NationStates Jolt Archive

I had heard the various rumours and statements about why abstinence-only education is good/bad, but, you know, until I read this article, I never thought it was that bad. This policy is promoting a culture of ignorance.

Abstinence-Only "Sex" Education (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/teensexualhealth/fact-abstinence-education.xml)

I got this article from Planned Parenthood.

I've read through it, and I really think that many people here who believe that abstinence is the only way to prevent sexually illicit activity et cetera are horribly misguided. I am not intended for this to be a flamebait. I would like all people, those who believe in this and those who don't to read this article.

Students suffer from ignorance. Comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education is becoming the exception rather than the rule; as a result, more students lack basic information. In Granite Bay, one student asked where his cervix was, and another inquired if she could become pregnant from oral sex. Students in New York City protested that the increased focus on abstinence-only has curtailed access to education about HIV/AIDS. The Colorado Council of Black Nurses decided to return $16,000 in abstinence-only funding, because the program "was just too restrictive. It did not teach responsible sexual behavior" (Grossman, 1998; Holding, 2000; "Nurses Drop...," 1999).

I found this to be disturbing.

Even though I got my sex-ed in the late 90s, it was nothing like this. It was very progressive; it included both abstinence (as a secondary option) and more on proven methods of contraception and information on various STDs and AIDS/HIV.

I didn't feel the need to run out and srew everything on two legs after I got sex-ed. The fact that people believe that informative sexual education will incite young people to engage in sexual activity is a load of bullplop.

I think I'd rather know that they (or my child, if I ever have any) were doing it after receiving proper education. That way there would be less chance of another unwanted child in this world and less chance of STDs spreading like wildfire.

B-U-M-P

Why doesn't anyone read my interesting threads?

I read it...

But I don't think the whole "abstinence" thing is big over here as much as some fringe groups would like it to be.

I read it. It's just that Mitch Hedberg's album playing on my computer is more interesting. No offense.

Why doesn't anyone read my interesting threads?
I do.
I just agree with you, so I can't say "NOOOO!!! YUO ARE TEH WRONG!!!!" or anything.

That's a factor too. Hard to argue with someone you agree with. Especially if it's about abstinence-only education and you're masturbating as you read it.

I do.
I just agree with you, so I can't say "NOOOO!!! YUO ARE TEH WRONG!!!!" or anything.

Yeah, that too.

That's a factor too. Hard to argue with someone you agree with. Especially if it's about abstinence-only education and you're masturbating as you read it.
There is something oddly amusing about this... :D

Especially if it's about abstinence-only education and you're masturbating as you read it.
Or having unsafe sex due to the lack of proper sex education.
While reaing it.
:D

my favorite fact: Texas has the third highest teen birth rate in the US. Texas also only teaches abstinance.

texas is behind California and Florida (big suprise)

That's a factor too. Hard to argue with someone you agree with. Especially if it's about abstinence-only education and you're masturbating as you read it.
lunatic goofballs i salute you.

Or having unsafe sex due to the lack of proper sex education.
While reaing it.
:D

They should teach about masturbation in schools. It's pretty safe. Unless you have hooks for hands, very little can go wrong. *nod*

....I've read through it, and I really think that many people here who believe that abstinence is the only way to prevent sexually illicit activity et cetera are horribly misguided. I am not intended for this to be a flamebait. I would like all people, those who believe in this and those who don't to read this article.

It'll be seen an being 'flame bait' anyway.

Horriblly misguided. Hmmm, interesting turn of phrase. Rather mild actually.

I'll read the article in a bit. Will throw out this though.

In Europe, where REAL sex education is done, not this abstinence only BS. (lets you know how I feel about the issue... :) the teen pregnancy rate is a lot lower. Direct correlation possible, ya think?

If, what was taught was 'abstinence preferred, but here is the info ya'll need for later when you DO take the plunge, no matter what - if ya become an oath sworn permanent virgin, you can use it to teach others.... This is what causes STD's, being a first timer ain't no guarentee, nor is standing up, standing on your head, whatever... List of prevenatives with pro's and con's. etc. A REAL sex education.

Hi

-I think abstinence education is a very important issue. Also I dont think it qualifies as "education".

-How does Abstinence education work? Have anybody made a prober scientific study on abstinence education!?

-I know for a fact that you are about 170 times more likely to become pregnant as a teen in the US, than in Denmark (Skandinavia). I think the education programs in the US has failed, also I dont think abstinence "educations" works! Can anybody you prove me wrong on this subject?

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

my favorite fact: Texas has the third highest teen birth rate in the US. Texas also only teaches abstinance.

texas is behind California and Florida (big suprise)
So the states that teach things other than abstinence have the highest birth rates?

I'm just amazed that abstinance only sex ed is an actual government program. I think it would just get laughed down over here.

Yeah those two students who asked those questions should be restricted from breeding forever. They are too stupid to continue polluting the genepool.

Yeah those two students who asked those questions should be restricted from breeding forever. They are too stupid to continue polluting the genepool.
Whose fault is it, though, that they don't know this?
Children aren't being taught what they need to learn, is the problem. They never learned this stuff. Is it their fault that they don't know it?

So the states that teach things other than abstinence have the highest birth rates?
All states teach abstinence only. It's another one of our holy father Bush's policies. I think they threw it in with the No Child Left Behind garbage.

All states teach abstinence only. It's another one of holy father Bush's policies. I think they threw it in with the No Child Left Behind garbage.
That's garbage and you know it. I got the full gamut of sex ed, and so did my brother. And this was in Virginia.

No, my boyfriend is a teacher and he just told me that any school that recieves federal funding cannot talk about any kind of contraception except abstinence.

My school refused federal funding so that it could teach sex ed beyond the hopelessly naive "abstinence only" program. I think it was the right decision.

Both abstinence only and medically accurate sex education delay sex by six months but comprehensive sex education teaches you how to protect yourself when you do have sex.

That's garbage and you know it. I got the full gamut of sex ed, and so did my brother. And this was in Virginia.

Here's some proof if you want it. It's not the best site in the world, but it was the fastest to load on Google:
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/sex/sexmain.shtml

Yet more proof:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/teensexualhealth/fact-abstinence-education.xml

Of course, this site could be considered biased as they condone *gasp* abortions.

I guesss it could be your particular school/state was smart enough to realize that abstinence only education is complete BS.

Simply put, practically every lesson during my sex-ed units (Which came up at least once in middle school, once in highshool) ended with something like "The safest option is abstinence" It was very emphasised that abstinence was the only truly garunteed precaution against pregnancy, STDs, etc. Then they left us alone to go about our business like adults.

See, the stupidity of the students has more to do with the fact that they don't read. I knew the basics of sex etc. etc. by the time I was 9, most anatomy by 11. Why, because I read. A lot. Everything from Animorphs to Robert Heinlein and more. There is also the question of whether or not the kid was at all serious when he asked whether or not he had a cervix. It's quite possible that he was yanking the teacher's chain.

Here's some proof if you want it. It's not the best site in the world, but it was the fastest to load on Google:
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/sex/sexmain.shtml
Ok, the fact remains that my brother as a sophmore in high school is getting the full sex ed now. Doesn't matter what the internet says.

Everything from Animorphs to Robert Heinlein and more.
Animorphs kicks ass.

No, my boyfriend is a teacher and he just told me that any school that recieves federal funding cannot talk about any kind of contraception except abstinence.
:eek: That's really really very disturbing. :(

Are you telling me that to receive funding from the government, American schools have to teach abstinance only, without any mention of conraception???

That is so fucked up I'm actually speechless.

I know what you mean.

I can't believe that we share the same land mass! *snicker*

I'm as speechless as you guys are... and I live in America! I cannot believe some of the sociall policies that President Bush has managed to get passed through the senate...

my favorite fact: Texas has the third highest teen birth rate in the US. Texas also only teaches abstinance.

texas is behind California and Florida (big suprise)

Odd thing is, over the summer, visiting family in texas, i saw this local program on how abstinence only education in the Lubbock area is almost equivalent to scare tactics. the teens they interviewed were scared of sex... texas education is all sorts of messed up...

In Europe, where REAL sex education is done, not this abstinence only BS. (lets you know how I feel about the issue... :) the teen pregnancy rate is a lot lower. Direct correlation possible, ya think?
The sex education that myself and my class mates received was simply about the actual mechanics of sex. We were never taught about the consequences - emotional or physical. Well, of course we were taught that sex could lead to pregnancy, but only in the biological sense (and STDs were not mentioned at all!!!). Admittedly, there were only two people that I knew of at all from school that ended up pregnant (to this point), and one of them did it deliberately. However, if this is the general standard of sex education in this country, it's no wonder Northern Ireland has one of the highest teen pregnany rates in Europe. I do think people ought to take responsibility for their own actions, but having said that, they need advice in the first place - and they're certainly not getting it here in this regard.

Don't you people know that if kids aren't taught about sex they won't discover it until after they're married? :headbang:

The US also refuses to give funds to any health organization that even mentions abortion. Even Clinton let this travesty stay in effect. And you'd think the right would be in favor of anything that reduced abortion. But nooo. Dumbasses. :gundge:

I always thought the best sex education was DONT.

Don't you people know that if kids aren't taught about sex they won't discover it until after they're married? :headbang:


Exactly look at Alfred Hitchcock.

They should teach about masturbation in schools. It's pretty safe. Unless you have hooks for hands, very little can go wrong. *nod*
Someone's been watching Retarded Animal Babies!!

texas ... is ... messed up...
Yup.

They should teach about masturbation in schools. It's pretty safe. Unless you have hooks for hands, very little can go wrong. *nod*We got a video proclaiming "There's nothing wrong with masturbation", accompanied by pictures of a very frustrated-looking teenage girl.

None of this abstinence-only garbage in Australia. :D

Oh, and thankyou for the details about syphilis, Mrs R.

---
Abstinence. The very word makes me shudder.

Abstinence education seems to involves scaring people into abstinence by exaggerating the risks to being sexually active. There are in fact risks, but they are not nearly as bad as they promoted as being.

-I know for a fact that you are about 170 times more likely to become pregnant as a teen in the US, than in Denmark (Skandinavia). I think the education programs in the US has failed, also I dont think abstinence "educations" works! Can anybody you prove me wrong on this subject?

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)
That has nothing to do with education. Denmark is very cold, you all are just scared of getting stuck together. At least that's what Victor Borge said.

We got a video proclaiming "There's nothing wrong with masturbation", accompanied by pictures of a very frustrated-looking teenage girl.
Bwahahaha, it was Mackenzie wasn't it? :D

I always thought the best sex education was DONT.
except just telling kids that doesnt mean diddly squat

texas education is all sorts of messed up...
texas is more ways of messed up than you can comprehend with the mortal mind

Meanwhile, in Europe, Britain has the highest teen pregnancy rate. This may have something to do with the fact that (in my experience) they leave sex ed. until age 13/14, then give you two worksheets about contraception and STDs, another about kids ruining your social life, and a video about a girl who accidentally gets pregnant. We learnt more about the social/moral side in biology. We were taught nothing about sexual orientation, masturbation, abortion, or any of the emotional side of sex.
Correlation? I think so.

I just want to tell you poor Americans something which happened to me in a holiday camp for youths: On the first evening in the camp, the 'Teamers' (supervisors, but great euphemism :-) ) re-told us basic things about sex because "things can happen and we think that you should be prepared for them if they happen." (it might be said that the tents were for both sexes) You could get condoms in the big tent without any questions.

That is sex ed... and no abstinence or 'apple eating (instead)' crap!

