NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's what happens (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26623-2004Dec1?language=printer) when you let ideologues control the education system.

Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.
It gets worse.
Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since the efforts began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.

The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.

Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:

• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."

• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.

• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.
No wonder kids come out of abstinence-only sex-ed programs fucked up in the head (pardon the pun). Waxman says, and I agree, that he has no objection to including abstinence as a part of (and I would say a primary part of) any sex-ed program, but you've got to get your facts straight.

One study mentioned in the same article notes that 61% of high school graduates have had sex before they graduated--and that's the graduates, which means they've left out all the people who didn't make it that far. I'd be willing to bet that that number is significantly higher among dropouts. We're talking about life-altering information here, and the religious right has not only determined that when it comes to sex, we should limit our kids' options for what kinds of information, we should make shit up and lie to them.

I've never had a sex education class where abstinence was taught... actually, not much of anything was taught other than the "biology" of sex. It amazes me that the population at large still thinks "abstinence" is the best course of action in sex education.

We had a fully range class everything from abstinence to not (it leaned towards the actual biology) it was lumped in with our health class.
I at least found it educational … but that was like 6 years ago lol

I've never had a sex education class where abstinence was taught... actually, not much of anything was taught other than the "biology" of sex.

Same here in England.

We had a fully range class everything from abstinence to not (it leaned towards the actual biology) it was lumped in with our health class.
I at least found it educational … but that was like 6 years ago lol

By the time I had it, which was freshmen year of high school, I was already having sex and knew what I needed to know from my parents. :)

By the time I had it, which was freshmen year of high school, I was already having sex and knew what I needed to know from my parents. :)
We had it sophomore ... and I had known a lot at that time but some of the wide range of birth control and the more specifics of std's and such I dident know (nor am I sure that my parents are fully informed themselfs on it)

I've long been a proponent of the idea that if you want to keep teens from having sex, the most effective way is to teach them about the biology of it--in long, dreary, boring-ass lectures about the most mundane details. I still think that by treating it as taboo, we encourage kids to have sex at younger and younger ages.

Same here in England.

The abstinence thing seems to be very American. I'm Scottish and was only taught about the biology of it as well, I think the British are just too damn British to discuss it any other way

Well, I was taught the Biology of it, and my classes on the subject explained and described all options to sex, including contraceptives and abstenance.
Oddly, I seem to have had the earliest sex-ed class, in Grade 5. Then another in Grade 9 which went into further detail. Both taught all forms of birth control.

Well, I was taught the Biology of it, and my classes on the subject explained and described all options to sex, including contraceptives and abstenance.
Oddly, I seem to have had the earliest sex-ed class, in Grade 5. Then another in Grade 9 which went into further detail. Both taught all forms of birth control.

Pretty much the same here, though AIDS wasn't really around when I was that age, so we sort of missed out on that.


Gotta admit though, that is a scary article linked above :eek:

The abstinence thing seems to be very American. I'm Scottish and was only taught about the biology of it as well, I think the British are just too damn British to discuss it any other way

Yep. Nice to speak to you fellow Brit.

I've long been a proponent of the idea that if you want to keep teens from having sex, the most effective way is to teach them about the biology of it--in long, dreary, boring-ass lectures about the most mundane details. I still think that by treating it as taboo, we encourage kids to have sex at younger and younger ages.

You mean like in that Monty Python sketch? :D

You mean like in that Monty Python sketch? :D

From "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life" where teacher John Cleese tried teaching his class about sex by having it with his wife in fornt of them and they are all bored. Yes that's quite a funny sketch.

"Abstinence Education" isn't teaching, it's preaching. It should only be included as part of a fully informed education in regards to sex and the "possible side effects" of it. These people worry me.

From "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life" where teacher John Cleese tried teaching his class about sex by having it with his wife in fornt of them and they are all bored. Yes that's quite a funny sketch.
UMPHREY: The purpose of foreplay is to cause the vagina to lubricate, so
that the penis can penetrate more easily.
WATSON: Could we have a window open, please, sir?
HUMPHREY: Yes. Harris, will you? And, of course, to cause the man's penis
to erect and har... den! [sniff] Now, did I do vaginal juices last week?
Oh, do pay attention, Wadsworth! I know it's Friday after-- Oh, watching
the football, are you boy? Right! Move over there. I'm warning you! I
may decide to set an exam this term.
WATSON: Oh, sir.
BIGGS: Oh, sir.
PUPILS: Oh, sir...
HUMPHREY: So, just listen. Now, did I or did I not... do... vaginal...
juices?
PUPILS: Mmm. Mmm. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
HUMPHREY: Name two ways of getting them flowing, Watson.
WATSON: R-- rubbing the clitoris, sir?
HUMPHREY: What's wrong with a kiss, boy? Hmm? Why not start her off with
a nice kiss? You don't have to go leaping straight for the clitoris like
a bull at a gate. Give her a kiss, boy.
WYMER: Suck the nipple, sir?
HUMPHREY: Good! Good. Well done, Wymer.
DUCKWORTH: Uh, stroking the thighs, sir.
HUMPHREY: Yes. Yes, I suppose so. Hmm?
PUPIL IN FRONT: Oh, sir. Biting the neck.
HUMPHREY: Yes. Good. Nibbling the earlobe, uhh, kneading the buttocks,
and so on and so forth. So, we have all these possibilities before we
stampede towards the clitoris, Watson.
WATSON: Yes, sir. Sorry, sir.
HUMPHREY: Now, all these forms of stimulation can now take place,...
[clunk clunk]
[clunk]
[clunk clunk]
[clunk clunk]
[twong]
...and, of course, tongueing will give you the best idea of how the juices
are coming along. Helen! Now, penetration and coitus-- That is to say,
intercourse up to, and including, orgasm. Ah, hello, dear. Do stand up
when my wife enters the room, Carter!
CARTER: Oh, sorry, sir. Sorry.
HELEN WILLIAMS: Humphrey, I hope you don't mind, but I told the Garfields we
would dine with them tonight.
HUMPHREY: Yes. Yes, well, I suppose we must.
HELEN: And I said we'd be there by eight.
HUMPHREY: Well, at least it'll give me a reason to wind up the staff meeting.
HELEN: Well, I know you don't like them, but I couldn't make another excuse.
HUMPHREY: Well, it's just that I felt n-- Wymer! This is for your benefit.
Would you kindly wake up? I've no intention of going through this all
again.
WYMER: Ahhh.
HUMPHREY: Uhh, we'll take the foreplay as read, if you don't mind, dear.
HELEN: No, of course not, Humphrey.
HUMPHREY: So, the man starts by entering-- or mounting-- his good lady wife
in the standard way. Uh, the penis is now, as you will observe, more or
less, fully erect. There we are. Ah, that's better. Now,-- Carter.
CARTER: Yes, sir?
HUMPHREY: What is it?
CARTER: It's an ocarina, sir.
HUMPHREY: Bring it up here. The man now starts making thrusting movements
with his pelvic area, moving the penis up and down inside the vagina, so--
Put it there, boy. Put it there on the table.
[clunk]
While the wife maximizes her clitoral stimulation by the shaft of the
penis by pushing forward,-- Thank you, dear. Now, as sexual...
BIGGS: [chuckling]
HUMPHREY: ...excitement mounts, uh,-- What's funny, Biggs?
BIGGS: Uh,-- Oh, nothing, sir.
HUMPHREY: Oh, do please share your little joke with the rest of us. I mean,
obviously something frightfully funny's going on.
PUPIL: [chuckle]
BIGGS: No. Honestly, sir.
HUMPHREY: Well, as it's so funny, I think you'd better be selected to play
for the boys' team in the rugby match against the masters this afternoon!
[morbid music]
BIGGS: Oh, no, sir.

English Catholic Boys Grammar School. We just learnt about the biology too - I think I was just a touch too old before more "sex education" type stuff came in a couple of years later. I can't think it would have been too comprehensive, though, beyond what we learnt in biology lessons.

Our religion teacher was really good though - a former Christian Brother. Before he left the Brotherhood he wasn't allowed to express his own opinion, so when he disagreed with the Church, he would always emphasise that "The Church says..." He never taught us specifically about sex, but related stuff often came up in lessons.

In Tanzania the idea was we taught about everything, and emphasising which were the most effective (ie abstinence, then using condoms with a faithful partner, etc), then they could make up their own minds. If you don't teach them about everything you'll never tackle the myths that circulate.

UMPHREY: The purpose of foreplay is to cause the vagina to lubricate, so
that the penis can penetrate more easily.
WATSON: Could we have a window open, please, sir?
HUMPHREY: Yes. Harris, will you? And, of course, to cause the man's penis
to erect and har... den! [sniff] Now, did I do vaginal juices last week?
Oh, do pay attention, Wadsworth! I know it's Friday after-- Oh, watching
the football, are you boy? Right! Move over there. I'm warning you! I
may decide to set an exam this term.
WATSON: Oh, sir.
BIGGS: Oh, sir.
PUPILS: Oh, sir...
HUMPHREY: So, just listen. Now, did I or did I not... do... vaginal...
juices?
PUPILS: Mmm. Mmm. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
HUMPHREY: Name two ways of getting them flowing, Watson.
WATSON: R-- rubbing the clitoris, sir?
HUMPHREY: What's wrong with a kiss, boy? Hmm? Why not start her off with
a nice kiss? You don't have to go leaping straight for the clitoris like
a bull at a gate. Give her a kiss, boy.
WYMER: Suck the nipple, sir?
HUMPHREY: Good! Good. Well done, Wymer.
DUCKWORTH: Uh, stroking the thighs, sir.
HUMPHREY: Yes. Yes, I suppose so. Hmm?
PUPIL IN FRONT: Oh, sir. Biting the neck.
HUMPHREY: Yes. Good. Nibbling the earlobe, uhh, kneading the buttocks,
and so on and so forth. So, we have all these possibilities before we
stampede towards the clitoris, Watson.
WATSON: Yes, sir. Sorry, sir.
HUMPHREY: Now, all these forms of stimulation can now take place,...
[clunk clunk]
[clunk]
[clunk clunk]
[clunk clunk]
[twong]
...and, of course, tongueing will give you the best idea of how the juices
are coming along. Helen! Now, penetration and coitus-- That is to say,
intercourse up to, and including, orgasm. Ah, hello, dear. Do stand up
when my wife enters the room, Carter!
CARTER: Oh, sorry, sir. Sorry.
HELEN WILLIAMS: Humphrey, I hope you don't mind, but I told the Garfields we
would dine with them tonight.
HUMPHREY: Yes. Yes, well, I suppose we must.
HELEN: And I said we'd be there by eight.
HUMPHREY: Well, at least it'll give me a reason to wind up the staff meeting.
HELEN: Well, I know you don't like them, but I couldn't make another excuse.
HUMPHREY: Well, it's just that I felt n-- Wymer! This is for your benefit.
Would you kindly wake up? I've no intention of going through this all
again.
WYMER: Ahhh.
HUMPHREY: Uhh, we'll take the foreplay as read, if you don't mind, dear.
HELEN: No, of course not, Humphrey.
HUMPHREY: So, the man starts by entering-- or mounting-- his good lady wife
in the standard way. Uh, the penis is now, as you will observe, more or
less, fully erect. There we are. Ah, that's better. Now,-- Carter.
CARTER: Yes, sir?
HUMPHREY: What is it?
CARTER: It's an ocarina, sir.
HUMPHREY: Bring it up here. The man now starts making thrusting movements
with his pelvic area, moving the penis up and down inside the vagina, so--
Put it there, boy. Put it there on the table.
[clunk]
While the wife maximizes her clitoral stimulation by the shaft of the
penis by pushing forward,-- Thank you, dear. Now, as sexual...
BIGGS: [chuckling]
HUMPHREY: ...excitement mounts, uh,-- What's funny, Biggs?
BIGGS: Uh,-- Oh, nothing, sir.
HUMPHREY: Oh, do please share your little joke with the rest of us. I mean,
obviously something frightfully funny's going on.
PUPIL: [chuckle]
BIGGS: No. Honestly, sir.
HUMPHREY: Well, as it's so funny, I think you'd better be selected to play
for the boys' team in the rugby match against the masters this afternoon!
[morbid music]
BIGGS: Oh, no, sir.
That's it. Very funny.

Abstinance! HAAAA! HAAAAA HAAAAAA!

The abstinence thing seems to be very American. I'm Scottish and was only taught about the biology of it as well, I think the British are just too damn British to discuss it any other way


We may be too British to discuss it in any other way but the differences are clear

1. We are not American
2. We are blessed with more that rudimentary interligence.
3. We are not easily influenced by a load of religious zealots
4. We are not American

its as simple as that.

I was only ever taught the biology of Sex, but through some miracle (by American standards) have turned out ok.

nuff said :fluffle: :headbang:

We may be too British to discuss it in any other way but the differences are clear

1. We are not American
2. We are blessed with more that rudimentary interligence.
3. We are not easily influenced by a load of religious zealots
4. We are not American

its as simple as that.

I was only ever taught the biology of Sex, but through some miracle (by American standards) have turned out ok.

nuff said :fluffle: :headbang:

Shutup.

Shutup.
Well put.

Well put.


I take it you are a load of maladjusted, poorly informed Yanks

am I right

I take it you are a load of maladjusted, poorly informed Yanks

am I right

I'm in fact British you idiot.

