at all. 
There are people in certain school districts who are very vocal about wanting abstinence only sex ed. It's not something Planned Parenthood made up.


----------



## Anguille (Aug 7, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Also, as I said, evangelicals is a broad term adopted by many people who are not even religious.  Lumping them in there would bring about a false finding in the survey.



Why would a non religious person think of himself as an evangelical? That doesn't make sense.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 7, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



brownie points with the wife on that one


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Also, as I said, evangelicals is a broad term adopted by many people who are not even religious.  Lumping them in there would bring about a false finding in the survey.
> ...



Most of this country, last I heard something like 86% consider themselves Christian.  I have not seen any stats on this but when asked if they are evangelical Christians, which really means Christians who believe in spreading the word of God and has nothing to do with the right wing zealots who claim the title that no one pays attention to, most will say yes they are or they will say they are born again Christians which typically gets translated to evangelical.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Personally, I believe in abstinence first sex ed.  I think we should teach our children that abstinence is the only certain way to avoid pregnancy and STDs.  However, I also think that kids need to know the basics about their bodies, what they are going to go through, pregnancy prevention, safe sex etc.  

If I'm not mistaken, I think Alliebaba is pretty close to that as well, but I would rather not speak for her.

I know of lots of people on these boards who say much the same thing as I do, who are ridiculed and accused of preaching abstinence only sex ed.  

And by the way, abstinence IS the only way to guarantee no pregnancy and that should be taught.

Immie


----------



## Anguille (Aug 7, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> And by the way, abstinence IS the only way to guarantee no pregnancy and that should be taught.
> 
> Immie



It didn't work so well for the Virgin Mary.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 7, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > And by the way, abstinence IS the only way to guarantee no pregnancy and that should be taught.
> ...


special case


----------



## Anguille (Aug 7, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Truthfully, I don't know anyone who believes in abstinence only sex ed.  I'm not so certain is it not a lie of the left.


Virginity pledge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Virginity pledges* (or *abstinence pledges*) are commitments made by teenagers and young adults to refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage. They are most common in the United States, especially among Evangelical denominations.
*Contents*

  [hide]


1 History
2 Examples of pledges
3 Studies of virginity pledges
4 References and further reading
5 See also
 
*[edit] History*

 The first virginity pledge program was True Love Waits, started in 1993 by the Southern Baptist Convention,[1] which now claims over 2.5 million pledgers worldwide in dozens of countries.[2] A torrent of virginity pledge programs followed.
 A later, prominent virginity pledge program was the Silver Ring Thing (SRT), which was the subject of a lawsuit by the ACLU in 2005.[3] SRT presented a two-part program, the first part about abstinence; the second about Born again Christianity. The ACLU claimed that federal funding given to this program (see Abstinence-only sex education for background) violated the separation of Church and State. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services settled the lawsuit by suspending SRT's federal grant until it submitted a "corrective action plan." In 2006, SRT decided not to seek further federal funding so it could continue its message.
Virginity pledge programs take a variety of stances on the role of religion in the pledge: some use religion to motivate the pledge, putting Biblical quotes on the cards, while others use statistics and arguments to motivate the pledge. Advocacy of virginity pledges is often coupled with support for abstinence-only sex education in public schools. Advocates argue that any other type of sexual education would promote sex outside of marriage, which they hold to be immoral and risky.


----------



## Anguille (Aug 7, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Truthfully, I don't know anyone who believes in abstinence only sex ed.  I'm not so certain is it not a lie of the left.


_Someone_ seems to want it.

"Abstinence-only sex education became more prominent in the U.S. over the last decade, largely as a result of over $1 billion in federal government funding initiatives. "

Abstinence-only sex education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

Abstinence as the best method, yes, that should be taught, but how many kids do you know do what they say they do? I never did, none of my friends ever did, hell, my mother admitted she never did either.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 7, 2009)

You know, if just one teenage couple were to spontaneously combust while having sex, never again would teenagers have sex. Hell, it wouldn't even have to be both, just one half of the pairing. Once word of that hit the Internet, it would all end.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

hjmick said:


> You know, if just one teenage couple were to spontaneously combust while having sex, never again would teenagers have sex. Hell, it wouldn't even have to be both, just one half of the pairing. Once word of that hit the Internet, it would all end.