The Catholic Church did support abstinence for the simple reason they build this policy centuries ago, when the main focus was to get society to grow and need more individuals.

Abstinence enforced mentality lead to unwanted pregnancy, which to some men dont seem that bad because they are busy thinking about their vows themselves.

I am nearly 31 and never did it, yet by choice, so I should be pro-abstinence, yet I am not, education teaching the advantages of both is FAR better, I can tell you that finding other peoples that are ''virgin by choice'' is quite a task at my age range. Sex toys should not be ignored and frown upon, if you want peoples to go the abstinence way, they are your best tools. ;)

I had heard the various rumours and statements about why abstinence-only education is good/bad, but, you know, until I read this article, I never thought it was that bad. This policy is promoting a culture of ignorance.

Abstinence-Only "Sex" Education (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/teensexualhealth/fact-abstinence-education.xml)

I got this article from Planned Parenthood.

I've read through it, and I really think that many people here who believe that abstinence is the only way to prevent sexually illicit activity et cetera are horribly misguided. I am not intended for this to be a flamebait. I would like all people, those who believe in this and those who don't to read this article.



I found this to be disturbing.

Even though I got my sex-ed in the late 90s, it was nothing like this. It was very progressive; it included both abstinence (as a secondary option) and more on proven methods of contraception and information on various STDs and AIDS/HIV.

I didn't feel the need to run out and srew everything on two legs after I got sex-ed. The fact that people believe that informative sexual education will incite young people to engage in sexual activity is a load of bullplop.

I think I'd rather know that they (or my child, if I ever have any) were doing it after receiving proper education. That way there would be less chance of another unwanted child in this world and less chance of STDs spreading like wildfire.
you know why it scares me? because it is getting MORE FUNDING, despite evidence that abstinance-only education INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD THAT TEENS WILL CONTRACT SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES. that's right. teens who are in abstinance-only programs are more likely than their comprehensive-educated peers to contract (and spread!) STDs.

these programs directly endanger children, and people SUPPORT THEM. people are so interested in making sure their kids don't learn about sex that they are willing to put their children's lives in danger.

whether or not you think abstaining from sex is a good thing, abstinance-only education is NOT a good thing. it doesn't work, it's been proven not to work, and it actually increases the likelihood that your kid will get sick.

Being Dutch, the amount of sex ed I've recieved is almost stereotypical. They even let us practice the application of condoms on models. Still, we have one of the lowest teen pregancy rates in the world. What a koinkydink.

yeah the situation in the u.k is far from good, there is a serious problem with class divide that is probably more of a cause, and the sex ed is pretty dire, because frankly its ridiculous I remember late 90'ies this is may have changed, my classes sex education kept getting put off being it sent us all into full hysterics
but absinece only, its a worrying sign of the growing power of the religous right, its the same kind of thinking that saw the teaching that condoms where evil my modern catholic missionaries in sub saharan africa, cue hiv rates souring

Ignorance is okay, you speak of a culture of ignorance. I didn't know what masturbation meant until I was 14-15. I didn't really have any idea of what oral sex was until I was about 15.

As for sexual intercourse, I thought the only way it could be done was how I'd seen animals do it, well I thought this till about age 15-16.


I turned out fine and I didn't have all the sort of sex-ed that sexualizes Western youth at increasingly younger age. Sex-ed, as it is today, just encourages fornication and increases the likelihood of teens becoming sexually active earlier on and with more frequency.

Being Dutch, the amount of sex ed I've recieved is almost stereotypical. They even let us practice the application of condoms on models. Still, we have one of the lowest teen pregancy rates in the world. What a koinkydink.


And your overall birthrate is so low that the muslim immigrants will soon outnumber you and claim Netherlands as their own. This is because your people are using contraception, the plague of Western civilization.


I suppose that's unrelated to this thread though, but maybe we ought to start a new thread about that, eh?


At any rate, I'd love to see every healthy European female in Europe, aged 15 or above, get pregnant 2-3 times in the next 5-6 years, ideally by men in their mid 20s, so the children can be financially supported and properly raised.

Europe needs a baby boom, not an immigrant boom.


You know what, I think I will make that new thread, shortly, as soon as time permits. :)

for my money, having any kind of religiously-leaning education system (be it regarding sex-ed or otherwise), when at the expense of 'real' factual education, is just plain stupid. if they were taught equally in conjunction, then that would be ok - at least the religious nuts get their way, but the truth is still taught. but this... teaching religion and social values over the truth and facts is wrong.

And your overall birthrate is so low that the muslim immigrants will soon outnumber you and claim Netherlands as their own. This is because your people are using contraception, the plague of Western civilization.


I suppose that's unrelated to this thread though, but maybe we ought to start a new thread about that, eh?


At any rate, I'd love to see every healthy European female in Europe, aged 15 or above, get pregnant 2-3 times in the next 5-6 years, ideally by men in their mid 20s, so the children can be financially supported and properly raised.

Europe needs a baby boom, not an immigrant boom.


You know what, I think I will make that new thread, shortly, as soon as time permits. :)

There are just so many fallacies here that I hardly know where to begin...

First, contraception allows for more planned pregnancies, rather than a baby just coming like a bomb out of the blue to a family that at the moment maybe doesn't have the financial means to support it. Also, condoms prevent the spreading of disease. Good thing.

Second, there are enough people in European countries to keep them going.

Third, every female 15 and above getting pregnant?! I suppose you think that women should not be allowed to have educations/careers at all. Besides, this completely contradicts your previous post, namely:

I turned out fine and I didn't have all the sort of sex-ed that sexualizes Western youth at increasingly younger age. Sex-ed, as it is today, just encourages fornication and increases the likelihood of teens becoming sexually active earlier on and with more frequency.

Fourth, you make it sound like immigration is a bad thing, as if the immigrants were somehow worth less than those born west-European. It isn't. Without immigration, countries stagnate.

First, contraception allows for more planned pregnancies, rather than a baby just coming like a bomb out of the blue to a family that at the moment maybe doesn't have the financial means to support it. Also, condoms prevent the spreading of disease. Good thing.

True, but abstinence also makes pregnancies planned. And it's hard to receive or transmit STDs if you aren't having sex.

I don't agree with a no-biology abstinence education (I guess that means I disagree with abstinence-only); I think not educating about the nuts-bolts and scientific aspect of sex is a disservice. But I do think it should communicated to children that abstinence is a good thing, and that a moral code which embraces sex as a mechanic of marriage is welcomed and encouraged.

I think, ideally, sex education occurs in the home. Parents have the best ability to directly address sex and the moral implications surrounding it in a positive way--as they know the child and his or her background the best.

I think, ideally, sex education occurs in the home. Parents have the best ability to directly address sex and the moral implications surrounding it in a positive way--as they know the child and his or her background the best.

Good point. Far too many parents lay over all the responsibility of child-raising to the schools, and then later on wonder what went wrong.

Then again, home-education in this issue means that children to people who actually endorse the abstinence-only method are screwed anyway. :(

Just a quick note...the article cited at the top of this thread does come from Planned Parenthood.

You kind of have to take what they say with a grain of salt, since they are a propagandist organization.

Unfortunately, it all goes back to money. Planned Parenthood receives kickbacks from abortions that are performed. Therefore it is in their best interest to have more and more abortions performed.

Also...IMHO, it is parents responsibility to teach their children about sex. It is not something that should be in the realm of schools. I'll grant you that most parents aren't stepping up to the duty....but, maybe there should be more information about there for parents to use.

Sexuality is not just a biological issue, it is also a moral and emotional issue. Therefore, learning about sexuality in the schools requires the schools to over-reach their boundaries. So, instead of wasting our time arguing about Abstinence Education, we should be working on taking Sex Ed out of the classroom and back into the home where it belongs.

Fourth, you make it sound like immigration is a bad thing, as if the immigrants were somehow worth less than those born west-European. It isn't. Without immigration, countries stagnate.


Good then let them all go to Sweden, they can live in your city, once you've had your fill of the "Diversity" (diversity of diseases and crime) that they bring with them, then you can call me and I'll say, "I told you so."

Europe needs immigrants like a mouse needs a cat.

Good then let them all go to Sweden, they can live in your city, once you've had your fill of the "Diversity" (diversity of diseases and crime) that they bring with them, then you can call me and I'll say, "I told you so."

Europe needs immigrants like a mouse needs a cat.

We have a growing number of muslim immigrants here, and it's working fine. Sure, immigration brings some more crime, but most of the crime increase we've experienced is from immigrants from the baltic states. That is, Christian countries. Go figure.

Your posts reek of bigotry and racism, and I pity your narrow and cynical view of the outside world. :(

B-U-M-P

Why doesn't anyone read my interesting threads?

Because they aren't.

We have a growing number of muslim immigrants here, and it's working fine. Sure, immigration brings some more crime, but most of the crime increase we've experienced is from immigrants from the baltic states. That is, Christian countries. Go figure.

Your posts reek of bigotry and racism, and I pity your narrow and cynical view of the outside world. :(


Here is what immigration does to Europe:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/13/60minutes/main617270.shtml

“There was a trial in Lille where a 13-year-old girl was gang raped by 80 men. Sometimes, it’s 80, or 50 or 10. It’s absolutely terrible,” says Bellil. “In the case of Argenteuil, it was horrible. A young woman was raped in a school. Of course, everybody knew, but they're so afraid of these young men that they prefer to close their eyes. That's the price of peace in the ghettos.





As for your false claim I have some narrow minded views and don't know the outside world. I've traveled far and wide, I've seen a lot and experienced a lot, and I've arrived at the conclusions I now hold fast to. You just don't like the conclusions I've arrived at, so you paint me as some uneducated hick who has never left his own city or county, except maybe to go to the state fair.

That's not true, I've always kept an open-mind and thus I was open to the politically incorrect idea that immigration, race, and crime are inherently linked (and they are).

Here is what immigration does to Europe:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/13/60minutes/main617270.shtml

“There was a trial in Lille where a 13-year-old girl was gang raped by 80 men. Sometimes, it’s 80, or 50 or 10. It’s absolutely terrible,” says Bellil. “In the case of Argenteuil, it was horrible. A young woman was raped in a school. Of course, everybody knew, but they're so afraid of these young men that they prefer to close their eyes. That's the price of peace in the ghettos.





As for your false claim I have some narrow minded views and don't know the outside world. I've traveled far and wide, I've seen a lot and experienced a lot, and I've arrived at the conclusions I now hold fast to. You just don't like the conclusions I've arrived at, so you paint me as some uneducated hick who has never left his own city or county, except maybe to go to the state fair.

That's not true, I've always kept an open-mind and thus I was open to the politically incorrect idea that immigration, race, and crime are inherently linked (and they are).

I never said you were uneducated. Though you see the outside world, you see it through a filter of cynicism and hate. The article proves nothing. Just because a few immigrants bring crime, they're all criminals. The creation of ghettos like the article mentioned shows failure of government in integration.
Also, you never answered the fact that the majority of immigrant-related crime here is caused by white Christians.

Also, you never answered the fact that the majority of immigrant-related crime here is caused by white Christians.

Because I don't answer lies, I know many people in Sweden, and I know the truth, you sir are spinning lies and until you tell the truth, or cite your evidence, I won't reply.