I'm in fact British you idiot.


must have some yank blood in you then

must have some yank blood in you then

Nope.

must have some yank blood in you then
Nope. We're both British. I think we just share the opinion that people who stereotype entire nations are idiots.

I'm in fact British you idiot.


wasnt i agreeing with you in the first place.???

I take it you are a load of maladjusted, poorly informed Yanks

am I right

I am a well adjusted, very informed Yank. And you are ethnocentric prick.

In fact, if you had read the thread you would have seen that I'm British from the off.

:confused:

I recall that involuntary abstinence worked rather well for me. I didn't get anyone pregnant, and I didn't get any diseases.

Of course, my ears got rather pointy, and I was really irritable.

I doubt that voluntary abstinence works, especially as a long term measure.

I am a well adjusted, very informed Yank. And you are ethnocentric prick.


Pease qualify that statement by sharing with us who you voted for.

thanks

Pease qualify that statement by sharing with us who you voted for.

thanks
It's pompous twits like you who give the rest of us a bad name.

Pease qualify that statement by sharing with us who you voted for.

thanks

I voted for Kerry, but political affiliations mean nothing. You seem to live your life based on generalizations. You would have done risen quickly in the Nazi party.

I am a well adjusted, very informed Yank. And you are ethnocentric prick.

I just think that he should qualify his statement about being well informed

I just think that he should qualify his statement about being well informed
Just like you did with your first post, you mean?

I voted for Kerry, but political affiliations mean nothing. You seem to live your life based on generalizations. You would have done risen quickly in the Nazi party.


it is nothing to do with politics

im pretty sure you guys vote by IQ,
i read somewhere that the states with the lowest average IQ all voted Bush

That pal is fact.

Just like you did with your first post, you mean?


I have a post grad degree in population policies, which i believe qualifies me to speak on this subject.

NEXT

it is nothing to do with politics

im pretty sure you guys vote by IQ,
i read somewhere that the states with the lowest average IQ all voted Bush

That pal is fact.


Yes we vote by IQ. Our IQs are measured and we are assigned a candidate to vote for on that basis. :rolleyes:

Do you actually know anything at all about the US?

This is a big problem which anti-religion people, in their desperation to slag off religion, use to their advantage.

If only we printed the facts and then people would see that abstinence does work and is the only method which will keep people 99.9% safe from AID's, other STD's and unwanted pregnancies (rather than resorting to murder).

It's just unfortunate that such a noble thing as abstinence is blighted, and thus cussed, because of a mistakes around it. Very sad indeed!

I just think that he should qualify his statement about being well informed

How about this:

All reports on WMD's have shown that there were none.

The link between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda is tenuous and non-operational at best.

The US right now is experiencing a devaluation of the dollar right now to bolster our exporting due to a corporate tax plan Bush started that caused the WTO to begin inforcing a punitive tariff on American goods that has been growing at about a % a month.

The abstinence training that you are speaking of is being paid for by 130 million dollars according to Bush's most recently proposed budget. I posted a thread on this about a week ago.

Next time you want to judge and use generalizations, get to know who you are talking to first.

it is nothing to do with politics

im pretty sure you guys vote by IQ,
i read somewhere that the states with the lowest average IQ all voted Bush

That pal is fact.
Well, he said he voted Kerry, and you continue to reply as if he's a moron. Well done.

Yes we vote by IQ. Our IQs are measured and we are assigned a candidate to vote for on that basis. :rolleyes:

Do you actually know anything at all about the US?

Yes
The US is that place that wishes it was the UK

it is nothing to do with politics

im pretty sure you guys vote by IQ,
i read somewhere that the states with the lowest average IQ all voted Bush

That pal is fact.

Politics here in America is a team sport. People rarely change sides and sometimes don't even analyze their own players. They are much more concerned with having their side win.

IQ has nothing to do with it. Party lines has everything to do with it.

Say what you want about Bush, but there are a great many very smart republicans in this country.

I have a post grad degree in population policies, which i believe qualifies me to speak on this subject.

NEXT
Well, why didn't you say so? Why, we should roll out the red carpet for you right now. The fact is you launched an anti-American attack with your first post on this thread, on the basis that you're not American.

Attack American government policy, by all means, but remember that they're not all idiots, they're not all morbidly obese, and they didn't all vote for Bush.

And I ran a sexual and reproductive health awareness programme in a Tanzanian village, before you ask.

Yes
The US is that place that wishes it was the UK

Well I see the taxpayer got full value when he funded your education.

Say what you want about Bush, but there are a great many very smart republicans in this country.

I dont doubt it
But take a lesson from history.

In the first world war The common british soldier was one of the best, but the leadership was pants.

the people at the top can cause a lot of casualties in the rank and file regardless of how smart they are

And BTW
I would have liberated Iraq without ANY creditable WMD info. He had to be stopped.

Yes
The US is that place that wishes it was the UK
Does it? I've never met an American who wished it was another country. Just like I'd like to change a lot of things about the UK, but I'm still fiercely proud of it.

Well, why didn't you say so? Why, we should roll out the red carpet for you right now. The fact is you launched an anti-American attack with your first post on this thread, on the basis that you're not American.

Attack American government policy, by all means, but remember that they're not all idiots, they're not all morbidly obese, and they didn't all vote for Bush.

And I ran a sexual and reproductive health awareness programme in a Tanzanian village, before you ask.

You can argue that The US is the root of all evil, it all depends on your POV

You can argue that The US is the root of all evil, it all depends on your POV
I'll bear that in mind, in case I ever choose to in the future.

I seem to recall that General Haig is reknowned in military circles as the biggest buffoon in military history.

I would submit that the difference here is one of skill. The military generation the British sent to its death in WW I was poorly equipped, poorly led, and the politicians of the time were sorely misinformed.

If the US leaders at this time are either unwise or misinformed, the military generation of today does not face the wholesale self-annihilation that the British underwent. The equipment is astonishingly excellent, and skill level is orders of magnitude better than it has ever been.

If you like, compare the casualty rates between now and Vietnam. And then look at the enemy casualty rates. Yes, it will take generations to pacify a place like Iraq, but the US isn't going to lose a generation doing so.

Does it? I've never met an American who wished it was another country. Just like I'd like to change a lot of things about the UK, but I'm still fiercely proud of it.

HAve u ever been to the US, coz if you haven't then you have only met a sample of less than 10% of the population.

Cant theorize with those numbers.

I dont doubt it
But take a lesson from history.

In the first world war The common british soldier was one of the best, but the leadership was pants.

the people at the top can cause a lot of casualties in the rank and file regardless of how smart they are

And BTW
I would have liberated Iraq without ANY creditable WMD info. He had to be stopped.

There were massive casualties on all sides of WW1. It had more to do with the technologies than the generals.

And BTW
What is your major problem with Bush, if you have no problem with Iraq? I don't believe many of his other policies have very much to do with you.

I seem to recall that General Haig is reknowned in military circles as the biggest buffoon in military history.

I would submit that the difference here is one of skill. The military generation the British sent to its death in WW I was poorly equipped, poorly led, and the politicians of the time were sorely misinformed.

If the US leaders at this time are either unwise or misinformed, the military generation of today does not face the wholesale self-annihilation that the British underwent. The equipment is astonishingly excellent, and skill level is orders of magnitude better than it has ever been.

If you like, compare the casualty rates between now and Vietnam. And then look at the enemy casualty rates. Yes, it will take generations to pacify a place like Iraq, but the US isn't going to lose a generation doing so.

Yes thats what i said

british desert equipment is not all that good, as many of the troops buy their own to suppliment it.

Not that may UK Sqaddies were in vietnam, which was a stroke of luck as this gave the yanks less friendly fire incidents to deal with.

Iraq is a problem, we cat win ther, but cant pull out either.

St Parky, shut up befoore you sprought all this ani-American garbage. I don't care what degrees you have, your still talking Bullshit.

I am British to, and your the sort that give us a bad name. I don't like Bush, or Iraq, (though Afganistan was justified) and now you are replying in text speak. And I have been to America, I have American freinds and non of them want to be British.

And i doubt you've met more than 10% of the population eather.

I seem to recall that General Haig is reknowned in military circles as the biggest buffoon in military history.


Suprisingly the British Staff knew from the outset of WWI pretty much how bad it was going to be, hence the creation of the new armies and the massive expansion of the BEF. So I don't know if you can fairly characterize them as Buffoons. (Especially as British Casualties were relatively lighter than any other powers despite doing the bulk of the actual hard fighting).

What has ruined the reputation of the leadership was the false notion that the war would be over by Christmas, when the establishment was planning for a three to four year war with the expectation of suffering at least a million casualities.

What always surpirsed me was that Britian went to war anyway, when there was no real need to. I would have just sat it out. Lack of vision about Britian's place in the world I suppose.

HAve u ever been to the US, coz if you haven't then you have only met a sample of less than 10% of the population.

Cant theorize with those numbers.
Yes, that's right. I've only ever met the sort of educated travelling world-aware Americans who you would expect to want to change America.

Not that may UK Sqaddies were in vietnam, which was a stroke of luck as this gave the yanks less friendly fire incidents to deal with.


Yes, thank you for not shooting us.

St Parky, shut up befoore you sprought all this ani-American garbage. I don't care what degrees you have, your still talking Bullshit.

I am British to, and your the sort that give us a bad name. I don't like Bush, or Iraq, (though Afganistan was justified) and now you are replying in text speak. And I have been to America, I have American freinds and non of them want to be British.

And i doubt you've met more than 10% of the population eather.

Its not anti american it a realistic world view.

Yes, thank you for not shooting us.
Ho ho. But, to be fair, these days the American army is more about power brute force (and is more gung ho), and the British Army is the more specialised. But that's 'cos we're ickle so we have to be more efficient.

A realistic world view, according to St Parky:
We may be too British to discuss it in any other way but the differences are clear

1. We are not American
2. We are blessed with more that rudimentary interligence.
3. We are not easily influenced by a load of religious zealots
4. We are not American

its as simple as that.

I was only ever taught the biology of Sex, but through some miracle (by American standards) have turned out ok.

nuff said :fluffle: :headbang:
No, not anti-American at all.

Ho ho. But, to be fair, these days the American army is more about power brute force (and is more gung ho), and the British Army is the more specialised. But that's 'cos we're ickle so we have to be more efficient.

Oh I agree, blue on blue, as it is called, is rather a problem with our side. But it doesn't alter what the grad student friend said.

(To be honest, I wouldn't like to be one of our allies on the same battlefield, we tend to get a little carried away.)

A realistic world view, according to St Parky:

No, not anti-American at all.


THis was strictly limited to the original thread topic.

The censorship laws in the US are also getting tougher.
1st class ticket back in time anyone

THis was strictly limited to the original thread topic.

The censorship laws in the US are also getting tougher.
1st class ticket back in time anyone


What censorship laws?

There are no such things.

Oh I agree, blue on blue, as it is called, is rather a problem with our side. But it doesn't alter what the grad student friend said.

(To be honest, I wouldn't like to be one of our allies on the same battlefield, we tend to get a little carried away.)
Yes, soldiers really should be taught to respect the other men who are also risking their lives for something they believe in, even if you think they're wrong.

Having said that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4052565.stm

What censorship laws?

There are no such things.


not censorship in america?
is this the same place we are talking about??

THis was strictly limited to the original thread topic.
Yes, it was. It was also where this argument started.

I think that the British gave up the last of their civil rights last week with those new security laws. We don't have anything as draconian, not even on the table yet.

The censorship laws in the US are also getting tougher.
1st class ticket back in time anyone

No, they are getting dumber, as the FCC is now run by an appointed douche named Michael Powell. Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell, a great diplomat and fine example of an upstanding American. His son, however, is now holding down the only job he could get, which he got through nepotism, and allows the FCC to bow to any dipshit with a telephone.

We are having a little problem with puritanism in this country. And puritanism could be defined as the fear than someone, somewhere is having a good time. Hopefully, these baby boomer dolts will start to retire and die off soon so we can start to fix the messes they've made.

I think that the British gave up the last of their civil rights last week with those new security laws. We don't have anything as draconian, not even on the table yet.

as long as your not a terorist then you is ok
init

as long as your not a terorist then you is ok
init
Ah, I see. So civil rights are being curtailed in America, which is a bad thing, but when it happens here, it's for the good of the nation. Because the Brits can do no wrong.

We are having a little problem with puritanism in this country. And puritanism could be defined as the fear than someone, somewhere is having a good time. Hopefully, these baby boomer dolts will start to retire and die off soon so we can start to fix the messes they've made.

Quote from the good old beeb
Mr Bush turned to evangelical Christianity in his earlier years, and is an opponent of abortion. He has described himself as a "compassionate conservative".

I've never had a sex education class where abstinence was taught... actually, not much of anything was taught other than the "biology" of sex.

Same here in England.


Same here except for a one-off class when we were 15 when they explained all the contraceptives around. I was amazed to find out that most kids only knew about the pill and condoms, almost no-one had heard of diaphragms, the coil, pessaries, or any others. This class did not encourage anyone to have underage sex, it just provided important information that was lacking in most cases.