Doubt it, with all the scary myths of sexual activity that still exist they still do it. They are incapable of thinking straight at that age, we all were there, the mind is just too chaotic at that stage of development.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 7, 2009)

Here is the thing........Expecting teens to remain abstinent is not reasonable so we had better teach them the best ways to stop unwanted pregs and STDs. Now if it is taught that abstinence is the ONLY 100% way to avoid pregs and STDs then I am o.k. with that.


----------



## Arawyn (Aug 7, 2009)

Paulie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



By the tone I detect in your post.....only the healthy, mentally and physically, are worth bearing? .....

Yeah eugenics.....

The most beautiful people, spiritually, I have seen born on this planet are less than the world's view of perfection.....and the most evil and corrupt come from what this world deems to be perfect.


----------



## random3434 (Aug 7, 2009)

Arawyn said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



Thank you.

God's Perfection: The Story of a Special Needs Child


----------



## Arawyn (Aug 7, 2009)

Echo Zulu said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



No, thank you...

I've learned more from special needs people than I ever have from those who have perfect lives. And while I learned a lot from the family of the special needs child, I learned so much more from the child. I'm terrible at integrating my actual thoughts into words....and can only say, I am humbled by those best amongst us beyond expression.


----------



## random3434 (Aug 7, 2009)

Arawyn said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > Arawyn said:
> ...



Autism has many spectrums. I just can't imagine a world where every child is "perfect", can you? All children have value,and I bet all the parents of special needs kids think so too.

Here are some people who have autism by the way:


Famous People with Autism - LoveToKnow Autism


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 7, 2009)

I taught a class of DD children a long time ago (I know, I already mentioned that) but after having been around them, I haven't felt sorry for them, I envy them, even to this day I envy them.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Here is the thing........Expecting teens to remain abstinent is not reasonable so we had better teach them the best ways to stop unwanted pregs and STDs. Now if it is taught that abstinence is the ONLY 100% way to avoid pregs and STDs then I am o.k. with that.


i just want them to teach the truth
like the best way to avoid pregnancy is to abstain, but if you cant do that, here are some things that can help you avoid it
because abstaining is the only 100% effect birth control method
then just hit them with the truth


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 8, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the thing........Expecting teens to remain abstinent is not reasonable so we had better teach them the best ways to stop unwanted pregs and STDs. Now if it is taught that abstinence is the ONLY 100% way to avoid pregs and STDs then I am o.k. with that.
> ...



Yep, that's why I say, to enforce the best choice show what the diseases do to, not just how to avoid them. It's the lack of fear that is missing these days.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 8, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Then I guess my hang-up is being too educated and responsible, because I have never found them appealing, either.


----------



## Paulie (Aug 8, 2009)

Arawyn said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...


You obviously missed the point, AND my tone.

I wasn't referring to abortion, what I was saying is why would you continually conceive more children when it has been confirmed that you are guaranteed to have autistic children?

No one really knows what an autistic child goes through themselves, but from the looks of it it's pretty awful.  I can't imagine why you would willingly bring someone into the world when you know they're going to be autistic.  After the second one, I would think they would have put a lid on that and left well enough alone.

My post had nothing to do with eugenics.  I would never advocate taking anyone's life because of how they were born.  I would, however, suggest not having anymore children if it's apparent that they're all going to have disorders like that.  To me, that's a horrible thing to do to a person.  Autistic children go through hell trying to live their lives.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 8, 2009)

Here is the thing........Expecting teens to remain abstinent is not reasonable so we had better teach them the best ways to stop unwanted pregs and STDs. Now if it is taught that abstinence is the ONLY 100% way to avoid pregs and STDs then I am o.k. with that.


----------



## Anguille (Aug 8, 2009)

Paulie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Anyone who bring 5 kids in to this world, autistic or not, is being very selfish.