At any rate, I'd love to see every healthy European female in Europe, aged 15 or above, get pregnant 2-3 times in the next 5-6 years, ideally by men in their mid 20s, so the children can be financially supported and properly raised.
I really hope this was a (poor) joke, but given the nature of some of your posts, I worry that it was not. So, do the women get a choice in the matter? If not, I'm going out to get steralised before you attempt take over the world in reality as opposed to in your own head (not that I'm not going to do it anyway). I am a woman, and I don't like children (*gasp*) - and I also depise people telling me and my peers how we should live our lives, just because they read some book, in this case that promotes reproduction for every person. If people want to have children, fair play to them. I don't; I want a career, I want to focus on my relationships with my friends and my partner, I want to pursue the things I am interested in. If that's selfish to you, too bad. It's the way it is.

Ignorance is okay, you speak of a culture of ignorance. I didn't know what masturbation meant until I was 14-15. I didn't really have any idea of what oral sex was until I was about 15.

I turned out fine and I didn't have all the sort of sex-ed that sexualizes Western youth at increasingly younger age.
Just because ignorance didn't do you any harm does not mean it would affect countless others in the same way. Not everyone thinks like you, you know, and they are perfectly entitled not to.

We live in a culture where sex is everywhere and young people are naturally going to be curious about it. Some may put pressure on others to take part in sex, and while I don't believe they should kowtow to it, it's a difficult situation and their willpower may be overcome. Abstinence definitely should be taught in my opinion, but it should definitely not be the only thing taught. It would be great if teens didn't get themselves into these situations, but wake up and smell the coffee - they do. Therefore, they need to understand how best to approach the situation they are in, in order that they do themselves and others involved as little harm as possible.

I had heard the various rumours and statements about why abstinence-only education is good/bad, but, you know, until I read this article, I never thought it was that bad. This policy is promoting a culture of ignorance.

Abstinence-Only "Sex" Education (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/teensexualhealth/fact-abstinence-education.xml)

I got this article from Planned Parenthood.

I've read through it, and I really think that many people here who believe that abstinence is the only way to prevent sexually illicit activity et cetera are horribly misguided. I am not intended for this to be a flamebait. I would like all people, those who believe in this and those who don't to read this article.



I found this to be disturbing.

Even though I got my sex-ed in the late 90s, it was nothing like this. It was very progressive; it included both abstinence (as a secondary option) and more on proven methods of contraception and information on various STDs and AIDS/HIV.

I didn't feel the need to run out and srew everything on two legs after I got sex-ed. The fact that people believe that informative sexual education will incite young people to engage in sexual activity is a load of bullplop.

I think I'd rather know that they (or my child, if I ever have any) were doing it after receiving proper education. That way there would be less chance of another unwanted child in this world and less chance of STDs spreading like wildfire.


Abstinence only education is an interesting concept, but it's also a little foolish as well. My general belief is that the state should not be teaching sex education at all, but that's another debate. If the state is going to teach sex education, it should strongly encourage abstinence, but it should not leave out all other alternatives including birth control, contraception, etc... However, I don't think that this should be a balanced presentation. Abstinence is the only way to prevent an unplanned pregnancy, STDs or just the mental/spritual anguish that is experienced following sex. The country of Uganda was experiencing one of the worst AIDS crises in the world until it began a massive program promoting abstinence. In the late 1980s, the HIV rate for prgenant women was 21%, in 2001 following a massive abstinence education program, the rate had dropped to 6.2%. AIDS is a horrible epidemic effecting the entire world. However, it is a preventable disease if we use common sense or maintain the traditional values of chastity, fidelity, and monogamy (in the sense of only one sexual partner)

If people want to have children, fair play to them. I don't; I want a career, I want to focus on my relationships with my friends and my partner, I want to pursue the things I am interested in. If that's selfish to you, too bad. It's the way it is.




It's the way it is for now, I'd say 10-15 years before the Western world is swept up with Reactionary movements. Then the people of the West will either have to decide between having children or becoming celibate, because in this movement, contraceptives WILL be banned. (At least until the European population is at a decent level)

If you think it's crazy and intrusive into folks lives, too bad, that's how it will be.

:)

This is my impression of an abstinance only curriculum.

"Hi.
Someday you're gonna fuck...errrr... "make love".
There are all sorts of horrid diseases you can get from it. And you can get knocked up ....no, no, no - not you guys. Just the girls.

Anyway., there WILL come a time when you are going to get married. At that point, you can fuck. Ask you parents about it. Oh yeah - and please graduate first.

In the meantime, since you won't be fucking soon (if you listen to us that is), then you don't really need to know how to protect yourself from the consequences.

Because ignorance truly IS bliss class. Oh yes - ignorance blows the doors off of orgasms. Trust me. You have an orgasm and the first thing you'll think is "Meh - that was OK.... but nothing like the warm glow of ignorance!"

But most importanly you just need to remember the following:

Fucking can kill you and/or ruin your life, and we aren't gonna tell you how to protect yourself so that if you even think about trying it on your own you are really taking your life into your own hands. And if that doesn't scare you enough to hold off, well then it's your own damn fault if anything happens.

Class dismissed."

Okay, I'll admit I haven't read the entire thread, but I read enough to ask this question. What are you people smoking? Perhaps abstinence-only education hasn't been working, but it's not because abstinence is not sound advice. Abstinence is the only 100% effective method of birth control and STD prevention, because it is the only one that doesn't involve sexual intercourse. (I'm leaving out masturbation here.) The problem apparently is that kids are not taking the advice. I agree with the person that said that we need to say that abstinence is the best option, but here's other stuff you will need to know later.

It's the way it is for now, I'd say 10-15 years before the Western world is swept up with Reactionary movements. Then the people of the West will either have to decide between having children or becoming celibate, because in this movement, contraceptives WILL be banned. (At least until the European population is at a decent level)

If you think it's crazy and intrusive into folks lives, too bad, that's how it will be.

:)
Your insane, not to mention your far right undertones. What is this reactionary movement thats going to sweap europe.

Your insane, not to mention your far right undertones. What is this reactionary movement thats going to sweap europe.


Primarily as a result of racial resource competition as immigration puts Europeans on the edges of poverty and cities become massively over-crowded. Once oil becomes scarce in the Middle East and economies begin to dive.

Depressions are always the best time for a right-wing movement to rise up.

Economic downturns are the reactionary movements best friend.

Also it really helps when large groups of people (white native Europeans) are treated like, and feel like, foreigners in their own lands.

History is just flow and counter-flow, action and counter-action.

The pendulum has been stuck on the left for the last 3-5 decades, now the swing right is coming.

It's the way it is for now, I'd say 10-15 years before the Western world is swept up with Reactionary movements. Then the people of the West will either have to decide between having children or becoming celibate, because in this movement, contraceptives WILL be banned. (At least until the European population is at a decent level)

If you think it's crazy and intrusive into folks lives, too bad, that's how it will be.

:)
Well, it won't matter to me in 10 - 15 years, because I'll be steralised long before then (the only reason I am not at present is because it is almost always refused before the age of 25. I will ask for it for a 25th birthday present :) ).

What reactionary movements do you refer to, anyway? If their victory is so soon in the future, they must be in existence and gathering pace by now. I would be genuinely interested in finding out who they are.

Well, it won't matter to me in 10 - 15 years, because I'll be steralised long before then (the only reason I am not at present is because it is almost always refused before the age of 25. I will ask for it for a 25th birthday present :) ).

What reactionary movements do you refer to, anyway? If their victory is so soon in the future, they must be in existence and gathering pace by now. I would be genuinely interested in finding out who they are.


It's an underground movement that will be known when they are to be known, and not before they are to be known.

It is not a political movement but rather a paramilitary movement.

All I shall say is there are over 1 million throughout the 1st world Western Lands (Europe, North America, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, parts of South America, etc)

It is not a political movement but rather a paramilitary movement.
As you will see from the brief details of me to the left, I come from Belfast. I am familiar with paramilitary groups - admittedly fighting for a different cause than that of which you speak, but still paramilitaries. Some people did live in fear of them, but for the most part, humanity has won out. There are occasional bouts of unrest in NI, but nothing like it was. And none of the paramilitaries ever actually gained enough political power to impose their exact will upon all of the population, despite large numbers of people supporting their causes.

So, these underground paramilitaries that you promote will have to work hard to get the power you believe they'll get in the first place, never mind keep hold of it.

Also, from another thread you were posting on, I came to the conclusion that you were a Christian. It is highly unusual for a 'real' Christian to promotes paramilitarism.

It is highly unusual for a 'real' Christian to promotes paramilitarism.


Matthew 10:34


Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

I know what you mean.

I can't believe that we share the same land mass! *snicker*
Just be happy you don't live in Alberta, Canada's "Texas"....I wouldn't be surprised to see the same kind of program implemented here...

yay mathew, the catholics favorite gospel, and its basically just a version of mark with the name changed.

Dont get me started on what christianity actually support, one minute its love thy neighour ,offer him the other cheek, well unless that neighour is homosexual or a diffrent coulour or a heratic.

There is very very very little that cannot be justified by scripture. thats any relgious really.

As you will see from the brief details of me to the left, I come from Belfast. I am familiar with paramilitary groups - admittedly fighting for a different cause than that of which you speak, but still paramilitaries. Some people did live in fear of them, but for the most part, humanity has won out.

So, these underground paramilitaries that you promote will have to work hard to get the power you believe they'll get in the first place, never mind keep hold of it.




The IRA is child's play compared to this movement. The IRA never had the backing of major banking elite, big business, etc. Our movement has backing amongst the elite because they realize if they don't act to protect their wealth, they could lose it all when the 3rd world proletariats rise up against them. Thus it's to their advantage to ally themselves with our movement, which many have.


We will easily be able to hold power, I won't say how or by what means, but it's all been planned out, for the last two decades, painstakingly planned out.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
But is the supposed message of God not about love and peace?

If you're going to quote the Bible, then what about...

Matthew 5.43 - "love thy neighbour", largely interpreted as meaning despite other people's attitudes/beliefs/possessions/anything that differs from you, you should respect and care for them.

John something or other (I think) - "Judge not, lest you shall be judged", largely interpreted as meaning exactly what it says.

Do you hold to these, and other, verses? If so, you can hardly going around with your militant sword hurting other people and judging them by your own standards. If God exists, then only He can do that.

The IRA is child's play compared to this movement. The IRA never had the backing of major banking elite, big business, etc. Our movement has backing amongst the elite because they realize if they don't act to protect their wealth, they could lose it all when the 3rd world proletariats rise up against them. Thus it's to their advantage to ally themselves with our movement, which many have.


We will easily be able to hold power, I won't say how or by what means, but it's all been planned out, for the last two decades, painstakingly planned out.

And when you try I and all the other socalist Communists and liberals will be there to stop you. In fact go on id love to spend my 20'ies stoping you.

Back to topic

And when you try I and all the other socalist Communists and liberals will be there to stop you. In fact go on id love to spend my 20'ies stoping you.

Back to topic



There is a reason our movement is top-heavy with active duty military, reserves, former military, special forces, police, etc. As for the anti-gun liberals who own no guns, how are they going to stop us?

Do you think we're going to be foolish enough to let our enemies be armed?

We're going to go to every gun store in every state and find the yellow forms they have to keep, by law, and then we're going to find out who owns what guns, and those who aren't politically reliable, will be losing their guns. (this is of course after we edit the constitution so we can legally justify what we're doing)

I really don't think a bunch of rag-tag communists without combat experience, could stand against folks who spent the 80s in Angola and Namibia, the 90s in Serbia and Chechnya, and at present are in a host of places around the world in counter-insurgencies and various skirmishes.