Quote from the good old beeb
Mr Bush turned to evangelical Christianity in his earlier years, and is an opponent of abortion. He has described himself as a "compassionate conservative".
Thank you. That's much better. You hate Bush, not all Americans. Much better than your previous platform. Well done. Good progress, old chap.

as long as your not a terorist then you is ok
init
*Faints*

You is okay, initAnd you've got a degree did you say! You sound like some townie after a night out.

And as for the bit about terrorists. YEs please Mr Blunkit sir, lets have ID cards so you know everything about it.

Oh, and you can take my curtains too, it might stop wife beating, after all if you arn't guilty why shoudl you worry.

*Faints*

You is okay, initAnd you've got a degree did you say! You sound like some townie after a night out.

And as for the bit about terrorists. YEs please Mr Blunkit sir, lets have ID cards so you know everything about it.

Oh, and you can take my curtains too, it might stop wife beating, after all if you arn't guilty why shoudl you worry.

Excellent post. You get a gold star.

not censorship in america?
is this the same place we are talking about??

There is regulation of the public airwaves. That is it.

There is no censorship. You can say, or, publish what you like.

outta all the teachings in skoo, abstinence is one of those things that if there teaching it then there idiots in todays society NO one uses it i dun think anyone even know what the hell it is everyone has sex theres really no reason 2 teach it as well as 2 even have it down as sumthing 2 bring into sex education. :mp5:

I remember receiving advanced sex education in the back of a 1968 Plymouth. It wasn't state sponsored, so there was no talk of abstinence. I did get the state sponsored version in school, which talked about abstinence, but my new instructor wasn't interested in abstinence.

And neither was I.

Excellent post. You get a gold star.
YAy! Pins it up on hs gold star chart, it looks a bit lonly in the middle on it's own...

Anyway maybe we shoudl stop hijacking this thread?

Yes, soldiers really should be taught to respect the other men who are also risking their lives for something they believe in, even if you think they're wrong.

Having said that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4052565.stm


Bullying the the British Army.

I remember when I lived in the UK, there was a big scandal involving the Green Howards. After some recruit was drowned in a bath of urine, or something, there was a public inquiry and the home office vowed that the problem had been fixed once and for all.

Some old guy down the pub just laughed.

YAy! Pins it up on hs gold star chart, it looks a bit lonly in the middle on it's own...

Anyway maybe we shoudl stop hijacking this thread?
Yeah, I think he's gone now, anyway.

Bullying the the British Army.

I remember when I lived in the UK, there was a big scandal involving the Green Howards. After some recruit was drowned in a bath of urine, or something, there was a public inquiry and the home office vowed that the problem had been fixed once and for all.

Some old guy down the pub just laughed.
This has been going on for years. They only had this investigation because the families wouldn't shut up and they couldn't keep it quiet any longer.

EDIT: Anyway, let's leave the thread back to its original topic.

the best way to teach sex education is to tell the kids the things they need to know. not just tell them "its wrong" and "wait until you are married"

I cite for example Katie Hill off Blue Peter,

She abstained until she got married, but split up with her husband 6 months later.

Now thats wrong.

I know thats just 1 example but its a bugger isnt it.

Well informed children are more likely to delay the 1st sexual experience. And that a fact.

Well informed children are more likely to delay the 1st sexual experience. And that a fact.

Well informed, well educated children tend to make better decisions about anything they come across.

Abstinence education is the opposite of sex education. The teaching should be about how it works, what it does, the possible/unavoidable outcomes, and ways to avoid some of the less desirable outcomes. Abstinence can be mentioned, of course, but you can't teach someone how to ride a bike without a bike.

I have a post grad degree in population policies, which i believe qualifies me to speak on this subject.

*cough* Mickey mouse degree! *cough*

First of I personally dont believe in sex before marriage,but I do believe that people should be educated I first had sex ed in year 7 then part of health class from grade 8 - 10.

I think it is scary the amount of young people having sex, and not just with bf or gf but casual sex, and one night stands. I honestly dont understand why 12, 13, 14 year olds are out there doing this. someone please explain. :confused:

I think it is scary the amount of young people having sex, and not just with bf or gf but casual sex, and one night stands. I honestly dont understand why 12, 13, 14 year olds are out there doing this. someone please explain. :confused:

A lack of thourogh and informative sexual education, and a music and movie industry that continues to inappropriately market sexuality to teenage girls.

my son had abstinence only sex ed in his junior year in highschool. they hijacked an entire quarter of his required "carreer choices" class.


imagine the tight-assed dentists wife trying to teach a room full of 17 year old most of whom have had sex, many of which have CHILDREN, to abstain from sex.

what a complete waste of time!

they could have used some reasonable discussion of what it takes to prevent pregnancy and diseases, maybe a discussion of sexual self esteem, maybe even a bit of "yes the girl is supposed to enjoy it too"

but NOOOOO they spent 9 weeks discussing how one must not have sex before marriage.


stupid stupid stupid

Pease qualify that statement by sharing with us who you voted for.

thanks
Lol you think you can qualify his intelligence by who he voted for

*cough* stereotype*cough*

Your Iq just tanked by about 20 points in my book
(way more then a vote would have moved ya)

Seesh

And you say you got a degree? You might want to get your money back … on top of the major /post grad you are supposed to learn critical thinking in a higher level institution obviously you ignored that part

Our attitude towards sex is kind of weird isn't it? In the end it's just a way of getting pleasure. I wouldn't denounce a "casual film-watcher" or a "casual book-reader", so why should I condemn people who have a lot of sex? If it works for them... Obviously there are dangers but if you're sufficiently clued up, there's no real reason why you shouldn't sleep around. It's just a social construct that makes it so difficult.

Sorry if this has been said before.

I agree with abstinence only education.

I also believe that we should tell kids not to catch anything on fire, and refuse to teach them how to use a fire extinguisher or to tell them notto throw water on a grease fire. After all, the best way to not get burnt is to not start a fire, so why would they ever have to know how to put one out without getting burnt?

Here's what happens (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26623-2004Dec1?language=printer) when you let ideologues control the education system.


No wonder kids come out of abstinence-only sex-ed programs fucked up in the head (pardon the pun). Waxman says, and I agree, that he has no objection to including abstinence as a part of (and I would say a primary part of) any sex-ed program, but you've got to get your facts straight.



I went to a school that taught abstinence only sex-ed. I'm not "fucked up" though. Most people know it's lies and they aren't so stupid that they sit there and accept everything as truth. Though in my class I was lied to, not all people are lied to, so you can't state that everyone teaching it isn't doing any good. Many people in my class did not have sex because of the class. Thought you don't learn about birth control you do learn about diseases and that is better than not learning anything at all.

I agree with abstinence only education.

I also believe that we should tell kids not to catch anything on fire, and refuse to teach them how to use a fire extinguisher or to tell them notto throw water on a grease fire. After all, the best way to not get burnt is to not start a fire, so why would they ever have to know how to put one out without getting burnt?
Lol I think you should have used the [/sarcasm] tag … you are going to be argued with :) lol

I went to a school that taught abstinence only sex-ed. I'm not "fucked up" though. Most people know it's lies and they aren't so stupid that they sit there and accept everything as truth. Though in my class I was lied to, not all people are lied to, so you can't state that everyone teaching it isn't doing any good. Many people in my class did not have sex because of the class. Thought you don't learn about birth control you do learn about diseases and that is better than not learning anything at all.

Therein lies an interesting question: why would anyone want 'lies' to be taught in schools to children as fact? Isn' that defeating the purpose of education?

Lol I think you should have used the [/sarcasm] tag … you are going to be argued with :) lol

What are you talking about? If the kids don't start fires, they won't get burnt. I am right!!









;-)

I agree with abstinence only education.

I also believe that we should tell kids not to catch anything on fire, and refuse to teach them how to use a fire extinguisher or to tell them notto throw water on a grease fire. After all, the best way to not get burnt is to not start a fire, so why would they ever have to know how to put one out without getting burnt?

Too bad shit happens regardless. Things will catch on fire as long as there is oxygen and heat. People will have sex as long as there are penises and vaginas.

Too bad shit happens regardless. Things will catch on fire as long as there is oxygen and heat. People will have sex as long as there are penises and vaginas.

EUREKA!!!

Just get rid of penises and vaginas.

It solves so many problems!!!!



It may start a few new ones though. :)

Too bad shit happens regardless. Things will catch on fire as long as there is oxygen and heat. People will have sex as long as there are penises and vaginas.

No it doesn't! No it won't! No they won't!

People shouldn't start fires.
Teenagers shouldn't have sex.

This is so simple, I don't know why everyone doesn't understand it!

No it doesn't! No it won't! No they won't!

People shouldn't start fires.
Teenagers shouldn't have sex.

This is so simple, I don't know why everyone doesn't understand it!

Since when has "shouldn't" stopped a teenager? Now that we know there are fatal diseases that can be transmitted through sexual contact, doesn't it only make sense to make sure that kids know exactly what to use and how to use safe sex protective devices like condoms to prevent the spread of infection?

Isn't alive to learn from a mistake better than a death sentence from ignorance?

Since when has "shouldn't" stopped a teenager? Now that we know there are fatal diseases that can be transmitted through sexual contact, doesn't it only make sense to make sure that kids know exactly what to use and how to use safe sex protective devices like condoms to prevent the spread of infection?

Isn't alive to learn from a mistake better than a death sentence from ignorance?

Nope! They should know better. They should burn in hell for having sex, so who cares if they get a disease or two? If we teach kids how to use condoms, they'll have more sex.





/sarcasm (Obviously, everything in this thread from me has been sarcastic, but I thought this might specifically need tags)

In my health class, the Sex-Ed lady said that masturbation is when t fills up with fluid. Odd, eh?

Nope! They should know better. They should burn in hell for having sex, so who cares if they get a disease or two? If we teach kids how to use condoms, they'll have more sex.





/sarcasm (Obviously, everything in this thread from me has been sarcastic, but I thought this might specifically need tags)

I hope you realize that with such a stance, that all of the kids who like to have casual sex fun with reckless abandon are going to be filling out hell at such a rate that there might not be any fun people in heaven. Then what will you have? A boring heaven, and people will want to leave, and by doing so will negate the prophecies set forth in scripture, causing all of existence to become null and void.

I hope you're happy.

I had the whole Health/Sex-Ed class last year in the 7th grade. Personally, I thought the abstinence thing was a good idea, after all it is fool proof. If you don't have sex, you're not going to get pregnant.

I had the whole Health/Sex-Ed class last year in the 7th grade. Personally, I thought the abstinence thing was a good idea, after all it is fool proof. If you don't have sex, you're not going to get pregnant.

Right, you are correct. But just becuase my parents taught me that fire was unsafe didn't mean that with precautions you can have fun with sparklers and other pyrotechnic things.

Teach both; don't just teach abstinance. Teach them to ride the bike WITH the helmet; its still not 100% safe, but far more safe than telling some kid not to ride a bycicle at all without telling him about the helmet.

Haven't you people learned Curiosity Killed The Teenager and if you say don't go do it without stating the precautions you can take, they obviously will go and do it?

I had the whole Health/Sex-Ed class last year in the 7th grade. Personally, I thought the abstinence thing was a good idea, after all it is fool proof. If you don't have sex, you're not going to get pregnant.

That isn't in question here. The point is that, some of your peers (maybe not now, but definitely in the future) are going to have sex. You may even decide that you like a girl/boy enough to do so. And *everyone* who is of an age that they *might* be contemplating it should know how to do so safely.

I would encourage you to wait until you are a good bit older, of course, and in a committed relationship with someone you intend to (or at least thing you *might*) commit to for life.

Right, you are correct. But just becuase my parents taught me that fire was unsafe didn't mean that with precautions you can have fun with sparklers and other pyrotechnic things.

Teach both; don't just teach abstinance. Teach them to ride the bike WITH the helmet; its still not 100% safe, but far more safe than telling some kid not to ride a bycicle at all without telling him about the helmet.

Haven't you people learned Curiosity Killed The Teenager and if you say don't go do it without stating the precautions you can take, they obviously will go and do it?

Yeah, I definitely agree that they should teach a half and half health course. Because some kids are NOT going to listen to that abstinence stuff, they'll do "it" as soon as possible.

I sure am glad this thread got back to the original topic. A bunch of bloggers have jumped on this--don'r have time to post links right now, but Pandagon has some really funny quotes from the curriculum posted, including a story about a knight slaying a dragon and then not marrying the princess who helped him because he felt threatened by her intelligence. No, I'm not making this up--I'm not that funny. :D

it is nothing to do with politics

im pretty sure you guys vote by IQ,
i read somewhere that the states with the lowest average IQ all voted Bush

That pal is fact.

All the states that voted for Kerry had large intercity communites with low IQs, so that is definitly not true.

To all British posters:
I am deeply fearful for america right now. The direction it is heading strikes me as hugely detrimental.
But I still love America. I'm still proud to be one. You know why? Becasue I'm proud of our idealism, proud of American people. Their on-going sense of revolution, their ability to adapt, their unity in face of hardship. I'm proud of the way they have strong oppinions and stand up for what they beleive in. I'm proud of how, at the end of the day, they put their variant beleifs aside and go to the neighborhood potluck. I'm proud of Americans because they're my people.
And you needn't worry that I will assume that because one British citizen engages in stereotyping a nation, that all British citizens do. Because, like us, you are individuals.

What was funny was that as I went through school, the abstinance programs changed as we got older.