----------



## Anguille (Aug 8, 2009)

Paulie said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


The second child of two friends of mine has cystic fibrosis. After he was diagnosed they discovered that they both carry the gene for it and that any future children would have a 50% chance of having CF too. They did decide to go ahead and have anther child who thankfully does not have CF. I would not have taken the chance. I would have adopted if having a third child meant that much to me. However their youngest is one of my most favorite kids in the world, so I am glad they had him.


----------



## random3434 (Aug 8, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I'll let my dear old mom know that, since I'm the sixth kid she had!


----------



## Anguille (Aug 8, 2009)

Echo Zulu said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


My mother had 5. I told her she was excused because back then nobody worried about over population. Your mother is too.


----------



## random3434 (Aug 8, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



*Shew! *


----------



## Dreamy (Aug 8, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Here is the thing........Expecting teens to remain abstinent is not reasonable so we had better teach them the best ways to stop unwanted pregs and STDs. Now if it is taught that abstinence is the ONLY 100% way to avoid pregs and STDs then I am o.k. with that.



I don't expect anything from any human being. I do however expect the government to stay out of certain matters that are none of their business and that they are ill equipped to deal with as much as they are health care. 

This is not the 1950's. Do you really think todays' teens have no clue about how babies are made or how sexual activity carries risks?

This generation and several before have had more information come at them from schools,media,electronic devices and friends and family.

Let schools get the reading and writing scores improved first please.


----------



## Paulie (Aug 8, 2009)

Anguille said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Arawyn said:
> ...



Well Arawyn apparently thinks your belief is inline with eugenicism.  Not wanting to continue to conceive children that have an overwhelming chance of having a serious disorder must be eugenics 

In your friends' case, it was 50%.  In this show, where all 5 children over a span of 14 years ended up autistic, I'd say the percentage was MUCH higher.  Obviously it was 100% for the first 5.  Whether or not it would have ALWAYS remained 100% is still in question, of course, but why keep tempting fate at that point?

Autism is such a horrible disorder.  I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, LET ALONE a potential child of mine.  At that point, I think I'd feel ok weighing the differences between using birth control, or just staying abstinent.  An all-loving God would most likely approve of EITHER decision.


----------



## goldcatt (Aug 8, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Here is the thing........Expecting teens to remain abstinent is not reasonable so we had better teach them the best ways to stop unwanted pregs and STDs. Now if it is taught that abstinence is the ONLY 100% way to avoid pregs and STDs then I am o.k. with that.



Couldn't agree more. Abstinence is best, but if that doesn't happen for whatever reason knowledge is second best. Arm them with both.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 8, 2009)

goldcatt said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the thing........Expecting teens to remain abstinent is not reasonable so we had better teach them the best ways to stop unwanted pregs and STDs. Now if it is taught that abstinence is the ONLY 100% way to avoid pregs and STDs then I am o.k. with that.
> ...


while there are some fringe groups that would prefer to only teach one or the toher, i agree, teach the truth and let it fall as it may


----------



## Paulie (Aug 8, 2009)

The only problem I have with sex-ed in school is that it should be taught by parents.  Why do we need the schools to teach our kids something like that, when as parents we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves?  We as parents already know about sex, hence having the children that we have.  So we're well capable of passing on the knowledge.  

The majority of kids learn sex through their peers anyway, whether there's sex-ed or not.

Parents are typically reluctant to want to talk about that subject with their children, and are all too willing to concede the responsibility to schools if it means one less difficult parental responsibility to have to handle.

To me, it's no different than the parents who forgoe putting in the work to teach their children how to read because they'll just be learning it once they start kindergarten anyway.  

Why even HAVE kids if you don't want to teach them as much as possible?


----------



## goldcatt (Aug 8, 2009)

Maybe sex ed should be taught by parents, no make that definitely it should be, but there are too many cases where it's not. And guess who ends up paying? The children and their child, yes. But also the rest of us. When it becomes a public issue, IMO the public has the right to take steps to try to prevent it.