The IRA is child's play compared to this movement <snip>

OK, I shall dubiously assume that is the case.
We will easily be able to hold power, I won't say how or by what means, but it's all been planned out, for the last two decades, painstakingly planned out.
Maybe, but you're first going to have to convince virtually all of the populations in all of the countries you'll hold to your way of thinking to ensure no subsequent underground movements rise up against you. If your regime is in any way unpopular, you'll have quite a bit of trouble on your hands.

Anyway, I'm leaving this debate with you now, because (a) we've hijacked a thread that is on a completely separate issue and (b) I'm fairly sure the argument is, and will continue to be, academic. Thank you, though, it's been...er...entertaining; I'll be thinking about you in 10 - 15 years :)

The IRA is child's play compared to this movement. The IRA never had the backing of major banking elite, big business, etc. [...]
We will easily be able to hold power, I won't say how or by what means, but it's all been planned out, for the last two decades, painstakingly planned out.
Yeah, sure. I cant believe how far out you are. :rolleyes:

There is a reason our movement is top-heavy with active duty military, reserves, former military, special forces, police, etc. As for the anti-gun liberals who own no guns, how are they going to stop us?

Do you think we're going to be foolish enough to let our enemies be armed?

We're going to go to every gun store in every state and find the yellow forms they have to keep, by law, and then we're going to find out who owns what guns, and those who aren't politically reliable, will be losing their guns. (this is of course after we edit the constitution so we can legally justify what we're doing)

I really don't think a bunch of rag-tag communists without combat experience, could stand against folks who spent the 80s in Angola and Namibia, the 90s in Serbia and Chechnya, and at present are in a host of places around the world in counter-insurgencies and various skirmishes.

Oh you mean american, damn was looking forward to that, maybe ill come their, hell people fought from various places in the spanish civil war, pity the good guys lost. Youll be suprised though, if you knew anything about gurellia and urban warfare youll know equpiment meants jack squat, hell you get it all from the guy your fighting, but resolve matter a man who knows what hes fighting for his children to grow up free will fight 100 thousand times harder than a man who fights for power or money and in the end thats what counts.

The pendulum has been stuck on the left for the last 3-5 decades, now the swing right is coming.

Funny, I could have sworn the pendulum has been far right ever since 9-11. When people get scared, they don't want to change and try new, progressive ideas, hence the conservatism. Bush got re-elected, John Howard got re-elected (OZ prime minister), France has banned the wearing of muslin headscarfs, anti-immigration sentiments are growing almost everywhere. America still won't put a restriction on the gun nuts, abortions are getting closer to becoming illegal and Gay marriage is being banned across the planet. Secularism is up, fundamentalism is up, acceptance, love and tolerance is down.

If that isn't far-right conservatism, I'll eat my metaphorical hat.


VoteEarly, try reading these bible passages. I'd like to thank Ellanesse for finding these quotes;

Matthew 9 16-17 He came with a new law, why try to force the old one into place?
Matthew 25: 14-30 He who can be trusted with the smallest of things, can be trusted with the largest. He who can not be trusted with the smallest of things, can NOT be trusted with anything.

Matthew 7:1-5
Luke 6:37-40
John 8: 7-18
These tell you - It is not your place to judge! It is not your place to condemn! You are so arrogant that you forget the words "The student can never be greater than the teacher" (Luke 6:40)He teaches us, and yet you go and proclaim as if it is YOU who stand as the Son!

Matthew 25 43-45 Imagine - the things you say, the anger and hatred you feel, you direct to these humans? These same things you do to Him you serve.
Matthew 5 43-48
Luke 10: 25-37 Think to yourself, do you behave this way? According to Levi 21 1-4 the priest could not help the man, but Jesus declares that you should above all things act with mercy and love.

John 13:34-35 The love you show for others, ALL OTHERS, should reflect the love of Jesus in your heart
John 15:9-17

and now, for some non gospel new testament advice
Ephesians 4:26, 29-32
James 3:6, 13, 17-18, 5:9-10, 11, 13-17

1 John 3:11 This is the message that you have heard from the beginning: We should love one another.
If you have any questions as to HOW you can love one another (and this one another does NOT mean Christians - back to Matt 5:43 here from above - but it means ALL PEOPLE) I refer you to the well known 1 Corinthians 13.

As for the anti-gun liberals who own no guns, how are they going to stop us?
Go ahead with your rightwing revolution and maybe you will find out. I have absolutely no qualms about knifing some would-be Hitler or using my bow to shoot a pseudo-SS moron trying to tear down my society into the fourth reich.

Secularism is up,

Its not secularism that bans gay marriges and go's on pro life marches, secularism is about staying objective in goverment, thats when eveyone gets there way and thats freedom.

Go ahead with your rightwing revolution and maybe you will find out. I have absolutely no qualms about knifing some would-be Hitler or using my bow to shoot a pseudo-SS moron trying to tear down my society into the fourth reich.


Which is why for about every right-winger in our movement, there are 10-20 guns and at least 1 suit of body armor and protective gear. If you knotched the bow into the arrow, you'd not get a chance to loose it.

Funny, I could have sworn the pendulum has been far right ever since 9-11. When people get scared, they don't want to change and try new, progressive ideas, hence the conservatism. Bush got re-elected, John Howard got re-elected (OZ prime minister), France has banned the wearing of muslin headscarfs, anti-immigration sentiments are growing almost everywhere. America still won't put a restriction on the gun nuts, abortions are getting closer to becoming illegal and Gay marriage is being banned across the planet. Secularism is up, fundamentalism is up, acceptance, love and tolerance is down. -snip-

*appends to text*

... except in Canada. We're moving in the opposite direction - pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, our national gun registry with it's ballooning costs. We're all about peace and love and tolerance. And because of this, Bush and other American organizations are applying economic pressures against us to be 'more like them'. Scary thought.

PS: Secularism and fundamentalism can't both be up - secularism is where religion has no place in government, and fundamentalism is where religion nuts go wild and try to strip people of all their civil rights. :P

*snip*
Racist, go home.

Which is why for about every right-winger in our movement, there are 10-20 guns and at least 1 suit of body armor and protective gear. If you knotched the bow into the arrow, you'd not get a chance to loose it.

Oh, for goodness' sake. Would you just give it up? Anyone with any sense can see that you're just a troll. Either that or merely psychotic. Either way, give it up.

I really don't think a bunch of rag-tag communists without combat experience, could stand against folks who spent the 80s in Angola and Namibia, the 90s in Serbia and Chechnya, and at present are in a host of places around the world in counter-insurgencies and various skirmishes.

Funny really, the Americans used to think the same way before they got themselves whipped out of Vietnam.

Hell go on vote early start your right wing revolution take over the U.S, ill get the first boat over join up with the americans left who actually know what their country exist for, and have a jolly good time chasing your kind all over the place.
Go on please i have no idea what im going to do when i get out of uni and i would love to have some stories to tell my kids. It be so much easier too, china or iran are too far away and i allready speak english

Back on topic prehaps

Hell go on vote early start your right wing revolution take over the U.S, ill get the first boat over join up with the americans left who actually know what their country exist for, and have a jolly good time chasing your kind all over the place.
Go on please i have no idea what im going to do when i get out of uni and i would love to have some stories to tell my kids.

Back on topic prehaps

*smacks with a folding chair*
DON'T. *smack*
FEED. *smack*
THE. *smack*
TROLLS! *smack*

sorry so abstinence only sex ed right or wrong.
Wrong becuase its silly and right wing

Oh, for goodness' sake. Would you just give it up? Anyone with any sense can see that you're just a troll. Either that or merely psychotic. Either way, give it up.


What? Militia members don't post on online forums? We're not just folks who live in the hills and never come out. We do have contact with the outside world, believe it or not...

Abstinence Only Education So....
Back to the actual topic on hand

Funny really, the Americans used to think the same way before they got themselves whipped out of Vietnam.

We really didn't get 'whipped' as you said!

Because I don't answer lies, I know many people in Sweden, and I know the truth, you sir are spinning lies and until you tell the truth, or cite your evidence, I won't reply.

Hmm, considering the fact that I heard this from the District Chief of Police himself... during a meeting of the police board which I happen to be a member of. But since you've already branded me a liar you won't believe this either. Rather typical bigot behavior; anything that doesn't match your view of the world is a lie. Since you appear to be a rather psychopathic troll, I think I'll end this debate here for my side, as further argumentation is pointless.

(Sorry, everyone, I'll try to get on topic now. Or rather later, since I have to go now.)

Abstinence works every time it is practiced.

Let's also teach our youngins' how to not ejaculate in condoms, that's what faces are for!

Retarded idea, but this has basically been hijacked by a troll so I have no desire to stay. And anyone who does is foolish.

I know ive baited him my self, cant help it the red commie pinko inside me gets all figety in the afternoon. but i actually woulnt mind a little talkie-poo about the orginal topic so whats say we get back to it.

Retarded idea, but this has basically been hijacked by a troll so I have no desire to stay. And anyone who does is foolish.
Naw...you can still salvage the thread...just ignore the racist.

Aren't you glad you live in Canada?

Naw...you can still salvage the thread...just ignore the racist.

Aren't you glad you live in Canada?


I'm sorry it went off on a tangent, I'm done though.

The best form of abstainance only sex education: Get several prostitutes, both male and female, and have them perform every imaginable sex act with the students. Condoms will be used, of course, but the word "condom" will never be uttered.
Then, after everyone has been thouroughly de-virginized in every way possible tell them never to do it again untill they are married.Once curosity has been satasfied sex isn't a big deal.

Which is why for about every right-winger in our movement, there are 10-20 guns and at least 1 suit of body armor and protective gear. If you knotched the bow into the arrow, you'd not get a chance to loose it.
Yeah, because right-thinking militia men have eyes in the back of their head, never sleep, never split up and anyone opposing them is surely stupid. Do me a favour and foam at the mouth in your own delusional world, but dont even try reasoning with me.
Besides one either nocks the string into the bow or an arrow into the string. Any other way there indeed would be no chance.

Then, after everyone has been thouroughly de-virginized in every way possible tell them never to do it again untill they are married.Once curosity has been satasfied sex isn't a big deal.
thats a lovely word, de-virginized

Abstinence Only Education So....
Back to the actual topic on hand

Yes, I'm sorry for giving the wench an opening. :headbang:

Back on topic please

Ignorance is okay, you speak of a culture of ignorance. I didn't know what masturbation meant until I was 14-15. I didn't really have any idea of what oral sex was until I was about 15.

As for sexual intercourse, I thought the only way it could be done was how I'd seen animals do it, well I thought this till about age 15-16.


I turned out fine and I didn't have all the sort of sex-ed that sexualizes Western youth at increasingly younger age. Sex-ed, as it is today, just encourages fornication and increases the likelihood of teens becoming sexually active earlier on and with more frequency.

What happened to YOU does not necessarily apply to an entire society.

And your overall birthrate is so low that the muslim immigrants will soon outnumber you and claim Netherlands as their own. This is because your people are using contraception, the plague of Western civilization.


I suppose that's unrelated to this thread though, but maybe we ought to start a new thread about that, eh?


At any rate, I'd love to see every healthy European female in Europe, aged 15 or above, get pregnant 2-3 times in the next 5-6 years, ideally by men in their mid 20s, so the children can be financially supported and properly raised.

Europe needs a baby boom, not an immigrant boom.


You know what, I think I will make that new thread, shortly, as soon as time permits. :)

America has a negative birth/death rate. Care to guess why? Raising children in an industrialized nation is very expensive. Children in industrialized nations are financial burdens, while children in nations dependant on things like farming are financial boons, which is why agricultural societies tend to have a lot of children.

Wanting a baby boom in Europe will create a HUGE economic harship. There isn't the infrastructure to support that much medicine, education, clothes, food and everything else children need to grow up in an industrialized nation.