In the 6th grade (that's when it started for me), we were taught about how dangerous sex was and never to do it until married. All those diseases with no cures that have a 100% fatality rate . . . man. That had us terrified for a few days.

In the 7th grade it started to change. Instead of the 'sex is evil' type of teaching, it became 'if you do decide to turn evil and have sex, use a condom'.

In the 8th grade, the course shifted towards a 'no unprotected sex' campaign.

In the 9th grade, which was the last required health course to take which included sex ed, the course went as follows: 'We know you're going to have sex. So when you do, make sure your condom is of good quality and make sure she is on the pill. And consider an abortion if after all that she manages to get pregnant.'

I think we should teach abstinence only in schools. Teaching kids safe sex only leads to experimenting with sex.

I also think we should stop teaching safe-driving techniques in drivers-ed. That only leads to accidents. Have kids sign a promise not to get into accidents and skip all this safe-driving nonsense.

I sure am glad this thread got back to the original topic. A bunch of bloggers have jumped on this--don'r have time to post links right now, but Pandagon has some really funny quotes from the curriculum posted, including a story about a knight slaying a dragon and then not marrying the princess who helped him because he felt threatened by her intelligence. No, I'm not making this up--I'm not that funny. :D
That was fucking hilarious!

From: http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/004106.html

"The curriculum also teaches: "The father gives the bride to the groom because he is the one man who has had the responsibility of protecting her throughout her life. He is now giving his daughter to the only other man who will take over this protective role."

One book in the "Choosing the Best" series presents a story about a knight who saves a princess from a dragon. The next time the dragon arrives, the princess advises the knight to kill the dragon with a noose, and the following time with poison, both of which work but leave the knight feeling "ashamed." The knight eventually decides to marry a village maiden, but did so "only after making sure she knew nothing about nooses or poison." The curriculum concludes: "Moral of the story: Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man’s confidence or even turn him away from his princess.""

A lack of thourogh and informative sexual education, and a music and movie industry that continues to inappropriately market sexuality to teenage girls.

You answered this in response as to why teens continue to have casual sex, yes?

By your last three words are you implying that boys don't need sex education? That if sex happens it is all because girls allow it and that boys have no say in the matter? Because it _sounds_ an awful lot like you are implying that sexuality is only appropriate to one gender. In which case, I would say that your sex education has been nowhere as thorough or informative as it needs to be.

sex ed is necessary...

kids are going to do it whether parents like it or not.

knowledge is power

so if they have the CORRECT information at least they are able to make informed choices

-G.W. Bush won together with his Right-wing christian republican friends! You have to face the facts. Come back in four years with you reason and proven facts. They mean abosolutely nothing right now, no matter how well founded they might be!

-The US is a democracy and G.W. Bush won. He has every right to abadon reason, lie and steal from the broard public, if he want to. As long as he does it with in the boundaries of the law.

-The US and the people got what they deserved. He only reflects what the majority want, think and belives in. If you have a problem with the current introduction of new "education" programs, the Iraq war, tax cuts, the senseless enviormental politics and the poor diplomatic relationship with the rest of the world... THOUGH!

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

-Yes... they are safe... they are easy to use... so the offer a very LOW risk option!

-The US has so many cases of teen pregnancy... It is a joke in European countries :rolleyes:

My first try with online Hypnotism:
-First EDUCATION.... EDUCATION... TRY to say EDUCATION... not moral judgement... EDUCATION... so young people know what to do, because most of them are going to have sex anyway. We do not need the moral judgement... not all people have the same values as G.W Bush... they also deserve a chance... we just ask for prober EDUCATION...FOCUS your mind on EDUCATION :confused:

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

That was fucking hilarious!

From: http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/004106.html

"The curriculum also teaches: "The father gives the bride to the groom because he is the one man who has had the responsibility of protecting her throughout her life. He is now giving his daughter to the only other man who will take over this protective role."

One book in the "Choosing the Best" series presents a story about a knight who saves a princess from a dragon. The next time the dragon arrives, the princess advises the knight to kill the dragon with a noose, and the following time with poison, both of which work but leave the knight feeling "ashamed." The knight eventually decides to marry a village maiden, but did so "only after making sure she knew nothing about nooses or poison." The curriculum concludes: "Moral of the story: Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man’s confidence or even turn him away from his princess.""That's the one. I'm with Ezra--one of the bloggers--on this one. He said "Personally, I prefer the woman who not only knows about the poison and the noose, but who can tell when the dragon's coming based on prevailing wind patterns. I'm glad to see that in addition to breeding a generation of boys and girls who will be having babies and/or gonhorrea/syphillis/herpes/PID/not a lot of fun at age 17 after deciding that abstinence isn't for them, we're also breeding a generation of insecure, chauvinistic men and insecure, submissive women." No good can come of this kind of crap.

You answered this in response as to why teens continue to have casual sex, yes?

By your last three words are you implying that boys don't need sex education? That if sex happens it is all because girls allow it and that boys have no say in the matter? Because it _sounds_ an awful lot like you are implying that sexuality is only appropriate to one gender. In which case, I would say that your sex education has been nowhere as thorough or informative as it needs to be.

No, but I would like to point out that it is more often than not that young early teen girls are more likely to be the deciding factor on whether a sexual encounter takes place, rather than a 13 year old boy.

As a former 13 and 14 year old boy, I can say with some authority that no 13 or 14 year old boy is ever going to turn down sex in hardly any form or fashion, remember, these boys are strokin' it 3 or 4 times a day...I was :p

No, but I would like to point out that it is more often than not that young early teen girls are more likely to be the deciding factor on whether a sexual encounter takes place, rather than a 13 year old boy.

As a former 13 and 14 year old boy, I can say with some authority that no 13 or 14 year old boy is ever going to turn down sex in hardly any form or fashion, remember, these boys are strokin' it 3 or 4 times a day...I was :p
While I agree that most boys wouldn’t (hell most men wouldn’t without reason such as marriage)
Still if you are teaching abstinence what good is it going to do to have a bunch of boys running around till they find someone … that leads them to just find someone who is open (and if they are open to sex like it or not higher chance of std’s) so essentially you are driving males to a higher risk of std’s

I don’t know if I am making any sense but you are only helping half the problem if even that by that sort of education. Also doesn’t lead to a continuance of philosophy (you don’t give up on people cause it is hard for them not if you want them chaste)

Overall it is a dumb idea lol (abstinance)

While I agree that most boys wouldn’t (hell most men wouldn’t without reason such as marriage)
Still if you are teaching abstinence what good is it going to do to have a bunch of boys running around till they find someone … that leads them to just find someone who is open (and if they are open to sex like it or not higher chance of std’s) so essentially you are driving males to a higher risk of std’s

I don’t know if I am making any sense but you are only helping half the problem if even that by that sort of education. Also doesn’t lead to a continuance of philosophy (you don’t give up on people cause it is hard for them not if you want them chaste)

Overall it is a dumb idea lol (abstinance)


I think you're making perfect sense. High risk behavior is kind of a hallmark of young boys, any education we can give them to hopefully make it into adulthood is better than trying to impose a cultural or religious moral code onto them.

I think you're making perfect sense. High risk behavior is kind of a hallmark of young boys, any education we can give them to hopefully make it into adulthood is better than trying to impose a cultural or religious moral code onto them.
Yup … glad I made some since … I was kind of wandering there lol

*thinks of something half-way-witty to say*

Abstinence-only-edu sux.

I inserted this into another thread

But think it is appropreate here also

MR. HARRY BLACKITT: Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world
up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.
MRS. BLACKITT: What are we dear?
MR. BLACKITT: Protestant, and fiercely proud of it.
MRS. BLACKITT: Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?
MR. BLACKITT: Because... every time they have sexual intercourse, they have
to have a baby.
MRS. BLACKITT: But it's the same with us, Harry.
MR. BLACKITT: What do you mean?
MRS. BLACKITT: Well, I mean, we've got two children, and we've had sexual
intercourse twice.
MR. BLACKITT: That's not the point. We could have it any time we wanted.
MRS. BLACKITT: Really?
MR. BLACKITT: Oh, yes, and, what's more, because we don't believe in all that
Papist claptrap, we can take precautions.
MRS. BLACKITT: What, you mean... lock the door?
MR. BLACKITT: No, no. I mean, because we are members of the Protestant
Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the
Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to
prevent issue.
MRS. BLACKITT: What d'you mean?
MR. BLACKITT: I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse with you,...
MRS. BLACKITT: Oh, yes, Harry.
MR. BLACKITT: ...and, by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller, I could
insure... that, when I came off, you would not be impregnated.
MRS. BLACKITT: Ooh!
MR. BLACKITT: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's
the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects
the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself.
When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-
seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was
doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear
whatever I want on my John Thomas,... [sniff] ...and, Protestantism
doesn't stop at the simple condom! Oh, no! I can wear French Ticklers
if I want.
MRS. BLACKITT: You what?
MR. BLACKITT: French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that
are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of
sexual congress.
MRS. BLACKITT: Have you got one?
MR. BLACKITT: Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any
time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a
loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact,
today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'
MRS. BLACKITT: Well, why don't you?
MR. BLACKITT: But they-- Well, they cannot, 'cause their church never made
the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of alien
episcopal supremacy.
NARRATOR #1: But, despite the attempts of Protestants to promote the idea of
sex for pleasure, children continued to multiply everywhere.

Ha! (http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/02/abstinence.education.ap/index.html)

Told ya! Abstinence 'education' isn't really education at all!

Everybody go see the Kinsey movie!! Today!!

i have no idea whether this has been stated or not but i will add it (cannot link my source as i forgot where the fuck it was, you can look it up yourself)

while on another forum a while back we were arguing about the effects of taking religion out of school, the fanatic was like religion out of school led to the rise of drug use, teen pregnancy and alot of other shit

once i started doing research, i came into contact with a government report by some group of people studying teen pregenancies and stuff in school from 1989. the conclusion that is EASILY derived from the study is that teen pregnancies SKY ROCKETED when schools switched to "abstinence ed" instead of normal sex ed. (gee thanks brilliant religious wackos)

ps and drugs had been on a steady incline for YEARS before religion was removed from schools

Not quite what chess was looking for but the title is worth it alone

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/sex/elders.shtml

Quote:

while on another forum a while back we were arguing about the effects of taking religion out of school, the fanatic was like religion out of school led to the rise of drug use, teen pregnancy and alot of other shit

once i started doing research, i came into contact with a government report by some group of people studying teen pregenancies and stuff in school from 1989. the conclusion that is EASILY derived from the study is that teen pregnancies SKY ROCKETED when schools switched to "abstinence ed" instead of normal sex ed. (gee thanks brilliant religious wackos)

I does not matter if you are a pregnant teen whore on crack... If only jesus is with you :)

-Just ask Bush :fluffle:

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

In Denmark we got about 11 pregnant teens each year. We have a 5.000.000 population. We have sex education in all schools.

In the US 53/1000 of all pregnant people are teens. This numbers gets worse as you move to a area where "abstinence education" is thought. It has been proven by English Scientists.

I think this shows how bad "abstinence education" is. Statics show that 90% off all teens have sex before marriage. This alos applies for people who recived "abstinence education".

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

"Abstinence Education" isn't teaching, it's preaching. It should only be included as part of a fully informed education in regards to sex and the "possible side effects" of it. These people worry me. Those people who force us in class to believe that gay sex (what I am trying to say is that that's a form of preaching as well - DON'T TAKE IT THE WRONG WAY) is alright and that sex when you are 14 is alright worry me. You can teach - which would be the biology and saying that anything's alright - or you can preach. Which is what I'd do. But I'm horrendously biased for a teenager.

In Denmark we got about 11 pregnant teens each year. We have a 5.000.000 population. We have sex education in all schools.

In the US 53/1000 of all pregnant people are teens. This numbers gets worse as you move to a area where "abstinence education" is thought. It has been proven by English Scientists.

I think this shows how bad "abstinence education" is. Statics show that 90% off all teens have sex before marriage. This alos applies for people who recived "abstinence education".

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

Abstinence works in Uganda - AND it works for Catholic kids. Like me.

I think you're making perfect sense. High risk behavior is kind of a hallmark of young boys, any education we can give them to hopefully make it into adulthood is better than trying to impose a cultural or religious moral code onto them. (Adopts moralistic look) - SOME of us teenagers can control ourselves. The church teaches abstinence - and it works. So does Uganda.

(Adopts moralistic look) - SOME of us teenagers can control ourselves.

Yes, some can. Some can't. Some won't. The point is that, much like we should teach both "don't start fires" and "if there is a fire, this is how you put it out," we shoudl teach "don't have sex yet" and "the safer way to have sex is..."

The church teaches abstinence - and it works. So does Uganda.

Oh, so very young and naive...

The church also teaches (in Africa) that all condomes are laced with AIDS. The church also orders HIV positive men to go home and have unprotected sex with their HIV negative wives because condom use is a sin.

And no, just telling people in Uganda "don't have sex" has *not* worked.

Yes, some can. Some can't. Some won't. The point is that, much like we should teach both "don't start fires" and "if there is a fire, this is how you put it out," we shoudl teach "don't have sex yet" and "the safer way to have sex is..."



Oh, so very young and naive...

The church also teaches (in Africa) that all condomes are laced with AIDS. The church also orders HIV positive men to go home and have unprotected sex with their HIV negative wives because condom use is a sin.