----------



## Paulie (Aug 8, 2009)

I have a hard time understanding how it's a public issue.  Your kid's sex life is no one else's business, other than perhaps the _parents_ of whatever child your kid is sexually involving themself with.  All a parent can do is make sure their child is best educated to deal with the potential situation of another child trying to impose sexual influence over them.

At what point does it ever become a public issue?  You're responsible for your child.  Why do we cop out because SOME parents just don't live up to their responsibilities?

Everytime we conjure up some kind of public standard on otherwise private matters such as this, we enable even more parents to skip out on their responsibilities.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 8, 2009)

Well, since the evangelicals are the ones that are yelling the loudest about sex education in the schools, but have the highest incidence of teen pregnancy, perhaps your idea just isn't working. Not only that, since this happens to be among the lowest earners in the population, all too much of the public money goes to supporting the children born to them out of wedlock.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 8, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Abstinence as the best method, yes, that should be taught, but how many kids do you know do what they say they do? I never did, none of my friends ever did, hell, my mother admitted she never did either.



LOL. No generation has done so for about 200,000 years.


----------



## Paulie (Aug 8, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, since the evangelicals are the ones that are yelling the loudest about sex education in the schools, but have the highest incidence of teen pregnancy, perhaps your idea just isn't working. Not only that, since this happens to be among the lowest earners in the population, all too much of the public money goes to supporting the children born to them out of wedlock.



Merely invoking the fear of god into your children in your attempts to maintain responsible control over their sexual behavior is not exactly what I would consider "education".

That type of control results in rebellious behavior.  God isn't the answer to EVERYTHING.  In this case, all that should be necessary is sitting them down and teaching them what YOU know.  

My experiences with sex-ed in school consisted mostly of a bunch of stupid ass giggling during lectures, with the end result being that no one really listened to what was said anyway.

That is an intimate moment that should be shared between parent and child, where a trust is established and an understanding is come to between both parties.

The school is more often than not ill-equipped to handle that kind of subject when it involves 20 or 30 adolescent, hormone raging high school kids.  It's too generic of an atmosphere to have any kind of real impact.

If you can't even confront your own kids about sex, you had no business having any in the first place.


----------



## goldcatt (Aug 8, 2009)

> At what point does it ever become a public issue? You're responsible for your child. Why do we cop out because SOME parents just don't live up to their responsibilities?


Because guess who ends up paying for those kids and their kids? We, the Public. Which gives us an interest in trying to avoid it.


----------



## Paulie (Aug 8, 2009)

goldcatt said:


> > At what point does it ever become a public issue? You're responsible for your child. Why do we cop out because SOME parents just don't live up to their responsibilities?
> 
> 
> Because guess who ends up paying for those kids and their kids? We, the Public. Which gives us an interest in trying to avoid it.



I disagree, because the root of the problem is not the irresponsible sexual behavior.  The root of the problem is subsidizing it via our tax dollars in the first place.

Chicken/egg.  Stop rewarding that behavior with tax dollars, and then deal with reconstructing the social structure in the country to where parents ultimately end up being forced back into PARENTING again.

Remember when parents used to do that?  These days, you can't even smack your kid on the hand without someone screaming "abuse!".  And with some parents, it's like god forbid I say something that hurts them emotionally, I might scar them for life.  

Discipline, along with positive encouragement, and compassion and earned trust from both sides, works wonders.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 8, 2009)

Echo Zulu said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



My best friend has Asperger's, and is an absolute delight and treasure to everyone who knows him.  I'm offended and disgusted by anyone so self-righteous and arrogant that they can actually suggest that it is somehow more "selfish" or "irresponsible" to have a handicapped child than to have one who isn't, or that ANY child's birth could fall under the heading of "immoral".

You want to breed humans like pedigreed dogs, Dr. Mengele, you go right ahead.  But if you're looking to create the perfect race, I wouldn't suggest starting with YOUR genetic output.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 8, 2009)

Paulie said:


> The only problem I have with sex-ed in school is that it should be taught by parents.  Why do we need the schools to teach our kids something like that, when as parents we are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves?  We as parents already know about sex, hence having the children that we have.  So we're well capable of passing on the knowledge.
> 
> The majority of kids learn sex through their peers anyway, whether there's sex-ed or not.
> 
> ...