True, but abstinence also makes pregnancies planned.

If you're abstinent, you get sexually frustrated, which leads to sexual deviance such as beastiality, phedophilia (catholic priests are the poster child for this). Do you have any idea how many twisted and weird fetishes exist BECAUSE of the sexual prepression christians have forced upon themselves? Scat play, golden showers, autoerotic asphyxiciation, just to name a few.

If you're abstinent, you get sexually frustrated, which leads to sexual deviance such as beastiality, phedophilia (catholic priests are the poster child for this). Do you have any idea how many twisted and weird fetishes exist BECAUSE of the sexual prepression christians have forced upon themselves? Scat play, golden showers, autoerotic asphyxiciation, just to name a few.


Abstinence does NOT cause pedophilia. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Morally, I'd explain it as a sign of reprobation.

How do you explain married men who touch kids then? (They're obviously able to get sex from their wife, or if not, they could have an affair)


See, you think that Priests cannot get sex if they wanted it? They are the only thing stopping themselves. They could cheat on their vows, nothing is stopping them. Why then would they touch boys rather than go cheat on their vows with a consenting adult woman?

I read it. It's just that Mitch Hedberg's album playing on my computer is more interesting. No offense.

you like mitch hedberg!?>!>?! which album? personally i think 'strategic grill locations' is a f-cking riot. i've been thinking about the 'tent' track all day where he's like

' i made the mistake of getting in a fight with a girl in a tent. how are you supposed to express your anger in this situation? ZIIIP Fuck you." lol :p

America has a negative birth/death rate. Care to guess why? Raising children in an industrialized nation is very expensive. Children in industrialized nations are financial burdens, while children in nations dependant on things like farming are financial boons, which is why agricultural societies tend to have a lot of children.

Wanting a baby boom in Europe will create a HUGE economic harship. There isn't the infrastructure to support that much medicine, education, clothes, food and everything else children need to grow up in an industrialized nation.


No, whites in America have a negative rate, same as Europe, non-whites are the ones booming, displacing us in our own lands. We need to have a boom and we need to displace them, out of OUR lands.

There is a reason our movement is top-heavy with active duty military, reserves, former military, special forces, police, etc. As for the anti-gun liberals who own no guns, how are they going to stop us?

Do you think we're going to be foolish enough to let our enemies be armed?

We're going to go to every gun store in every state and find the yellow forms they have to keep, by law, and then we're going to find out who owns what guns, and those who aren't politically reliable, will be losing their guns. (this is of course after we edit the constitution so we can legally justify what we're doing)

I really don't think a bunch of rag-tag communists without combat experience, could stand against folks who spent the 80s in Angola and Namibia, the 90s in Serbia and Chechnya, and at present are in a host of places around the world in counter-insurgencies and various skirmishes.

ROFLMAO

Delusional militia crap. Seek help. Get medication. No one is hopeless with professional help.

Sorry folks, I'll let the thread get back on topic.

Ah, finally! I love this thread; its something I feel rather strongly about. Thus, I rather skipped over some parts, so please please correct me if I restate something. :)

Sadly enough, I live in Texas. The only sexual education we get is called Aim for Success, and all it discusses is abstinence. Nothing about condoms, or Aids, or anything besides: "Sex is bad. You'll die, if you have it." They actually make that statment, believe it or not. In health, we're not even allowed to ask questions on that topic. I have friends who believe that 'pulling out' is an acceptable form of birth control, because they've never been taught otherwise. I learned nothing from this class, and when I became physical with my boyfriend I had to research everything on my own. Luckily, I got the correct information--otherwise, who knows where I'd be? In this state, you have to research it on your own, or you'll learn next to nothing.

No, whites in America have a negative rate, same as Europe, non-whites are the ones booming, displacing us in our own lands. We need to have a boom and we need to displace them, out of OUR lands.
I like you, you're funny. You make me laugh. I like you.



Oh and good luck with all that...

If you're abstinent, you get sexually frustrated, which leads to sexual deviance such as beastiality, phedophilia (catholic priests are the poster child for this). Do you have any idea how many twisted and weird fetishes exist BECAUSE of the sexual prepression christians have forced upon themselves? Scat play, golden showers, autoerotic asphyxiciation, just to name a few.

While there are a wide variety of factors for this (After all, most fetishes that require other people aren't going to happen when you don't have anyone to use'em on), I was recently informed by someone on the net whom I know is extremely sexually frustrated, that she was 'going to the dogs' as it were. Appearantly got her sister's dog to do something, and now intends to get a dog of her own when she moves out on her own... *shudders*

The rest you stated, however, is much more socially-oriented. I know someone who gets off on being choked, due to some serious issues she has in regards to how people treat her. For her, and, I wager, most people of that fetish, its a matter of feeling controlled in some way. That and the whole cutting off of air thing that gets ya giddy.

I wager bestiality also often has a component involving others... but it can come from genuine frustration (Sally Mae's on her hands and knees one day, wishing she was being fucked til she bled, but in a society where she can't get any, and along comes Buster, seeing an interesting opportunity.. *gags*)

The pedophilia in the priesthood thing is often a chicken/egg thing, as well.



People need to learn to do things RIGHT instead of just running from them already.

I don't suppose anyone has mentioned another bad effect of no sex education: bad sex. You might think it kind of banal, but if I don't even know what a clitoris is (which I didn't until I read a sex-ed book by Dr. Ruth when I was 17 and in college), how exactly do people expect me to go about bringing pleasure with it later on?

This sign appears on all city busses in my home city.

my questions:
1. Ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha
2. Sex is going to happen. The more you make it taboo, the more it will happen. So why not teach the importance of love, OR say condoms?

I don't suppose anyone has mentioned another bad effect of no sex education: bad sex. You might think it kind of banal, but if I don't even know what a clitoris is (which I didn't until I read a sex-ed book by Dr. Ruth when I was 17 and in college), how exactly do people expect me to go about bringing pleasure with it later on?



My father told me all about that stuff after I had turned 18 and he thought it was appropriate. Actually I was the one who brought it up, he just answered me and answered honestly.

We had a rather nice chat about a variety of issues and such, positions, techniques. Granted this was when I was after I turned 18.

Really, it's something parents ought to talk to kids about, not strangers in school.

I don't suppose anyone has mentioned another bad effect of no sex education: bad sex. You might think it kind of banal, but if I don't even know what a clitoris is (which I didn't until I read a sex-ed book by Dr. Ruth when I was 17 and in college), how exactly do people expect me to go about bringing pleasure with it later on?

Because physical pleasure is a tool of the Devil to sway young minds from Godly service silly. Women aren't supposed to feel pleasure, it says so in the bible. The only reason we don't chop it off the way some African tribes do is because that would mean we have to teach people how to find it.

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/yes/299546yes02-01-05.htm

I'm not sure if that's public, but that pretty much expresses all of my views on this topic.

Abstinence only, in America anyway, is also awfully insensitive to people who can't get married, like gays. They, appearantly, are supposed to remain virgins forever.

VoteEarly: Out of curiosity, have you talked to the KKK? I'm sure they'll be more than willing to aid you in your "reactionary movement".

Ah, finally! I love this thread; its something I feel rather strongly about. Thus, I rather skipped over some parts, so please please correct me if I restate something. :)

Sadly enough, I live in Texas. The only sexual education we get is called Aim for Success, and all it discusses is abstinence. Nothing about condoms, or Aids, or anything besides: "Sex is bad. You'll die, if you have it." They actually make that statment, believe it or not. In health, we're not even allowed to ask questions on that topic. I have friends who believe that 'pulling out' is an acceptable form of birth control, because they've never been taught otherwise. I learned nothing from this class, and when I became physical with my boyfriend I had to research everything on my own. Luckily, I got the correct information--otherwise, who knows where I'd be? In this state, you have to research it on your own, or you'll learn next to nothing.
I'm from Texas. Even more sadly I live in Oklahoma now. Which is at least as backwards. As for you're sig, the only thing curiousity ever killed was a couple of hours. :D

Originally Posted by Bitchkitten
Don't you people know that if kids aren't taught about sex they won't discover it until after they're married?

Children don't need to be taught about sex, to have it. The human anatomy is enough of a guide, lol.

Bitchkitten, do you believe in god?

Bitchkitten, do you believe in god?

No.

So telling me not to do something because somebody's imaginary friend says I shouldn't doesn't work. If somebody can give me rational reasons why it shouldn't be done (ie without using the imaginary friend manual) then I'll give it some thought.

Children don't need to be taught about sex, to have it. The human anatomy is enough of a guide, lol.

Well, pubes pretty much ARE arrows pointing our fun parts out to each other...

Well, pubes pretty much ARE arrows pointing our fun parts out to each other...

See Incenjucarania gets it. It's a good thing you said you don't believe in god because that would prove my point, but anyway, prehistoric men had to learn how to talk and communicate visually which proves that people we're managing to have sex before they could read, write, or verbally give instructions to each other on how to have sex. In other words, children will grow up and learn how to have sex on their own, and the lack of sex education in the classroom is not going to prevent them from having premarital sex.

Originally Posted by Bitchkitten
Don't you people know that if kids aren't taught about sex they won't discover it until after they're married?


Children don't need to be taught about sex, to have it. The human anatomy is enough of a guide, lol.

You do know I was being sarcastic, right? :p

Well, if I was a Christian, I'd probably have said something like "Those are arrows pointing to the evil you have to pretend isn't there." or "They hide the evil from your eyes so you aren't tempted." or some other junk.

Honestly, I just wanna know why Christians think men have nipples.

What the fricking hell did Adam need nipples for?

What the fricking hell did Adam need nipples for?
It's so if Adam found out he had GID, he could properly transition into Amanda.
:p

Hey, that makes ya wonder.. what if Adam was actually... a transvesdite... Jebus made Eve from Adam... by giving him an operation... muhah

Hey, that makes ya wonder.. what if Adam was actually... a transvesdite... Jebus made Eve from Adam... by giving him an operation... muhah
Transvestites are crossdressers. I believe the word you're looking for is "transsexual".

My bad.

After all.. how the hell do you cross dress with fig leaves?

Well in Aust they dont even consider abstinence as an option... they assume you sleep around by the age of 12 and treat you as such... :confused:

See, you think that Priests cannot get sex if they wanted it? They are the only thing stopping themselves. They could cheat on their vows, nothing is stopping them. Why then would they touch boys rather than go cheat on their vows with a consenting adult woman?

Because the boys are there, easy to manipulate, easier to get to consent then a grown woman, and less likely to tell.

No, whites in America have a negative rate, same as Europe, non-whites are the ones booming, displacing us in our own lands. We need to have a boom and we need to displace them, out of OUR lands.

That is a blatantly racist statement. I will not have any further discourse with a xenophobic biggot. Good day.

While there are a wide variety of factors for this (After all, most fetishes that require other people aren't going to happen when you don't have anyone to use'em on), I was recently informed by someone on the net whom I know is extremely sexually frustrated, that she was 'going to the dogs' as it were. Appearantly got her sister's dog to do something, and now intends to get a dog of her own when she moves out on her own... *shudders*

The rest you stated, however, is much more socially-oriented. I know someone who gets off on being choked, due to some serious issues she has in regards to how people treat her. For her, and, I wager, most people of that fetish, its a matter of feeling controlled in some way. That and the whole cutting off of air thing that gets ya giddy.