And no, just telling people in Uganda "don't have sex" has *not* worked. Well, it hasn't in cases of rape. You don't "need" to have sex when you are a teenager. No, the Church doesn't teach that in Africa. Did John Paul II say that: issue that decree personally? No, the ministers do. It's not Church policy.

But do you agree that Christian (English/American) teenagers are less likely to get STIs or get pregnant? Although I suppose the flip side is that they are "missing out".

The whole point is, though, if you abstein, you won't get pregnant or get STIs. That is irrefutable (well, except for Mary, but that is a different tale…)

Well, it hasn't in cases of rape. You don't "need" to have sex when you are a teenager. No, the Church doesn't teach that in Africa. Did John Paul II say that: issue that decree personally? No, the ministers do. It's not Church policy.

Church policy is that married people must have sex to fulfill their marital duties.

Church policy is that condom use is immoral.

Thus, it is Church policy.

But do you agree that Christian (English/American) teenagers are less likely to get STIs or get pregnant? Although I suppose the flip side is that they are "missing out".

Actually, no. There are *higher* rates of STI and pregnancy in teens in highly religious areas. The reason is that they usually do it, but without the necessary precautions.

The whole point is, though, if you abstein, you won't get pregnant or get STIs. That is irrefutable (well, except for Mary, but that is a different tale…)

This is absolutely true, just like if you refrain from starting fires, you won't get burnt. However, just in case, everyone should know how to put out fires.

Those people who force us in class to believe that gay sex (what I am trying to say is that that's a form of preaching as well - DON'T TAKE IT THE WRONG WAY) is alright and that sex when you are 14 is alright worry me. You can teach - which would be the biology and saying that anything's alright - or you can preach. Which is what I'd do. But I'm horrendously biased for a teenager.
It shouldn't be taught as "right" or "not right" at all. They should just get the facts, pure and simple. What sex is, what pregnancy is, what STDs are, what condoms are, how to use a condom, what the birth control pill is, what an abortion is, etc.

The problem is, some people think the facts themselves are "preaching" somehow. They think that if teens even know what condoms are, they're suddenly gonna hump like bunnies. So they want to remove the facts, and teach selectively.

We never said abstinence is a bad thing. But we NEED to teach comprehensively. Let the teens make their own choices. Which they inevitably do, as we all know, regardless of what they've been taught. Some may choose to not have sex. More power to them. Some may choose to have sex. They need to know what they're getting into and how to protect themselves. Some may get date-raped. They REALLY need the facts, not bullshit moralizing.

Church policy is that married people must have sex to fulfill their marital duties.

Church policy is that condom use is immoral.

Thus, it is Church policy.



Actually, no. There are *higher* rates of STI and pregnancy in teens in highly religious areas. The reason is that they usually do it, but without the necessary precautions.



This is absolutely true, just like if you refrain from starting fires, you won't get burnt. However, just in case, everyone should know how to put out fires.

Maybe your first point is right. The Church is a very slow moving creature. I don't see why priests can't be women (there, I'm not completely crazéd).

WHAT? Proof, please? I know many religious girls, and none of them are pregnant or have STIs. In fact, they will almost certainly not have sex until they marry. I would like some proof. From England. Wait a minute, there aren't any "highly religious areas" in England.

Third point - true, but it would sort of imply that "well, don't do it, but you can if you want to". Also, fires can happen without you irresponsibly deciding to start them.

I do find your generalisation that all teenagers will experiment with sex just a trifle insulting. Teenagers aren't all weak-willed.

Third point - true, but it would sort of imply that "well, don't do it, but you can if you want to".
It's not the place of the instructors to teach them if they can or cannot. That's the parents' job. The instructors should just teach the facts, plain and simple, including how to protect themselves should they have sex.

I do find your generalisation that all teenagers will experiment with sex just a trifle insulting. Teenagers aren't all weak-willed.
Just as insulting as your generalization that by telling teens not to have sex, they will all abstain. More than 50% of teens will have had sex by the time they graduate from high school, it's important that they know how to protect themselves.

Third point - true, but it would sort of imply that "well, don't do it, but you can if you want to". Also, fires can happen without you irresponsibly deciding to start them.

Sex can happen without people being irresponsible. *Most* teenagers having sex are irresponsible, not all. However, giving someone *all* the information and stating that the only sure-fire way to avoid bad effects is to abstain does not in any way say "go ahead and do it."

I do find your generalisation that all teenagers will experiment with sex just a trifle insulting. Teenagers aren't all weak-willed.

I think you have a martyr complex, as I never made any such generalization. I didn't experiment with sex in high school, nor have I *ever* implied that all teenagers will. I have implied the truth - that there have always been and will always be some teenagers that will.

Well, it hasn't in cases of rape. You don't "need" to have sex when you are a teenager. No, the Church doesn't teach that in Africa. Did John Paul II say that: issue that decree personally? No, the ministers do. It's not Church policy.

But do you agree that Christian (English/American) teenagers are less likely to get STIs or get pregnant? Although I suppose the flip side is that they are "missing out".

The whole point is, though, if you abstein, you won't get pregnant or get STIs. That is irrefutable (well, except for Mary, but that is a different tale…)
Incorrect


Main Entry: ab•sti•nence
Pronunciation: 'ab-st&-n&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 : voluntary forbearance especially from sexual intercourse or from eating some foods
2 : habitual abstaining from intoxicating beverages —ab•sti•nent /-n&nt/ adjective


Abstinence is the practice of not having sexual intercourse


STD’s (BTW you said STI’s I believe) can also spread through oral and in the rare case other orifices

(anal sex is another example) you can still be celibate (practicing abstinence) and contract an STD through anal oral or various other methods

(note herpes is a particularly transmittable one through oral)

Weak-willed? - Come the hell off your high moral horse.

There are few religous areas left in England (Thank you God for lifting your curse of you off us.) because people are realising they don't need religon to live!

Abstinence works - teaching it doesn't lmao

Ever seen Dexter's Lab? Sex is like the big red button. Tell people not to push it and you better believe its gonna get pushed.

Sex outside of marriage isn't immoral, I have very strong personal morals (and sex outside of marriage damn well isn't prohibited by them)... I sure as hell didn't get them out of the Catholic chruch I got nothing but a burning loathing of the chruch, its lies and hypocracy out of the chruch.

You can't impose your backward quasi-religous feelings on everyone else... -.-

WHAT? Proof, please? I know many religious girls, and none of them are pregnant or have STIs. In fact, they will almost certainly not have sex until they marry. I would like some proof. From England. Wait a minute, there aren't any "highly religious areas" in England.


I will try to find the link

As a counter point

HA … with the churches view on sex do you think they would tell you if they did? They know you would look down on them (weather you say you will or not)

Do you think you can tell someone having sex at a glance … if so you are naive at best.

As for the “I am sure they wont have sex until marriage) do you know the probability of that? Honestly … depending on how old you/they are that is a lot of puberty/life/teen years to say that what they think now will hold true

I went to a catholic elementary and jr high … lol I probably would have said the same thing … then

Wait till you get into the real world your view on what these girls or other boys will do will change

I applaud you for your will to stay celibate … but I would have to say that you probably REALLY have never been put in a situation where it was possible or where the girl wanted it … once or twice you can refuse (I did) but it never (or very rarely)lasts (specially in guys)

(you can tell you are young by your pov lol just out of curiosity how old are you?)

I did... I refused (maybe not the right word, but you know) dozens of times... because I wanted it to be right, I wanted it to be the best it could be for her as well as me... so we waited...

Absinance sex ed isn't the best idea, sure it's better than having no sex ed, but still it;'s not good. They should do what we do at my school, we get told not to have sex until your over 16 and your sure of the consquinces and everything, but we also get taught about condoms and stuff, if you wanrt a condom you can get them for free from school and everything.

As for the bit about teenages being weak willed, I can think of no teenage boy in my class who wouldn't want to have sex.

You'd be supprised how many would break under the pressure and how much of that is bravardo lol

-

Oh yea:

Condoms are free from sexual health clinics

Girls under 16 can be prescribed the pill

You'd be supprised how many would break under the pressure and how much of that is bravardo lol

-

Oh yea:

Condoms are free from sexual health clinics

Girls under 16 can be prescribed the pill
I know a few who havn't though...

And a few would break but most wouldn't I'm pritty sure of that.

And they are free from health clinics(but theres no clinic in Skipton) And the pill can be subscribed for under 16's, though spposedly as a last resort.

I would contest the assertation that abstenance-only sex education is better than none whatsoever. A lack of sex education does not carry the puritanical taboo on sex that characterizes much of the abstenance-only stance, which makes sex into the "forbidden fruit" that tempts young people so easily. Nor does it teach them to be ashamed or afraid of a part of their own identity. We are all human beings. Therefore, by definition, we are all sexual beings; whether or not you ever actually have sex has no bearing on that. A person's sexuality is a part of who they are, and should not be stifled or brushed under the carpet. To do so is to introduce needless, and damaging, barriers to full psychological health during the developmental years. It is also this taboo that makes sex in advertising and the media so effective, and therefore, so prevalent; what's to sell if people are open about it anyway? Where would the thrill be?

Aust: To imply that most teenage males would not capitulate given a real, direct opportunity to have sex is naive. The sheer percentage of teenagers who have sex before leaving high school is proof enough of that.

I will try to find the link

As a counter point

HA … with the churches view on sex do you think they would tell you if they did? They know you would look down on them (weather you say you will or not)

Do you think you can tell someone having sex at a glance … if so you are naive at best.

As for the “I am sure they wont have sex until marriage) do you know the probability of that? Honestly … depending on how old you/they are that is a lot of puberty/life/teen years to say that what they think now will hold true

I went to a catholic elementary and jr high … lol I probably would have said the same thing … then

Wait till you get into the real world your view on what these girls or other boys will do will change

I applaud you for your will to stay celibate … but I would have to say that you probably REALLY have never been put in a situation where it was possible or where the girl wanted it … once or twice you can refuse (I did) but it never (or very rarely)lasts (specially in guys)

(you can tell you are young by your pov lol just out of curiosity how old are you?)

I am fifteen. I'm sorry if I sounded moralising (how can you tell I'm young? Many teenagers don't hold my views - how could you tell? Maybe it's because I am overly zealous in my p.o.v.?), but I certainly feel able to control myself… whoops, there I go again… anyway - well, I don't think that they have boyfriends/whatnot, so that's a sort of key factor. Secondly, yes, I have no illusions, trust me. Most catholics actually do stay celibate till they marry… I think so… yes I know you can't tell from a glance, but they're bloody good at keeping secrets. There are many things that we are unsure of.

No, I haven't been put in that sort of situation. Seriously - what are the logistics of me being put in that situation more than once or twice? I can't say for certain (just as I cannot say whether I'd be able to face, oh I don't know, a flesh eating zombie or something without running away…) because I haven't been in that situation. I would, without trying to sound moralistic, guess that I could hold up. You know how it works; I just wouldn't be able to face it - because I am a Christian. I hope.

In my school we were taught a wide range of positions and given a full array of flavored condoms, lubes, and of course the standard pair of handcuffs and edible underwear.

No but really, there's a total misconception about (teenage) guys, everyone thinks they're all just uncontrollable hormone monsters that do whatever random impulse is being swept through their body. In actuality most of us believe in staying with one girl, not having sex with everything that comes along, etc. As for the "bad" ones who are like that, I would be willing to bet for every hornball guy there's an ultra-skank slut. I've turned down sex on more than one occasion because the girl was a slut, or stupid, or just not my type.

So there's my defense for guys.

I went to Catholic highschool and a catholic college.
We were screwing just as much as the normal population of kids our age, if not more, we just felt guilty about it. We were not given constructive sex ed class. We were show a "boys video" and a "girls video" in seventh grade, and that was it. Then we were told not to think about the opposite gender or "touch ourselves innapropriately" and that we weren't ever EVER to have premarital sex.
I waited till I was nineteen to have sex, but because I wasn't ready, not because of the guilt tripping. I was one of the very few people who graduated highschool a virgin.
Abstinence-only education ISN'T education. No information is given. And what's more, if abstinence classes had a pass-fail range to grade kids on, 99.9 percent would fail.

I am fifteen. I'm sorry if I sounded moralising (how can you tell I'm young? Many teenagers don't hold my views - how could you tell? Maybe it's because I am overly zealous in my p.o.v.?), but I certainly feel able to control myself… whoops, there I go again… anyway - well, I don't think that they have boyfriends/whatnot, so that's a sort of key factor. Secondly, yes, I have no illusions, trust me. Most catholics actually do stay celibate till they marry… I think so… yes I know you can't tell from a glance, but they're bloody good at keeping secrets. There are many things that we are unsure of.