Well, in all honesty, a shocking number of parents are as utterly unequipped, information-wise, to teach about the human reproductive system as they are to teach about physics and calculus.  My God, just read an abortion thread on this board sometime, and see how many allegedly educated adults right here don't know the basics of human biology.  I once knew a guy who actually believed that a woman's system worked like a man's, ie. that eggs were produced for fertilization when she had an orgasm, the way sperm is, and that if she didn't have an orgasm, she couldn't get pregnant.

So I can see why basic anatomy and health need to be taught in school.  They really are academic topics.  It's when you start teaching morality and value judgements that it all goes manky.


----------



## Arawyn (Aug 18, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...





Exactly my opinion. But I did notice other poster's *singular use intended* use of projection to make it apply to me.


----------



## Arawyn (Aug 18, 2009)

Paulie said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your tone; however, I will state that eugenics is NOT confined to just abortion, or stopping the procreative choices (through governmental means) of individuals. It also applies to the marginalization of those who have "inferior" children, whether blatant, or through empathy of what the child allegedly suffers, or stating what said children can hope to achieve. 

Do you remember Little House on the Prairie? Did you know the actor who played Albert was autistic? Matthew Labryoteaux?  

Matthew Laborteaux - Biography

Granted, he's just a voice over actor now, but, yet with Autism, he's given more to the world than the average day perfect child. And he's intentionallly given to the world around him.


----------



## Arawyn (Aug 18, 2009)

Paulie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...





I'm not saying that not WANTING to take that chance is a terrible thing not at all, then, abstinence, or birth control would be an option. But believing everyone should share your opinion, and condemning those that do not as less worthy and ridiculing them smacks of eugenics. 

Nice spin though. /sarcasm


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 19, 2009)

Paulie said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



No, dummy, no one has said that *personally *choosing not to have a child is eugenics.  The view that, in a general sense, only the perfect and completely healthy should be born is, though.



Paulie said:


> In your friends' case, it was 50%.  In this show, where all 5 children over a span of 14 years ended up autistic, I'd say the percentage was MUCH higher.  Obviously it was 100% for the first 5.  Whether or not it would have ALWAYS remained 100% is still in question, of course, but why keep tempting fate at that point?



Maybe because they wanted more children, and don't consider being handicapped a fate worse than death?



Paulie said:


> Autism is such a horrible disorder.  I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, LET ALONE a potential child of mine.  At that point, I think I'd feel ok weighing the differences between using birth control, or just staying abstinent.  An all-loving God would most likely approve of EITHER decision.



An all-loving God ALSO approves of the decision to have children that might not meet up to your personal specs.


----------



## Yukon (Aug 23, 2009)

Creationism and prayer are what is need in the US school system. Yes you should return to your past, half-witted value system.

Vive le PLO


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Aug 23, 2009)

One thing I can say is that in some strange way I envy Down's Syndrom kids. They just seem to always have such a wide eyed marvel at things in this world.


----------



## nia588 (Aug 23, 2009)

I personally think the school system shouldn't be teaching the kids this stuff. I think it's the parents obligation to talk to their kids about sex. Not the schools. And it isn't working, we are currently seeing a rise in teen pregnancies.

People need to stop depending on the education system to talk to their kids about life issues like this.  Parents have to held accountable for teaching their kids somethings. And sex is one of them.

the high school i went to didn't have sex ed. and i never got pregnant in fact i even chose to abstain from sex. but i still new what a STD was and how to prevent from getting one because my mother talked to me about sex.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Aug 23, 2009)

One of many things I find sad is what a deficient job the schools are apparently doing in teaching sex ed and disease prevention.  It is shocking and frightening how many young people today think a condom is some cure-all, miracle little sheath that, as long as you use one, eliminates all possibility of anything bad happening.  They have no idea how many diseases can be passed on despite the condom, or how easily, or just how fallible those little suckers really are, even when used correctly.  It borders on criminal negligence and reckless public endangerment on the part of our schools.


----------