I wager bestiality also often has a component involving others... but it can come from genuine frustration (Sally Mae's on her hands and knees one day, wishing she was being fucked til she bled, but in a society where she can't get any, and along comes Buster, seeing an interesting opportunity.. *gags*)

The pedophilia in the priesthood thing is often a chicken/egg thing, as well.



People need to learn to do things RIGHT instead of just running from them already.

I am proposing that an act as natural as eating and breathing, being repressed leads to neurosis.

My bad.

After all.. how the hell do you cross dress with fig leaves?
I was almost going to say that exact same thing!
:D

No.

So telling me not to do something because somebody's imaginary friend says I shouldn't doesn't work. If somebody can give me rational reasons why it shouldn't be done (ie without using the imaginary friend manual) then I'll give it some thought.

I want you to know that you're my new friend. :cool:

Okay, to all people ranting on this thread, I think we need to calm this down, and return to some rational arguments. Here’s a few:

A)Normally, under the Tenth Amendment, the Federales can’t centrally control education. Let me remind you here:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What are those ‘powers delegated’?
Now, you may check in your copy of the Constitution – or this one ( http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm), but I don’t see anything about regulating education. Everything that was done – usually using technically legal Federal funding as leverage, sometimes just outright unconstitutional legislation – was done before Bush. People who are now ranting against Bush’s education policies forget that it’s often ‘their’ party that originally gave the Federal Government the authority to do this. You want to fix the problem? Fix that.
B) I don’t have direct access to the study material involvd, so I don’t know how factual it is – and second hand ‘I heard it on the internet’ stuff is not something I base my posts on. But nevertheless, here’s a few observations:
1)There’s no such thing as an unbiased school. Climate change is also highly debated – I am not taking sides here – and so are many points in American history- yet the very people who are now opposing Bush’s policy forced their worldview down people’s throats when they were in power. And frankly, I am OK with that. Public education has always been used to transfer a nation’s culture to it’s children, right or wrong – and I don’t mind as long as it’s not OTT, and if I did, there’s private schools and homeschooling.
2)If you don’t have sex, you don’t have children. Generally a true fact.

Okay, to all people ranting on this thread, I think we need to calm this down, and return to some rational arguments. Here’s a few:

A)Normally, under the Tenth Amendment, the Federales can’t centrally control education. Let me remind you here:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What are those ‘powers delegated’?
Now, you may check in your copy of the Constitution – or this one ( http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm), but I don’t see anything about regulating education. Everything that was done – usually using technically legal Federal funding as leverage, sometimes just outright unconstitutional legislation – was done before Bush. People who are now ranting against Bush’s education policies forget that it’s often ‘their’ party that originally gave the Federal Government the authority to do this. You want to fix the problem? Fix that.
I don't care wether it's Washington or the state who messes up the life of thousands of children! If it was a state, which you seem to prefer, it'd be just as bad but for fewer people.

B) I don’t have direct access to the study material involvd, so I don’t know how factual it is – and second hand ‘I heard it on the internet’ stuff is not something I base my posts on. But nevertheless, here’s a few observations:
Links anyone? the ones I found didn't load for him!

1)There’s no such thing as an unbiased school. Climate change is also highly debated – I am not taking sides here – and so are many points in American history- yet the very people who are now opposing Bush’s policy forced their worldview down people’s throats when they were in power. And frankly, I am OK with that. Public education has always been used to transfer a nation’s culture to it’s children, right or wrong – and I don’t mind as long as it’s not OTT, and if I did, there’s private schools and homeschooling.
What I want, and others surely too, is that I am told the alternative views in case of disputed but important topics (I learned in school that there are more than one theory on climate changes, for example). teaching people only one view is narrowing their view very much.

BTW: I shudder to think what people who advocate 'abstinence only' would teach their children in homeschooling.</hijack>

2)If you don’t have sex, you don’t have children. Generally a true fact.
Depends... there were proven cases that you can get pregnant from petting if sperm get into the vagina...

Depends... there were proven cases that you can get pregnant from petting if sperm get into the vagina...
As a lecturer put it, sperm are like homing pigeons.

don't care wether it's Washington or the state who messes up the life of thousands of children! If it was a state, which you seem to prefer, it'd be just as bad but for fewer people.

I believe, Rejistania, that you are overreacting to this crisis – the lives of those children are not being ‘messed up’, they are just being taught slightly different things – it’s not an OMG total untruth we’re dealing here, it’s simply a slightly different worldview. And yes, I believe we’re dealing with a more fundamentally important issue here than children using condoms to have sex. Why should the people of California be forced into the same cultural mold as the people of Texas? “States’ Rights” [or, more correctly, state powers are an important bulwark against people like - the greatly esteemed – Mr. George Walker Bush.

What I want, and others surely too, is that I am told the alternative views in case of disputed but important topics (I learned in school that there are more than one theory on climate changes, for example

I didn’t. I have here, in my room, schoolbooks from the UK, Israel, America and Russia. And they provide, on many controversial topics – drugs, crime, history – only one viewpoint. And it is perfectly legitimate, because it’s impossible to provide all viewpoints in a schoolbooks. The best one can expect is that the school encourages the children to learn more independently – and that is what is one should strive for.

Depends... there were proven cases that you can get pregnant from petting if sperm get into the vagina...

Well, now you’re being facetious.

Climate change is also highly debated – I am not taking sides here – and so are many points in American history- yet the very people who are now opposing Bush’s policy forced their worldview down people’s throats when they were in power.

Climate change is only highly debated in the US. In Polynesia, where people's homes are going underwater, and in the Netherlands, where the dykes are no longer high enough, and in the arctic where the winter ice is too thin for polar bears to fish from it, the debate is over.

Climate change deniers are like holocaust deniers - arguing against obvious facts.

As to bias, saying 2 + 2 = 4 isn't biased against people who believe that 2 + 2 = 5, it is just telling the truth. Evolution and climate change are obvious to anyone who looks, as is the usefulness of contraception and the amount of fun that can be had from sex.

Should the teacher say, at the end of every lesson, "And of course there are some whackos who believe that 2 + 2 = 5, that contraception is evil, that evolution didn't happen and that climate change is a zionist plot" ?

No, whites in America have a negative rate, same as Europe, non-whites are the ones booming, displacing us in our own lands. We need to have a boom and we need to displace them, out of OUR lands.
If its "your" land, than you have to be an american native, right?

If you're abstinent, you get sexually frustrated, which leads to sexual deviance such as beastiality, phedophilia (catholic priests are the poster child for this). Do you have any idea how many twisted and weird fetishes exist BECAUSE of the sexual prepression christians have forced upon themselves? Scat play, golden showers, autoerotic asphyxiciation, just to name a few.

All of these "deviations" were around well before the christian church. Much though I like slagging it off, you can't blame it for these. Sexual problems due to their repression of sexual thought and conduct, yes, but these no. If you were to list dressing up as priests/nuns/monks, obsessions with christian imagery with sexual connotations, or phrases like "bashing the bishop" then, yes, it would be appropriate to blame the christian church.

As for them being deviant or twisted...

If its "your" land, than you have to be an american native, right?

actually, "native" americans immigrated from asia in an ice age i think about 15000 years ago. Older skeletons than that have been discoverd in north america, and they are caucasian.

Of course they immigrated from somewhere, etc. I can't understand how anyone could be so stupid as to consider their neighbour's yard to be "white man's land" or "black man's land" or whatever. What a bucket of ass.

If you're abstinent, you get sexually frustrated, which leads to sexual deviance such as beastiality, phedophilia (catholic priests are the poster child for this). Do you have any idea how many twisted and weird fetishes exist BECAUSE of the sexual prepression christians have forced upon themselves? Scat play, golden showers, autoerotic asphyxiciation, just to name a few.

I would really like to see your evidence that christianity causes golden showers and scat. Really. Can I? Please?

Climate change is only highly debated in the US. In Polynesia, where people's homes are going underwater, and in the Netherlands, where the dykes are no longer high enough, and in the arctic where the winter ice is too thin for polar bears to fish from it, the debate is over.

And in Israel, where we had the coldest winter in thirty years? The issue is complex - and politicized. There's good scientists on both sides and I am not, and I repeat, not sidetracking the thread into it.


Evolution and climate change are obvious to anyone who looks, as is the usefulness of contraception and the amount of fun that can be had from sex.

I can have incredible amount of fun having oral sex. I like giving it more than I like receiving it. I don't think you can get pregnant sucking me off. :) Much less I cannot get pregnant eating you out. ;)

And which theory of evolution would you teach? I was taught creationism in my (Israeli) school. I turned out all right though. I don't believe in it [creationsim] anyway, but I know there's at least six legitimate evolutionary theories practiced by anthropologists.

"And of course there are some whackos who believe that 2 + 2 = 5, that contraception is evil, that evolution didn't happen and that climate change is a zionist plot" ?

So, telling the students of the existance of Orthodox Judaism - which holds as an article of faith that any ejaculation other thaninto a woman's vagina is murder - is now not part of the curriculum? :)

My father told me all about that stuff after I had turned 18 and he thought it was appropriate. Actually I was the one who brought it up, he just answered me and answered honestly.

We had a rather nice chat about a variety of issues and such, positions, techniques. Granted this was when I was after I turned 18.

Really, it's something parents ought to talk to kids about, not strangers in school.All well and good if you have a parent who can do a good job at that, but leaves those without a suitably knowledgable (and comfortable and available) parent (or guardian or other nominated person) in the lurch, fostering a perpetuating situation that the term 'trailer trash' isn't too far from describing. (No offence intended to trailer-livers, it's just a handy reference stereotype, and there are plenty of other societal niches where the problem can occur.)

Sex Ed at school means that (ideally, and assuming it isn't subverted in ways this thread was discussing) everyone gets at least a sufficient understanding of the subject to enjoy life (by staying safe and having whatever fun their beliefs allow them to participate in) even if the parent/etc remains ignorant or misguided in their knowledge of contraception/whatever.

I have here, in my room, schoolbooks from the UK, Israel, America and Russia. And they provide, on many controversial topics – drugs, crime, history – only one viewpoint. And it is perfectly legitimate, because it’s impossible to provide all viewpoints in a schoolbooks. The best one can expect is that the school encourages the children to learn more independently – and that is what is one should strive for.
I am now a doctoral student, and have spent almost 18 years in education. I have never, ever encountered a textbook that only gives one argument on a given issue. Of course textbooks - and teachers - can't provide all views, but they really ought to provide at least the main ones from each end of the spectrum on any given issue. Otherwise, it's teaching only one view of the world. I find that very irresponsible; there are obviously many more views on all issues than just one - total ignorance of these, in my opinion, leads to such shallow and narrow-minded idiots as we've seen earlier in this thread. That doesn't mean anyone should feel forced to follow a particular viewpoint, but awareness of its existence is a positive thing. Or so I think, anyway.

And in Israel, where we had the coldest winter in thirty years?

How does the fact that you experienced the coldest winter in 30 years convince you that the climate isn't changing? Climate change is going to make the UK much colder in winter too.

So, telling the students of the existance of Orthodox Judaism - which holds as an article of faith that any ejaculation other thaninto a woman's vagina is murder - is now not part of the curriculum? :)

It can be in the comparative religion curriculum, but it doesn't need to be in the biology curriculum.

How does the fact that you experienced the coldest winter in 30 years convince you that the climate isn't changing? Climate change is going to make the UK much colder in winter too.


I am no climatologist and this is not the topic of the thread. I however have gathered from my limited reading that this is a hotly controversial topic, and wish not to engage in it's discussion - I merely brought it up as an example of such a controversial topic.

I say it again - it is impossible to have a totally unbiased curriculum - because humans are biased as a part of their nature.