No, I haven't been put in that sort of situation. Seriously - what are the logistics of me being put in that situation more than once or twice? I can't say for certain (just as I cannot say whether I'd be able to face, oh I don't know, a flesh eating zombie or something without running away…) because I haven't been in that situation. I would, without trying to sound moralistic, guess that I could hold up. You know how it works; I just wouldn't be able to face it - because I am a Christian. I hope.

of COURSE you can learn to control yourself, of course the rest of the teens in the world could too. that doesnt mean they WILL

but what if you fall in love and suddenly find yourself sorely tempted and you know NOTHING about sex? you can get a girl pregnant without ever actually having sex with her. (now that has got to suck eh?) you can do other things that dont lead to pregnancy but DO lead to orgasm. do you think you need to know about those things?

if you intend to get married some day you WILL be tempted. we dont have arranged marriages here so you will fall in love with some nice woman and since you love her you WILL be tempted. youll need to know stuff. youll need to know stuff on your wedding night

hmmmm thats not really my point. my POINT is that you are the exception and its not going to make one bit of difference if you are or are not taught the abstinence cirriculum, you have made your decision. but you (and more importantly the other kids in your class) need to know about sex, pregnancy, birth control, stds, etc. the message of "hey its ok to not have sex" is important but so is the rest of it. with all the stupid stuff teens tell each other about sex ("oh she cant get pregnant her first time") they NEED to be taught the truth.

and no, most catholics do NOT stay celibate until marriage. very few people do. that doesnt make them sluts, it just means that even if they are very religious, sometime within that engagement period they have sex.

(that being the other downfall of abstinence education. it doesnt tell you what to do if you ARENT abstinent. how do you make the decision to not have sex after you arent a virgin anymore?)

Those people who force us in class to believe that gay sex (what I am trying to say is that that's a form of preaching as well - DON'T TAKE IT THE WRONG WAY) is alright and that sex when you are 14 is alright worry me. You can teach - which would be the biology and saying that anything's alright - or you can preach. Which is what I'd do. But I'm horrendously biased for a teenager.

Preaching would be insisting that there is only one correct way. Preaching would be teaching that it is only okay to be gay or only okay to be staight or only okay to have sex. Abstinence only education is a form of preaching.
Presenting reality and facts -including but not limited to the benefits of remaining abstinent - is educating.

I would contest the assertation that abstenance-only sex education is better than none whatsoever. A lack of sex education does not carry the puritanical taboo on sex that characterizes much of the abstenance-only stance, which makes sex into the "forbidden fruit" that tempts young people so easily. Nor does it teach them to be ashamed or afraid of a part of their own identity. We are all human beings. Therefore, by definition, we are all sexual beings; whether or not you ever actually have sex has no bearing on that. A person's sexuality is a part of who they are, and should not be stifled or brushed under the carpet. To do so is to introduce needless, and damaging, barriers to full psychological health during the developmental years. It is also this taboo that makes sex in advertising and the media so effective, and therefore, so prevalent; what's to sell if people are open about it anyway? Where would the thrill be?


Thank you. That is one of the most reasonable things that has been said in this thread yet. In fact, it is the puritanical taboo against sex that makes even many teens who know better practice unsafe sex, because it leads to less social criticism for "getting carried away by hormones" than for actively and responsibley deciding to have sex.

I would contest the assertation that abstenance-only sex education is better than none whatsoever. A lack of sex education does not carry the puritanical taboo on sex that characterizes much of the abstenance-only stance, which makes sex into the "forbidden fruit" that tempts young people so easily. Nor does it teach them to be ashamed or afraid of a part of their own identity. We are all human beings. Therefore, by definition, we are all sexual beings; whether or not you ever actually have sex has no bearing on that. A person's sexuality is a part of who they are, and should not be stifled or brushed under the carpet. To do so is to introduce needless, and damaging, barriers to full psychological health during the developmental years. It is also this taboo that makes sex in advertising and the media so effective, and therefore, so prevalent; what's to sell if people are open about it anyway? Where would the thrill be?

a good point, but it goes well beyond that. the simple fact is that abstinence-only students will usually be MORE sexually active than comprehensively educated students, and comprehensively-educated students are also less active than they would have been with no sex ed at all:

"The World Health Organization reviewed evaluations of 47 programs in the United States and other countries. In 15 studies, sex and HIV/AIDS education neither increased nor decreased sexual activity and rates of pregnancy and STI. However, in 17 studies, HIV and/or sex education delayed the onset of sexual activity, reduced the number of sexual partners, and/or reduced unplanned pregnancy and STI rates."

the upshot, in my opinion, is that people who actually want kids to practice abstinence should be supporting the programs that will lead to that end, and if they support any other program then they are revealing their true motives...they just want to get their way and have their beliefs taught as fact, and the safety and health of children is irrelevant to them.

what is really sad is that all this prudish, Puritanial nonsense about sex is directly putting American children in danger:

"International comparisons indicate that by failing to be open and candid with young people about sexuality, society increases the likelihood they will have sex. In 1999, Washington Post columnist Judy Mann noted that the U.S. is unique among Western nations in its reluctance to provide the young with information regarding sex. This prudishness has not discouraged sexual activity. The U.S. has higher rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases than European nations. The U.S. abortion rate is five times higher than in the Netherlands. And American teens on average become sexually active at lower ages than their European peers."

[sources: Baldo M, et al. Does Sex Education Lead to Earlier or Increased Sexual Activity in Youth? Presented at the Ninth International Conference on AIDS, Berlin, June 6-19, 1993. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1993. Alan Guttmacher Institute. Sex and America's Teenagers. New York: The Institute, 1994.]

of COURSE you can learn to control yourself, of course the rest of the teens in the world could too. that doesnt mean they WILL

but what if you fall in love and suddenly find yourself sorely tempted and you know NOTHING about sex? you can get a girl pregnant without ever actually having sex with her. (now that has got to suck eh?) you can do other things that dont lead to pregnancy but DO lead to orgasm. do you think you need to know about those things?

if you intend to get married some day you WILL be tempted. we dont have arranged marriages here so you will fall in love with some nice woman and since you love her you WILL be tempted. youll need to know stuff. youll need to know stuff on your wedding night

hmmmm thats not really my point. my POINT is that you are the exception and its not going to make one bit of difference if you are or are not taught the abstinence cirriculum, you have made your decision. but you (and more importantly the other kids in your class) need to know about sex, pregnancy, birth control, stds, etc. the message of "hey its ok to not have sex" is important but so is the rest of it. with all the stupid stuff teens tell each other about sex ("oh she cant get pregnant her first time") they NEED to be taught the truth.

and no, most catholics do NOT stay celibate until marriage. very few people do. that doesnt make them sluts, it just means that even if they are very religious, sometime within that engagement period they have sex.

(that being the other downfall of abstinence education. it doesnt tell you what to do if you ARENT abstinent. how do you make the decision to not have sex after you arent a virgin anymore?)

I am trying VERY hard not to call people sluts! I just do not do that! Actually, I see your point - if you don't have any real reason not to have sex when you're a teenager, you will. Seriously though - have you ever been to a modern British PSHE (personal social health education) class? They give a completely one-sided opinion - not even mentioning abstinence as a possible option, or talking about marriage in any way.

Don't get me wrong - it probably came out completely wrong - but I do not want to start preaching from the high ground. I think it's stupid that abstinence isn't even given as a realistic option in schools.

Someone said :"How do you know they're celibate?" Well how do I know they don't wander around London killing prostitutes Jack Ripper style after dark? I assume they don't, through trust. There is also the fact that most of them are under 16.

You're quite right - they DO need to be taught the truth. But as I have said 'fore, they don't teach all the options in our classes. Basically, they say "Er, use a condom" and that's about it. No, really.

(Nobody's ever paid this much attention to me… it's fairly scary). What is a Martyr Complex? My friend thinks I have a smallman complex, whatever that is. What is a Martyr complex - ?

:PS: I didn't say that we should shy away from the subject (if I did, I'm sorry).

Oh and, how do you KNOW they aren't celibate? Someone said that you can't tell "just by looking at them" if they're celibate or not - so how can you tell if they're not (well, unless they get pregnant, that's a fair clue - but what the Hell did someone say about getting pregnant without sex? Are they talking about IVF?)

but what the Hell did someone say about getting pregnant without sex? Are they talking about IVF?)
penetrative sex is not essential for fertilization; if a male ejaculates close enough to the vagina, the sperm can actually swim up inside the female. if semen gets on somebody's hand and then is transfered to the vagina the sperm can make their way upstream, so to speak. now, the chances of this happening are relatively small, but they do exist, and kids need to be taught that pregnancy is the result of sperm meeting egg so that they will be able to make safe choices about ALL sexual activities.

penetrative sex is not essential for fertilization; if a male ejaculates close enough to the vagina, the sperm can actually swim up inside the female. if semen gets on somebody's hand and then is transfered to the vagina the sperm can make their way upstream, so to speak. now, the chances of this happening are relatively small, but they do exist, and kids need to be taught that pregnancy is the result of sperm meeting egg so that they will be able to make safe choices about ALL sexual activities.

Okay. I didn't know what the Hell you were talking about.

Seriously though - lots of people say that abst. ed. is one sided - but so is the education we receive in Britain, which basically goes along the lines of: "Well, you ARE going to have sex when you're a teenager, so… er… use a condom?". Most of the time they repeatedly tell us not to smoke though.

Okay. I didn't know what the Hell you were talking about.

Seriously though - lots of people say that abst. ed. is one sided - but so is the education we receive in Britain, which basically goes along the lines of: "Well, you ARE going to have sex when you're a teenager, so… er… use a condom?". Most of the time they repeatedly tell us not to smoke though.
personally i don't think kids should be told what decisions to make. they should be given the factual information about how sex works, how contraception works, and what the dangers of sexual activity and unprotected sex are, and then should be allowed to make their own choices without having to sit through preachy lectures. similarly, kids should be taught the health effects of drug use, smoking, drinking, and dietary choices, but should not be taught any particular gospel about how to live their lives.

school is for teaching FACTS. parents should be teaching values, rather than dumping their responsibility on school systems.

personally i don't think kids should be told what decisions to make. they should be given the factual information about how sex works, how contraception works, and what the dangers of sexual activity and unprotected sex are, and then should be allowed to make their own choices without having to sit through preachy lectures. similarly, kids should be taught the health effects of drug use, smoking, drinking, and dietary choices, but should not be taught any particular gospel about how to live their lives.

school is for teaching FACTS. parents should be teaching values, rather than dumping their responsibility on school systems. I concede to thee. You're right. BUT I do keep saying that: in the UK they don't teach about abstinence at all. Not even as an option! The biggest reference they made was, "some people may be staunch Catholics here" - everybody looked at me - but all they did was tell us to use a condom. That is not education. Education is looking at all the viewpoints objectively.

I concede to thee. You're right. BUT I do keep saying that: in the UK they don't teach about abstinence at all. Not even as an option! The biggest reference they made was, "some people may be staunch Catholics here" - everybody looked at me - but all they did was tell us to use a condom. That is not education. Education is looking at all the viewpoints objectively.

Then you can see how the big push in America is just as bad, but in the opposite direction. Abstinence-only programs are not even allowed to mention the word condom.

personally i don't think kids should be told what decisions to make. they should be given the factual information about how sex works, how contraception works, and what the dangers of sexual activity and unprotected sex are, and then should be allowed to make their own choices without having to sit through preachy lectures. similarly, kids should be taught the health effects of drug use, smoking, drinking, and dietary choices, but should not be taught any particular gospel about how to live their lives.

school is for teaching FACTS. parents should be teaching values, rather than dumping their responsibility on school systems.
i agree and disagree

its a waste of time to try to tell teenagers what to think. they can make up their own minds based on their own lives and trying to force an opinion on them will only turn them off to what you are trying to tell them

but there are MANY good reasons to delay/minimize/stop having sex. and everyone needs to learn what they are. you would THINK that seeing all those girls and boys with babies would be enough.

people need to know the likelihood of sex leading to babies. they need to know that it SUCKS to be a parent when you are 15 and that it sucks for the FATHER as well as the mother. they need to know the health and psychological consequences of unwise sex.

it just seems to me that most of our sex ed (like i'd know) is a virgin/whore cirriculum. you need to save it for marriage, if you dont you are a slut who will have sex with anyone. how about some education on making wise choices TO have sex?

i know MANY people who had sex as teenagers. most ended up just fine. a few were screwed up before they started having sex and the sex screwed them up even more. some had a very hard life because they were parents before they got out of highschool.

and i agree wtih Liskeinland that it needs to be more than "well we know you are going to have sex so use a condom" education. that sells teens short and doesnt help them develop the judgement they need to get through life.

i agree and disagree

its a waste of time to try to tell teenagers what to think. they can make up their own minds based on their own lives and trying to force an opinion on them will only turn them off to what you are trying to tell them

but there are MANY good reasons to delay/minimize/stop having sex. and everyone needs to learn what they are. you would THINK that seeing all those girls and boys with babies would be enough.

people need to know the likelihood of sex leading to babies. they need to know that it SUCKS to be a parent when you are 15 and that it sucks for the FATHER as well as the mother. they need to know the health and psychological consequences of unwise sex.

it just seems to me that most of our sex ed (like i'd know) is a virgin/whore cirriculum. you need to save it for marriage, if you dont you are a slut who will have sex with anyone. how about some education on making wise choices TO have sex?

i know MANY people who had sex as teenagers. most ended up just fine. a few were screwed up before they started having sex and the sex screwed them up even more. some had a very hard life because they were parents before they got out of highschool.

and i agree wtih Liskeinland that it needs to be more than "well we know you are going to have sex so use a condom" education. that sells teens short and doesnt help them develop the judgement they need to get through life.
as i said, i want kids to be presented with all the FACTS. this includes the risks and the benefits of any of the behaviors they learn about, as well as safety methods that can minimize those risks. i simply don't want teachers wasting time telling kids what they should and shouldn't be doing with their genitals on their own time; give them the facts and let them use their brains. if they make poor choices that's the fault of their parents, not of the schools, because it is the school's job to provide the information but the parents' to provide the guidance.

At the time I was in high school (grade 8, specifically), there was no curriculum provided that dealt with sexuality in any way, other than what could be implied through biology class, ie the brute mechanics of reproduction.

My parents were concerned about this, as were the parents of some of my fellow young church-going Unitarians. Our parents decided to put together a curriculum for teaching sex education that year, and took turns delivering it to us every Sunday for about eight weeks.

Considering that only one or two of our parents had had experience in teaching, the class went really quite well. We covered everything, from auto-eroticism to group sex, homosexuality, transgenderism, pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, STDs, fetishism, pornography - and more. At the time, it felt like here were our parents - people we knew and trusted implicitly - pulling back a curtain and welcoming us to the Garden of Earthly Delights.

A number of people I've met who've come from fundamentalist backgrounds have immediately scoffed when I've mentioned that I received my sexual education from church, as part of my Religious Education. I guess it comes down to how relevant your religion is to real-life issues.

But abstinence was never described as being anything other than a precursor to being sexually active. The course was dealing with normal, healthy sexuality, not the abnormal, unhealthy lack thereof. In some circles, even masturbation is considered tabboo. How can that be a healthy choice - it's more like a recipe for people eventually going postal.

as i said, i want kids to be presented with all the FACTS. this includes the risks and the benefits of any of the behaviors they learn about, as well as safety methods that can minimize those risks. i simply don't want teachers wasting time telling kids what they should and shouldn't be doing with their genitals on their own time; give them the facts and let them use their brains. if they make poor choices that's the fault of their parents, not of the schools, because it is the school's job to provide the information but the parents' to provide the guidance.
thats the part i agreed with

i just dont think its WRONG to let students know that you dont think "drugged out slut" or "girl with such low self esteem that she'll give any boy who pretends to like her a blow job" is a great choice

Erm... can I just point out that 'marriage' has nothing what so ever to do with sex education - sex ed should be first and foremost biology - then socialogy, theres no place for religon in schools.

Religon is a personal choice, sex education is blantantly tainted by religon... come to think about it I think my sex ed was very very very restricted in catholic school... condoms where mentioned in class, but woe betide those that comitt the sacreligious act of posession of the devil's seath it was punishable by exclusion...

On thinking about it... I don't think there was ANY education relating to homosexuality... none what so ever... I think that has something to do with the bastard Conservative party and an Act preventing authorties from 'promoting homosexuality' clause 28 I think is the particular part... but I don't know from what Act...

Masterbation's coverage was comic... we were watching a video as a whole class (there was a 'girls' video too but it was covering topics 'unsuitable' for menfolk) it was a 3 second mention... to be fair there was a cheer when 'masterbation' was said and a very irrate teacher... its coverage was "It is possible to masterbate by touching yourself, ony some people do this, its equally normal to as not to."

thats the part i agreed with

i just dont think its WRONG to let students know that you dont think "drugged out slut" or "girl with such low self esteem that she'll give any boy who pretends to like her a blow job" is a great choice

What about a girl who is confident in her sexuality, and performs oral sex because...she likes it? Wouldn't assuming that such a girl was possessed of 'low self-esteem', ie injecting one's own preconceived notions of propriety, place limits on the credibility of the educator?

Why is there such a stigma being placed on oral sex by the way?

At the time I was in high school (grade 8, specifically), there was no curriculum provided that dealt with sexuality in any way, other than what could be implied through biology class, ie the brute mechanics of reproduction.

My parents were concerned about this, as were the parents of some of my fellow young church-going Unitarians. Our parents decided to put together a curriculum for teaching sex education that year, and took turns delivering it to us every Sunday for about eight weeks.

Considering that only one or two of our parents had had experience in teaching, the class went really quite well. We covered everything, from auto-eroticism to group sex, homosexuality, transgenderism, pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, STDs, fetishism, pornography - and more. At the time, it felt like here were our parents - people we knew and trusted implicitly - pulling back a curtain and welcoming us to the Garden of Earthly Delights.

A number of people I've met who've come from fundamentalist backgrounds have immediately scoffed when I've mentioned that I received my sexual education from church, as part of my Religious Education. I guess it comes down to how relevant your religion is to real-life issues.

But abstinence was never described as being anything other than a precursor to being sexually active. The course was dealing with normal, healthy sexuality, not the abnormal, unhealthy lack thereof. In some circles, even masturbation is considered tabboo. How can that be a healthy choice - it's more like a recipe for people eventually going postal.
You were quite lucky that your parents were open and honest about it with you. Unfortunately, there are too many people who are either 1) too uncomfortable with the subject to talk about it with their kids or 2) don't know enough about the subject themselves to be able ot talk about it effectively.

The US is a case study in hypocrisy when it comes to sex-ed. If we talk about the mechanics of sex openly, but don't limit it to mono-racial, heterosexual missionary position, then someone gets up in arms about it and accuses the country's moral values of having slid into the bowels of hell. Meanwhile, the places where those people are screaming the loudest are also the places where some of the most risque television shows are getting their highest ratings. Something reeks there--it's not as if the Neilsen ratings people are intentionally looking for the most lascivious homes into which to puttheir boxes.

it is nothing to do with politics

im pretty sure you guys vote by IQ,
i read somewhere that the states with the lowest average IQ all voted Bush

That pal is fact.

Nope. That's hoax (http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp).

What about a girl who is confident in her sexuality, and performs oral sex because...she likes it? Wouldn't assuming that such a girl was possessed of 'low self-esteem', ie injecting one's own preconceived notions of propriety, place limits on the credibility of the educator?
in theory such a girl exists. that then is her choice if she understand her risks.

do you personally know many girls who give out blow jobs the way other girls give out smiles? do you personally know ANY girl who gives blow jobs to ANYONE who isnt pathetic? im not saying such girls can't exist, im saying *I* havent met one and furthermore that most need help getting out of that kind of attitude toward sex.

but in any case my example was not one of girls who give out oral sex but of girls who give out oral sex as a way of getting male attention. that is NOT a good choice.

Why is there such a stigma being placed on oral sex by the way?
beats me. in a choice of indiscriminate sex its much better than intercourse. except of course that one normally thinks of girls doing it on boys rather than the other way around. if the girls always give and never receive, thats just not right.

lol... I get annoyed at guys who get themselves off then go to sleep... wheres the fun in sex unless by the end of it *shes* too tired to go on :D

see, i thought that it was sad that my sex ed didn't mention that i have a clitoris. let alone that it's a very fun thing to have.

let alone how to really go about having sex (well, the penis in vagina and thrusting is rather self explanatory) and hell, unlike the boys, we didn't even put condoms on bananas. i know that more often than not, i'm the one who puts the condom on my bf...

and they taught us all the kinds of protection and a bit about the diseases, then they pointed out that the only way to be 100% safe from the diseases and pregnancy is abstinance (which is true, but at least they mentioned the other options and accurate % for being effective as well as how being monogomous can also prevent disease)

and we had a couple kinds of sex ed. in grade 5 was the first time. they taught us what to expect in terms of puberty and that "touching yourself is ok" then came grade 9, where they gave us the biology of it (though there's more biology involved in the human reproduction section of biology class...) and the disease and contraceptive bit.

Why is there such a stigma being placed on oral sex by the way?

Because the theory that some ultra-repressed people live by is that sex not happening at night, under the covers, in missionary position between, soley for the purpose of conception between a married man and a woman is bad.

While oral sex does carry some risk of disease transfer, it is slightly less than for penetrative sex, and oral sex cannot result in pregnancy. Thus, as it has less in the way of real-world negative consequences, the people mentioned earlier feel it necessary to deliver the social smack-down, so to speak.

Please note, that these people also only think that in heterosexual relationships that only females give oral sex, and then only ones who are "drugged out sluts" or girls with "low self-esteem" meaning that they think the idea of a female actually enjoying any sexual activity that is not baby-producing is ludicrious.

Crazy if you ask me.

lol... I get annoyed at guys who get themselves off then go to sleep... wheres the fun in sex unless by the end of it *shes* too tired to go on :D
uh....
wanna be my new boyfriend?

Here's what happens (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26623-2004Dec1?language=printer) when you let ideologues control the education system.


It gets worse.

No wonder kids come out of abstinence-only sex-ed programs fucked up in the head (pardon the pun). Waxman says, and I agree, that he has no objection to including abstinence as a part of (and I would say a primary part of) any sex-ed program, but you've got to get your facts straight.

One study mentioned in the same article notes that 61% of high school graduates have had sex before they graduated--and that's the graduates, which means they've left out all the people who didn't make it that far. I'd be willing to bet that that number is significantly higher among dropouts. We're talking about life-altering information here, and the religious right has not only determined that when it comes to sex, we should limit our kids' options for what kinds of information, we should make shit up and lie to them.

Hey, I still find abstinence to be by far the best form of sex education out there, but for different reasons than the rest of my conservative bretheran.

Hey, I still find abstinence to be by far the best form of sex education out there, but for different reasons than the rest of my conservative bretheran.
Can you clarify something for me? Are you talking about abstinence-only education or about abstinence as a lifestyle or abstinence as included in a wider sexual education curriculum? And if you're talking about abstinence-only education, can you defend it?

Can you clarify something for me? Are you talking about abstinence-only education or about abstinence as a lifestyle or abstinence as included in a wider sexual education curriculum? And if you're talking about abstinence-only education, can you defend it?
I'm talking about abstinence as a lifestyle. See my thread about banning sex. Note that I only placed the "ban" part on there to attract posters, but the thread does reflect my philosophy on sex.

i just dont think its WRONG to let students know that you dont think "drugged out slut" or "girl with such low self esteem that she'll give any boy who pretends to like her a blow job" is a great choice
?

i have perfectly fine self esteem and i love giving head. i dont' do it for everyone i know, only my bf now.

however, to each their own. while doing something for someone else's approval isn't great... it doesn't just apply to sexual things. you shouldn't dress a certain way to be liked, you shouldn't act a certian way for the sake of being liked. similarly, you shoudln't give head for popularity... you shoudl give head because you enjoy doing so.

but that falls under self esteem and self respect... which can't really be taught in my opinion. it's something a person has to learn. the best you can do is encourage them.

Hey, I still find abstinence to be by far the best form of sex education out there, but for different reasons than the rest of my conservative bretheran.
because it teaches children lies to keep them from fucking?

you know, proper sexual education leads to lower teen pregnancy rates. telling them "dont do it" does not.

While oral sex does carry some risk of disease transfer, it is slightly less than for penetrative sex, and oral sex cannot result in pregnancy. Thus, as it has less in the way of real-world negative consequences, the people mentioned earlier feel it necessary to deliver the social smack-down, so to speak.
actually, sue johnansen (she has a t.v. show called sex with sue, it's a canadian show, but she recently began broadcasting in the u.s. as well) got a question from a lady in the states who was worried about becoming pregnant because she swallowed cum.

it's disgusting that americans allow such levels of ignorance about something as important as sexuality.

actually, sue johnansen (she has a t.v. show called sex with sue, it's a canadian show, but she recently began broadcasting in the u.s. as well) got a question from a lady in the states who was worried about becoming pregnant because she swallowed cum.

it's disgusting that americans allow such levels of ignorance about something as important as sexuality.

In my nation's defense, I think you'd find that level of ignorance in at least a part of the population regardless of how comprehensive the education on the matter is.

In my nation's defense, I think you'd find that level of ignorance in at least a part of the population regardless of how comprehensive the education on the matter is.
Problem is that it seems the most ignorant are the ones who are controlling the educational system in general, and the sex-ed system in particular. That's why I started the thread--to talk about how we've allowed the nutjobs to control the discourse to such a point that this crap isn't even surprising anymore.

?

i have perfectly fine self esteem and i love giving head. i dont' do it for everyone i know, only my bf now.

however, to each their own. while doing something for someone else's approval isn't great... it doesn't just apply to sexual things. you shouldn't dress a certain way to be liked, you shouldn't act a certian way for the sake of being liked. similarly, you shoudln't give head for popularity... you shoudl give head because you enjoy doing so.

but that falls under self esteem and self respect... which can't really be taught in my opinion. it's something a person has to learn. the best you can do is encourage them.
and i meant it exactly as i wrote it

i dont think its WRONG for a teacher to point out that trading sex for drugs is a BAD IDEA (drugged out slut) or if you are so often under the influenece of drugs that you are having sex that you arent planning/enjoying/consenting to you are making BAD CHOICES. (it is also of course a bad idea to trade drugs for sex or to be having sex with someone who is so under the influence that she is unaware of who you are)

i dont think its WRONG for a teacher to point out that to trade sex for popularity is a bad idea. low self esteem has led many girls to unplanned motherhood and STDs. if that is the reason a girl is giving out sex, its a BAD CHOICE.

that doesnt mean that every act of oral sex is a bad choice. i just think that not all choices are equal when it comes to sex. there are good reasons and bad reasons and that its not wrong to point that out.