I believe, Rejistania, that you are overreacting to this crisis – the lives of those children are not being ‘messed up’, they are just being taught slightly different things – it’s not an OMG total untruth we’re dealing here, it’s simply a slightly different worldview. And yes, I believe we’re dealing with a more fundamentally important issue here than children using condoms to have sex. Why should the people of California be forced into the same cultural mold as the people of Texas? “States’ Rights” [or, more correctly, state powers are an important bulwark against people like - the greatly esteemed – Mr. George Walker Bush.

I cannot really following this trail of arguments seeing that we have the whackos always on state level. And with 'mess up' I ment that people in abstinence programs will surely not enjoy their sex life later on as others.


I didn’t. I have here, in my room, schoolbooks from the UK, Israel, America and Russia. And they provide, on many controversial topics – drugs, crime, history – only one viewpoint. And it is perfectly legitimate, because it’s impossible to provide all viewpoints in a schoolbooks. The best one can expect is that the school encourages the children to learn more independently – and that is what is one should strive for.

That is strange... in history, we often had more than one viewpoint on issues (after each chapter)... there were even two different alternative theories of the 'evolution of man' (inapropriate term, I know) explained in my biology book (creation and a horrible complex one).



Climate change is only highly debated in the US. In Polynesia, where people's homes are going underwater, and in the Netherlands, where the dykes are no longer high enough, and in the arctic where the winter ice is too thin for polar bears to fish from it, the debate is over.


Not really... I think it is still disputable what exactly caused it and what can be done to stop it (if there is a way). Just think about the fact that Polynesia is not really long inhabited in geological terms.

My father told me all about that stuff after I had turned 18 and he thought it was appropriate. Actually I was the one who brought it up, he just answered me and answered honestly.

We had a rather nice chat about a variety of issues and such, positions, techniques. Granted this was when I was after I turned 18.

Really, it's something parents ought to talk to kids about, not strangers in school.
Ideally yes parents should be involved but we live in a flawed society and no kid should be left un-educated in something this important just because a) their parent does not care enough to explain it to them
Or b) is not capable of correctly teaching them (you have to know it correctly first in order to be able to teach it)
(assuming they have solid parents at all)

Depressions are always the best time for a right-wing movement to rise up.

Economic downturns are the reactionary movements best friend.


Well it worked for Hitler. And that just turned out great :rolleyes:

If this revolution does sweep Europe I'm moving to Canada.

I agree that abstinence should be stressed as a good thing until people are involved in a loving and stable relationship. But since some people do things regardless they should know how to go about it in a safe and responsible manner. Chances are some of them won't listen to that either but they need to have the option.

I cannot really following this trail of arguments seeing that we have the whackos always on state level.

You spell it wacko. :)

Anyway, who do you refer to as a w(h)acko? The Mormons in Utah? The Libertarians in New-Hampshire (soon!)? The "Liberals" in NYC?


And with 'mess up' I ment that people in abstinence programs will surely not enjoy their sex life later on as others.

How do you know that? (There is a statistic out there that 54% of Republicans are have an orgasm nearly every time they do it, compared to 44% Democrats. It is ont important enough for the discussion to dig up)


That is strange... in history, we often had more than one viewpoint on issues (after each chapter)... there were even two different alternative theories of the 'evolution of man' (inapropriate term, I know) explained in my biology book (creation and a horrible complex one).


So - for example - did they teach you in your school that marijuana is beneficial in certain ilnesses? That tobacco smoke was until recently used to treat certain chronic diseases? And need I continue? :)

So - for example - did they teach you in your school that marijuana is beneficial in certain ilnesses? That tobacco smoke was until recently used to treat certain chronic diseases?
We were told in a drugs education class that marijuana was bad, mainly because it's combined with nicotine and can lead to hard drugs, but yes, we were informed that it could be used as an anaesthetic for certain illnesses. Tobacco smoke's use never formed any part of such discussions, or any history classes, but I would have welcomed the knowledge of what you speak of, simply because it is knowledge. Informing the person that it was used in this way is not the same as encouraging them to use it.

Just want to add

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=sex&word2=Abstinence

And, as you might know, marijuana is not combined with nicotine. The Gateway Theory is in itself highly dubious. Thank you for making my point. :)

And, as you might know, marijuana is not combined with nicotine. The Gateway Theory is in itself highly dubious. Thank you for making my point. :)
It is in spliffs, in most circles that I am aware of, but having only occasionally dabbled myself, I admit to not being an expert on the specifics of the use of blow.

I was pointing out that the school had informed us that people could or have used marijana for medicinal purposes - I was not pointing out that they endorse the theory or actually believe in it. They were simply informing us that it is a point of view that some hold. So you see - knowledge about other beliefs, other practices, rather than endorsement.

In terms of the Gateway Theory, again, it was put forward as a belief that exists, rather than hard fact. The other side of the coin was the above - ie, potentially using blow medicinally. You see, the idea is, you gain as much knowledge as possible on topic x, then you make your own mind up about it. If you don't feel there's enough evidence for the theory, it's up to you whether or not you follow it, and vice versa. You have made this decision after having heard both sides of the argument, after having become informed, rather than having heard just one potentially biased point of view. The same rationale can be applied in terms of abstinence/contraception education. Make up your own mind, after hearing points about each :)

It is in spliffs, in most circles that I am aware of. really?

But yeah, I'd sit on the fence on the schools issue. Public schools at least try to maintain a semblance on unbias, but often the textbooks and stuff do lean one way or another and omit details etc to support themselves.

really?
Well, generally I don't know, but the few times I've smoked it in joints or seen others having done so, they add tobacco to the mix, to make it easier to smoke or something. I don't know - no big fan of the stuff, so not really worried whether it's the norm or not. Just adding what I know of it :)

Not really... I think it is still disputable what exactly caused it and what can be done to stop it (if there is a way). Just think about the fact that Polynesia is not really long inhabited in geological terms.

Nowhere is long inhabited in geological terms. Geological terms are billions of years. Human inhabiting terms are millions of years. Still, what countries have signed up to Kyoto, and what countries are still "debating"? The one that produces 25% of the world's CO2.

Nowhere is long inhabited in geological terms. Geological terms are billions of years. Human inhabiting terms are millions of years. Still, what countries have signed up to Kyoto, and what countries are still "debating"? The one that produces 25% of the world's CO2.
The one that it will also will have the biggest impact on (not saying it is right or wrong but just pointing out while we may be bigest producer and should get our act togeather we do also have a lot at stake)

Well, generally I don't know, but the few times I've smoked it in joints or seen others having done so, they add tobacco to the mix, to make it easier to smoke or something. I don't know - no big fan of the stuff, so not really worried whether it's the norm or not. Just adding what I know of it :)

In the UK we have traditionally been a hash-smoking culture. It is difficult to smoke hash without mixing it with tobacco, and impossible to make a pure hash reefer.

Grass is now very widely available in the UK but as it is oftern just the buds of some gm very very potent skunky stuff, it is still often mixed with tobacco as a pure-bud reefer of this stuff would be too strong.

Me, I prefer natural leaves only.

The one that it will also will have the biggest impact on (not saying it is right or wrong but just pointing out while we may be bigest producer and should get our act togeather we do also have a lot at stake)

yep, all those 4 litre gasoline trucks containing one fat guy and a 40 oz bucket of KFC.

yep, all those 4 litre gasoline trucks containing one fat guy and a 40 oz bucket of KFC.
Which is a major consumer along with having not only one of the biggest overland cargo routs but the most movement of materials also

Dont get me wrong not saying it is right but it also has major impact on things

(btw I own a truck and its 5.7 litre :p )

Which is a major consumer along with having not only one of the biggest overland cargo routs but the most movement of materials also

Dont get me wrong not saying it is right but it also has major impact on things

(btw I own a truck and its 5.7 litre :p )

Swapping your 5.7 litre gas truck for a 2 litre diesel truck would have no impact on you at all, but would reduce your carbon emissions by about 75%.

Swapping your 5.7 litre gas truck for a 2 litre diesel truck would have no impact on you at all, but would reduce your carbon emissions by about 75%.
Great idea but you come show me how to haul a horse trailer on the 2 litre truck (bout 9000 lb's) off road at times (got to get to the pastures) and I will look at saving up to buy it
:) (dont get me wrong if I did not live on a farm I wouldent own a truck) (edit looked at rough towing of trucks with roughly that sized engine not neerly enough for the trailer)

Great idea but you come show me how to haul a horse trailer on the 2 litre truck (bout 9000 lb's) off road at times (got to get to the pastures) and I will look at saving up to buy it
:) (dont get me wrong if I did not live on a farm I wouldent own a truck)

Diesel engines are more than twice as efficient (at converting fuel energy to power) as gas engines. Also they concentrate the power in low revs and have much greate torque per cube. A 2.5 litre diesel engine is the standard workhorse engine in the Land Rover (jack of all trades ex-british (now owned by Ford) off-road vehicle) and all the farmers where i live use LandRovers for their farming work, including dragging horse trailers.

People are starting to buy mitsubishi L200s which are big pickups, and often have gas engines, but those people only use them for road driving and going to town, they aren't real farm vehicles over here.

Diesel engines are more than twice as efficient (at converting fuel energy to power) as gas engines. Also they concentrate the power in low revs and have much greate torque per cube. A 2.5 litre diesel engine is the standard workhorse engine in the Land Rover (jack of all trades ex-british (now owned by Ford) off-road vehicle) and all the farmers where i live use LandRovers for their farming work, including dragging horse trailers.

People are starting to buy mitsubishi L200s which are big pickups, and often have gas engines, but those people only use them for road driving and going to town, they aren't real farm vehicles over here.
See we do a lot of out and out draging I actualy push my truck up past the 10 k range (its not even rated for that) I agree disles are nice but in that size it is just not enough honestly (I used to own an old dodge with a 3.6 diesle in it and that was not even enough)
besides the landrover cant haul a gooseneck nor my 5th wheel (they are great for individual offroading but I am talking about taking the horsetrailr off road which is a whole different ballgame)

See we do a lot of out and out draging I actualy push my truck up past the 10 k range (its not even rated for that) I agree disles are nice but in that size it is just not enough honestly (I used to own an old dodge with a 3.6 diesle in it and that was not even enough)
besides the landrover cant haul a gooseneck nor my 5th wheel (they are great for individual offroading but I am talking about taking the horsetrailr off road which is a whole different ballgame)

all road haulage in europe is by diesel, and all monster offroad vehicles ( i dont mean monster trucks, i mean working vehicles, huge huge dumpsters etc) are diesel. I suspect you just haven't had a good one. and there's nothing a 5 litre gas engine can haul that a 5 litre diesel engine can't, and you'd still be saving 50% on your emissions.

I have a diesel car, and it looks like when it dies i won't be able to afford to replace it with another diesel car. so i'm proselytizing instead.

Nowhere is long inhabited in geological terms. Geological terms are billions of years. Human inhabiting terms are millions of years. Still, what countries have signed up to Kyoto, and what countries are still "debating"? The one that produces 25% of the world's CO2.

First of all, do you know that 85% of the world's "greenhouse" gases are natual [volvanic, etc.] in origin?

If you're abstinent, you get sexually frustrated, which leads to sexual deviance such as beastiality, phedophilia (catholic priests are the poster child for this). Do you have any idea how many twisted and weird fetishes exist BECAUSE of the sexual prepression christians have forced upon themselves? Scat play, golden showers, autoerotic asphyxiciation, just to name a few.