In my nation's defense, I think you'd find that level of ignorance in at least a part of the population regardless of how comprehensive the education on the matter is.
i've watched the canadian version of the show a number of times and i've never heard anyone ask something that ignorant.

the canadian version is usually best positions, how to best preform oral sex, what toys are good, how to sustain an erection, what birth control is best, questions about anal, questions about foreplay...

the most bizarre thing i've heard from a canadian woman was one who had never had an orgasm and wouldn't masturbate to achieve one or to learn the best way for her to be stimulated.

Problem is that it seems the most ignorant are the ones who are controlling the educational system in general, and the sex-ed system in particular. That's why I started the thread--to talk about how we've allowed the nutjobs to control the discourse to such a point that this crap isn't even surprising anymore.

I don't think that's the case at all. I'm confident that the people in charge are quite knowledgable when it comes to sex. I think they've chosen to misrepresent information in such a way to promote their alternate agendas.

i've watched the canadian version of the show a number of times and i've never heard anyone ask something that ignorant.

the canadian version is usually best positions, how to best preform oral sex, what toys are good, how to sustain an erection, what birth control is best, questions about anal, questions about foreplay...

the most bizarre thing i've heard from a canadian woman was one who had never had an orgasm and wouldn't masturbate to achieve one or to learn the best way for her to be stimulated.

That doesn't necessarily mean that people that dumb don't exist in Canada; it just means you haven't heard from them yet. I'm saying that no matter how well you think you're educating people, there will still be a few lost souls who will never get it.

The only ideologues that control our publik skool system are the members of the near-communist National Education Association (NEA). Perhaps those ridiculous statements ("touching another person's genitals can make you pregnant" and such) were written and taught by NEA members so they can say "look what these right-wingers want to teach our children!". They are not below doing that. In New York, we have what is called a regent's exam, which the NEA wants to abolish, because it is the last thing in the state that enforces any kind of standards. They always point to a particular question on the test and say, "Well, look at the kinds of questions they are asking on this test! It should be abolished." What is strange is, the test is written by teachers, and the questions they usually point to were written by active NEA members. That is why whenever I hear of something like that on any issue of education, I have to wonder what NEA member(s) are behind it.
My school's sex education was anything but pro-abstinence. One video in particular i remember and found really disturbing. It opened with a stripper and a rock group in the background singing something like "Sex. That's what we're talkin' about. Sex..." It presented having an abortion as a completely positive thing (I'm not against abortions, but I don't know anyone who thinks abortion is a good thing). Periodically, the video presents questions like "Would you have sex with a prostitute, or be a virgin your whole life?"
On the subject of sex education itself, I don't think the publik skools should be teaching it. It should be up to the parents. I am normally suspicious of statistics, but every one I have seen says teen pregnancy went way up shortly after sex education began in the 1970's.

I don't think that's the case at all. I'm confident that the people in charge are quite knowledgable when it comes to sex. I think they've chosen to misrepresent information in such a way to promote their alternate agendas.
Perhpas that's the case at the very top, but when we're talking about the level of local school boards--and I know this from going around and around with some of them--we're talking about politically connected, but horribly ignorant people, and right now, they're the ones who are most directly influencing the debate. These are the people who are approving the curricula that winds up in the schools our kids go to.

Nothing of consequence.Seriously, do you find it hard to breathe with your head that far up your ass?

The only ideologues that control our publik skool system are the members of the near-communist National Education Association (NEA). Perhaps those ridiculous statements ("touching another person's genitals can make you pregnant" and such) were written and taught by NEA members so they can say "look what these right-wingers want to teach our children!". They are not below doing that. In New York, we have what is called a regent's exam, which the NEA wants to abolish, because it is the last thing in the state that enforces any kind of standards. They always point to a particular question on the test and say, "Well, look at the kinds of questions they are asking on this test! It should be abolished." What is strange is, the test is written by teachers, and the questions they usually point to were written by active NEA members. That is why whenever I hear of something like that on any issue of education, I have to wonder what NEA member(s) are behind it.
My school's sex education was anything but pro-abstinence. One video in particular i remember and found really disturbing. It opened with a stripper and a rock group in the background singing something like "Sex. That's what we're talkin' about. Sex..." It presented having an abortion as a completely positive thing (I'm not against abortions, but I don't know anyone who thinks abortion is a good thing). Periodically, the video presents questions like "Would you have sex with a prostitute, or be a virgin your whole life?"
On the subject of sex education itself, I don't think the publik skools should be teaching it. It should be up to the parents. I am normally suspicious of statistics, but every one I have seen says teen pregnancy went way up shortly after sex education began in the 1970's.
well, it obvious that you didn't pay much attention in school...

seeing as you can't even spell it right.

In Denmark we got about 11 pregnant teens each year. We have a 5.000.000 population. We have sex education in all schools.

Only 11 teen pregnancies in a population of 5,000,000? I'm going to need you to cite a source for that.

I love the way language is used to make your point:

"Touching someone else's genitals can result in pregnancy" - Yep... thats true... but you fail to mention when thats the case...

I mean two girls or two lads can do that all day long and they're not going to get pregnant (might seem bloody obvious... but if things aren't made explicitly clear stupidity will prevail -.-)

So... when can that lead to pregnancy? Only if there is a sperm transfer... so guy touching her then himself leads to no problem... however, if its a him to her it *could*

-

Education is the search for truth - :) I'm sorry no matter how many priests and prayer leaders you get together in a room to decide how evil anything is... I'm not going to believe them because thats pure opinon you can't represent religous doctrine as fact... why? Erm... because its not? =/

Quote:

Only 11 teen pregnancies in a population of 5,000,000? I'm going to need you to cite a source for that.

-I found quite a few. But they where all in Danish. Do you understand Danish?

-I got from a magazine writeing about "Abstinence-only sex education" in the US. And yes... it is only 11 in avarige each year in Denmark (for seval years I belive),and the population is all in all about 5.000.000 people. Why is it so hard to belive?

-Holland is actually doing better!

-The US are dooing worse than the both the Philiphines and Ruwanda. How it came to this in the US... I dont know!? :confused: But if you search the Net with the words: pregnancies, teen, Abstinence (maybe also) third world, Laugh of the civilized world... you might find something!

-I only meet two pregnant teens in my whole life. But i never spoke with them personally. I can only look on in disbelivfe when I hear about Abstinence "education". How the president can support the "Abstinence education" movement... in what most people consider a civilized country... I CANNOT COMPREHEND :(

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

Quote:

Education is the search for truth - I'm sorry no matter how many priests and prayer leaders you get together in a room to decide how evil anything is... I'm not going to believe them because thats pure opinon you can't represent religous doctrine as fact... why? Erm... because its not? =/

Yes! I might be the truth... but try to expalin it to them... I tried... I failed... nothing seem to work... not even common reason... logic.... or statistics... how are we to win... when the already won with G.W. Bush!? :(

But we are glad you are trying... at least you are trying to make a difference!

We might try to use a Flamethrower next time :gundge:

Harry "the Bastard" (english is not my native language)

and i meant it exactly as i wrote it

i dont think its WRONG for a teacher to point out that trading sex for drugs is a BAD IDEA (drugged out slut) or if you are so often under the influenece of drugs that you are having sex that you arent planning/enjoying/consenting to you are making BAD CHOICES. (it is also of course a bad idea to trade drugs for sex or to be having sex with someone who is so under the influence that she is unaware of who you are)

i dont think its WRONG for a teacher to point out that to trade sex for popularity is a bad idea. low self esteem has led many girls to unplanned motherhood and STDs. if that is the reason a girl is giving out sex, its a BAD CHOICE.

that doesnt mean that every act of oral sex is a bad choice. i just think that not all choices are equal when it comes to sex. there are good reasons and bad reasons and that its not wrong to point that out.

Excuse me for yelling, but
Why the fuck do people, when touting abstinence education, focus primarily on girls. Unless almost half the population has disappeared, or unless there has been some great lesbian conversion that somehow everyone has forgotten to tell me about, the vast majority of sex happening involves a male and a female

It is hard to believe that focusing on a single gender is more about educating than moralizing.

It is wrong to prostitute oneself for drugs -again not gender specific. It is wrong to take advantage of a drugged out person of either gender. It is wrong for either gender to do anything solely for the sake of popularity. That is not something that is specifically sexual. No, it is not bad to point these out, but they should also be balanced out by positives too. Sex as part of a caring relationship after reasoning. Maturbation as a way to relieve sexual tension so that one is not too tempted to go fuck just for the orgasm.

I'm not against abortions, but I don't know anyone who thinks abortion is a good thing.
you do now. provided that the woman chooses the abortion for herself, i think abortion is a wonderful thing. in fact, i would say that abortion would be the best possible choice for the majority of pregnancies that occur in the world today.

Only 11 teen pregnancies in a population of 5,000,000? I'm going to need you to cite a source for that.
its doubtable but then agian i doubt their whole system is overrun by religious fundies trying to put their ludicrous systems in place

its a shame that sex has been made into such perversion. God made sex for enjoyment within marriage, and the bible teaches such. What's wrong with telling kids that maybe, just maybe, some sex might be bad for them, what with all the STD etcs out there?

I come from scotland, and the teenage pregnancy is way high. I remember the awkward times that the school nurse (who, i'm sorry, did not look like she had ever had any sex!) would produce items of contraception, fixing her beady eyes on those who would actually show an interest....

I'm not for teaching kids lies about sex, contraception, and such like, but i do believe in teaching kids that there is more to life than losing your viginity, believing that you are a worthwhile person, and that it is okay to make mistakes. They need to know the risks, not only to their physical health, but also to their mental and spiritual health.

Is it really so bad to wait, to think that you are worth it for that one person that's out there for you?

I hope i haven't offended anyone, i don't normally frequent forums, but this is what i think.

hippe flours

Is it really so bad to wait, to think that you are worth it for that one person that's out there for you?

I hope i haven't offended anyone, i don't normally frequent forums, but this is what i think.


No, and I'm not offended, but it's just that many people don't think that way. For example, I am a teenager. I'm still a virgin and plan to be for a while yet, but I'm not planning on waiting until marriage because I don't share those beliefs. Also, someone preaching abstinence to me (thank god my school district isn't like that) isn't going to stop me if I decide I want to have sex, I'll just do it anyway. Someone else already said this earlier in this thread, but basically: abstinence prevents pregnancy and STDs, but preaching it exclusively doesn't. You have to couple that with facts on "if you decide to ignore me, here are the second-best options" because you know that regardless of whether you give them the second-best options, a certain number are going to ignore you.

Quote:

its doubtable but then agian i doubt their whole system is overrun by religious fundies trying to put their ludicrous systems in place

Yes you are right!? It rearly helps if the system is not overrun by religious fundies. :D 11 on avarige each year, 5.000.000 people. In the US it is 53/1000 of pregnant woman which is a Teen. The highest rates of teen pregnantcies seem to be in areas where there are a "Abstinence-only sex education" program together with STD. Either 90% of all girls in the US are sluts or the program does not work at all (go figure)! But it does not seem to matter in the US!!!

Therefore:
If they have no sound arguments, prove them wrong, and then ignore them! DONT LET OF THEM BECOME THE FUCKING PRESIDENT! (sorry) :rolleyes:

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

Excuse me for yelling, but
Why the fuck do people, when touting abstinence education, focus primarily on girls. Unless almost half the population has disappeared, or unless there has been some great lesbian conversion that somehow everyone has forgotten to tell me about, the vast majority of sex happening involves a male and a female

You forget something *very* important. Our society *expects* boys to have lots and lots of sex. It's just them "being boys." However, girls are supposed to be completely chaste or they are sluts.

its doubtable but then agian i doubt their whole system is overrun by religious fundies trying to put their ludicrous systems in place
Oh yeah cause the US is the only one that does that :p

You forget something *very* important. Our society *expects* boys to have lots and lots of sex. It's just them "being boys." However, girls are supposed to be completely chaste or they are sluts.
Sad thing when I hear it referred too it is usually other women who “classify” the sluts as such. I don’t get it most guys are like ehhh (at least I was … at least if they were nice to me I could care less ) but at least from my personal experience it is almost always another girl involved when most people are deemed sluts

(so many “don’t date her she is a slut” being thrown around … ) my group of friends in high school was different (thankfully little fighting) but still

(also note I meant a large majority but not by any means all … and once the reputation of a “slut” has been started some guys will run with it)

Anyways I am sure this came out wrong but oh whell

I find the American response to sex education quite bizarre actually. I'm sort of puzzled about how so many people can willingly allow themselves to be misinformed about sex and socialization. The really puzzling aspect is that the majority of my fellow Canadians live within 100 miles of the border and still do not tend to adopt the prevalent views of social conservatives to the point of interfering in sex education curriculi.

Now, this will seem weird, but I went to a catholic school from grade 3-12 and I got a comprehensive sex education. Now, I'm an atheist, and my family is the definition of lapsed *insert religious affiliation here*, so I guess I approach sex with more of a jaded view, but I am stunned when I here that teens in the US aren't even learning stuff about sex and reproduction that I learned in Grade 5. Sure, the official line of my school was "abstinence works best...duh", but it was liberal enough to clobber us repeatedly with the message "if not, USE BIRTH CONTROL stupid!" They didn't bother much with abortion, it was just one of those subjects where they said, "Look, it exists, but because this is a catholic school, we're gonna say that it's not a good idea." But I guess that is was the times. By the time I was starting to head into puberty, HIV/AIDS became *the* big deal for schools to have to deal with. I guess the school board decided better safe than sorry.