I disagree. Yes, I think there are those that are abstinent who have twisted sexual fetishes and deviancies. However, I do not believe everyone who is abstinent is like that. Abstinence in the strictest sense of the word is to refrain from doing something. So, in a sense, non-smokers or smokers who quit are abstinent; drug users who overcome an addiction are abstinent. People who are craving drugs do some pretty strange things, too--some do anyway. Others are satisfied being free from whatever it is their abstaining from.

When one is refraining from something, two different paths can be taken: long, wish, desire, for the thing which you (darnit) can't get at, or abstain willingly, not-grudgingly. Just because there are those that are convinced against their will to go without sex for a designated period of time (I'm excluding priests because I do not beleive in lifelong celebacy) doing strange things doesn't mean that abstinence causes these strange things. It's only if their abstinent and still fueling their sexual appetites that these mutations of desire occur, rather than bridling their passions. If you think all the time about having that chocolate cake on a diet, eventually you'll break your diet--probably gorging yourself.

There's nothing wrong with people wanting to refrain from having sex or giving into their sexual appetites until designated times. People who exercise this discipline are, in fact, to be applauded. They've gained control over themselves. I do not mean to say that all those that aren't abstinent aren't admirable. Mainly, I mean that there's nothing wrong with those that are abstinent. Forcing abstinence on others, that's a-whole-nother kettle of fish--especially forcing abstinence on children.

That's is why I support family-based sexual education. Families are the best suited to produce the independently tailored messages various children need. If a christian child is taught that there's 'nothing wrong' with having sex, or a non-christian child is taught that their evil to have sex, it's an equally grevious thought to me. The children need to be brought up with a careful balance between what they're taught as norm and what their allowed to decide as norms on their own. Parents have the best opportunity to strike the correct balance here.

I don't think rigid "abstinence-only", " you'll burn in hellfire" education is the answer, but I don't think that feel-good, "sex-is-fine", "let's develop no moral structures in our children" education is any more equitable.

First of all, do you know that 85% of the world's "greenhouse" gases are natual [volvanic, etc.] in origin?

So what?

Imagine a man standing on a rock in a swimming pool. The water comes up to his neck. It has always been there, it's supposed to be there. That's fine.

Now I start topping up the pool from a hose. Before I start, 100% of the water in the pool is already there. By the time I've finished, 98% of the water in the pool was already there, and 2% is the stuff I've added, ans the guy has drowned.

It isn't the 85% from "natural causes" that matters. That's been there for a long time and the human race has developed with it. It's the extra stuff that is changing the climate.

If this revolution does sweep Europe I'm moving to Canada.


You think we'd leave our brethren in Canada to suffer under the weight of a Marxist tyranny?

Bah! No, we plan to liberate them as well. Canada will, ideally, become the 51st state, or perhaps we'll carve 5-6 states out of Canada.

I would really like to see your evidence that christianity causes golden showers and scat. Really. Can I? Please?
Supressing natural urges leads to neurosis. I have a psychologist standing next to me who just verified that with a look of "duh".

I disagree. Yes, I think there are those that are abstinent who have twisted sexual fetishes and deviancies. However, I do not believe everyone who is abstinent is like that. Abstinence in the strictest sense of the word is to refrain from doing something. So, in a sense, non-smokers or smokers who quit are abstinent; drug users who overcome an addiction are abstinent. People who are craving drugs do some pretty strange things, too--some do anyway. Others are satisfied being free from whatever it is their abstaining from.

When one is refraining from something, two different paths can be taken: long, wish, desire, for the thing which you (darnit) can't get at, or abstain willingly, not-grudgingly. Just because there are those that are convinced against their will to go without sex for a designated period of time (I'm excluding priests because I do not beleive in lifelong celebacy) doing strange things doesn't mean that abstinence causes these strange things. It's only if their abstinent and still fueling their sexual appetites that these mutations of desire occur, rather than bridling their passions. If you think all the time about having that chocolate cake on a diet, eventually you'll break your diet--probably gorging yourself.

You can't compare abstaining from chocolate cake to abstaining from sex. Sex is the most basic and necesary function of life. The only reason we are born is to have sex and successfully rear offspring. If you supress a natural instinct, there is a good chance that neurosis will result.

You can't compare abstaining from chocolate cake to abstaining from sex. Sex is the most basic and necesary function of life. The only reason we are born is to have sex and successfully rear offspring. If you supress a natural instinct, there is a good chance that neurosis will result.
Actually, you can compare them. Both sex and chocolate act on the dopamine pathway, chemically they're the same. So if one affects your brain, the other will as well.

Supressing natural urges leads to neurosis. I have a psychologist standing next to me who just verified that with a look of "duh".




And I've talked to several who disagree. Human beings have to repress their baser urges.

Earlier today I had the urge to take out my M-16 and mow down a few dozen people who were really annoying me when I was trying to sleep, but I didn't do it, because it is NOT right. We are beings governed by morality, not acting on urges the second they come into our mind.

And I've talked to several who disagree. Human beings have to repress their baser urges.

Earlier today I had the urge to take out my M-16 and mow down a few dozen people who were really annoying me when I was trying to sleep, but I didn't do it, because it is NOT right. We are beings governed by morality, not acting on urges the second they come into our mind.

The urge to mow down several people with an M-16 is not the basic urge that sex is.

In fact, I would say the psychological trauma you would have experienced from mowing those people down would far outweigh the sleep lost, or that from having sex.

The urge to mow down several people with an M-16 is not the basic urge that sex is.

In fact, I would say the psychological trauma you would have experienced from mowing those people down would far outweigh the sleep lost, or that from having sex.
Mowing down people is. It satisfies the thanatos, the desire to kill and dominate. Sex satisfies the libido, the desire for physical gratification. Both are components of the id.

And I've talked to several who disagree. Human beings have to repress their baser urges.

Earlier today I had the urge to take out my M-16 and mow down a few dozen people who were really annoying me when I was trying to sleep, but I didn't do it, because it is NOT right. We are beings governed by morality, not acting on urges the second they come into our mind.

But to most of us homosexuality is not a baser urge. Just because you happen to be of a religious persuasion that doesn't approve doesn't make it base. Murder and homosexuality aren't comparable. This is not a theocracy and there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is inherently harmful.

But to most of us homosexuality is not a baser urge. Just because you happen to be of a religious persuasion that doesn't approve doesn't make it base. Murder and homosexuality aren't comparable. This is not a theocracy and there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is inherently harmful.
It removes you from the genepool. There's no other single WORST thing that can happen to you, scientifically.

It removes you from the genepool. There's no other single WORST thing that can happen to you, scientifically.

Um, no. Nowhere in science does it say that "the worst thing that can happen to you is removal from the gene pool." Science does not judge good or bad, except as it pertains to theories about the world.

I've got plenty of relatives. They can breed for me. That way plenty of genes we have in common will be passed on. And homosexuals are perfectly able to pass on they're genes. We're talking about homosexuality, not sterility.

Um, no. Nowhere in science does it say that "the worst thing that can happen to you is removal from the gene pool." Science does not judge good or bad, except as it pertains to theories about the world.
The sole function of life is to propogate itself. To move your genes into a new generation. Eat, reproduce, die.

I've got plenty of relatives. They can breed for me. That way plenty of genes we have in common will be passed on. And homosexuals are perfectly able to pass on they're genes. We're talking about homosexuality, not sterility.
True homosexuality leads to the same end.

Homosexuality doesn't eliminate ALL of your genes. You can still get a good strong dose of your genetic material (via siblings) in to the population, which may well contain whatever genetic trait may have made it more likely for you to BE homosexual.

Natural selection works in interesting ways. Kinda like the sickle cell gene. Sickle cell SUCKS. Unless you're in Africa, where it allows you to survive Malaria.

True homosexuality leads to the same end.

You can spread your genes without ever touching the opposite sex.

Homosexuality doesn't eliminate ALL of your genes. You can still get a good strong dose of your genetic material (via siblings) in to the population, which may well contain whatever genetic trait may have made it more likely for you to BE homosexual.

Natural selection works in interesting ways. Kinda like the sickle cell gene. Sickle cell SUCKS. Unless you're in Africa, where it allows you to survive Malaria.
Homosexuality eliminates your GENOME. Unless you're an indentical twin. But for everyone else, it eliminates your genome, which is what is being talked about here.

And actually, the sickle cell gene protects you from malaria if you get one shot of it. If you get two, you die.

We're talking about homosexuality, not sterility.

She has a point. Many gay couples have a surrogate mother carry a biological child for them. Besides, I'd think gay people are more worried about whether they can live their lives the way they want to, to live with their lover and have a child. It doesn't necessarily have to be biological. Even though our biological purpose is to pass on our genes, many people just want to be parents, they don't care if it is their natural child.

Nobody is going to get my exact genome anyway. Dying eliminates your genome. My brothers carry enough of my genes to satisfy me. And how is it going to hurt anyone but me if my genome doesn't get carried on? I'm not bothered. The human race has enough diversity to carry on without me.
I'm pretty sure the reason for someone being against homosexual or childless marraige has nothing to do with their worry about rather or not my genes get carried on. It's a red herring.

Nobody is going to get my exact genome anyway. Dying eliminates your genome. My brothers carry enough of my genes to satisfy me. And how is it going to hurt anyone but me if my genome doesn't get carried on? I'm not bothered. The human race has enough diversity to carry on without me.
I'm pretty sure the reason for someone being against homosexual or childless marraige has nothing to do with their worry about rather or not my genes get carried on. It's a red herring.
It's not a read herring when you talk about scientific reasons for things. Ethically, morally, legally, or practically, no I don't care about your genome. I don't care about mine. But we weren't talking in that context.

Actually, you can compare them. Both sex and chocolate act on the dopamine pathway, chemically they're the same. So if one affects your brain, the other will as well.


Humanity can exist without chocolate cake. It CANNOT exist without sex.
Eating chocolate cake is not an innate drive.
We are born for the sole purpose of having sex. We are not born for the purpose of eating chocolate cake.


You can't compare chocolate cake to sex. Deprivation of chocolate cake might make someone bitchy for a bit, but that's it. Long term deprivation of sex often leads to neurosis.

Homosexuality eliminates your GENOME. Unless you're an indentical twin. But for everyone else, it eliminates your genome, which is what is being talked about here.

And actually, the sickle cell gene protects you from malaria if you get one shot of it. If you get two, you die.

You don't think you're passing the entirity of your genetic material down at any point, do you?

Someone who's less tired can do the math, but if you aid a sibling instead of producing your own offspring, there's a point where you're still getting a damned good percentage of your genetics out in to the world.

Evolution is about overall survival of alelles, not whole genomes. It's not like every single aspect of any one individual is going to be the best in the world, anyways.

And yes, it does. Which is why Africa isn't purely sickle celled. But those people with heterozygous blood are surviving fairly well.

It removes you from the genepool. There's no other single WORST thing that can happen to you, scientifically.

But I don't think being removed from the genepool is inherently harmful. Doesn't hurt me any. Neither would being homosexual.

Yeah, but it'd make all the female-oriented menfolk cry.

How about just bisexual?

Actually I'm hetero. But choose to remain childless.

Yeah, but bisexual's more fun from my perspective.

Oh the joys and confusions of bi-dar.

Yeah, but bisexual's more fun from my perspective.

Oh the joys and confusions of bi-dar.
I am SSSSOOOOOOOOO jealous of bisexuals. I WISH homosexuality were a choice, I could walk into a room and not have to automatically exclude half the people in it from my wish list.

If nothing else, it makes it a lot easier to get in to a threesome. Fair play and all.

But, eh, nature is as nature is.