I like "free agent" as in professional sports (waiting for a good offer) for my belief status (but then, I'm skeptical about the entire league, so I may just languish).
Also, I was just thinking that when I was informed (by the parents) about the nature of my penis, I hardly rushed out of the room to try it out. I suspect that prudes encourage far more sex than they prevent precisely by making it seem so naughty, but I can only back that up anecdotally (look at the birth rates of countries where prudes dominate the discourse, for example).
If you put a penis into a vagina, there is a good chance that a pregnancy will result
(snip)
Why that aspect of sex education is so taboo I will never understand. I mean, it hardly sounds "hot", and if you hammer that home enough, you may get a convert or ten.
I'm not saying that teaching abstinence is bad. All I'm saying is that refusing to acknowledge that some kids will end up having sex anyway is stupid. So, teach kids that abstinence is the only sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy and STDs, but if you do end up having sex, for goodness sake use a condom! Refusing to teach about birth control is just as dumb as telling everyone they can have as much sex as they want without consequence if they use a condom every time.
P.S. I think you can get genital herpes if you get a BJ from someone with a cold sore on their mouth. Not sure though. I do know that anal is a lot more likely to spread disease than vaginal sex, but I think that is common knowledge. Not sure on how well oral sex spreads disease.
One thing that, for some bizzare reason, never seems to make it through the moral fog is this:
If you put a penis into a vagina, there is a good chance that a pregnancy will result. One significant possible result of pregnancy is at least one child (pregnancy can be avoided by proper use of contraceptives). Another significant possible result of putting a penis into a vagina (or any other body part) is deadly disease (there are slightly reliable countermeasures to this). If you want to be certatin of avoiding pregnancy and/or certain types of disease, the best option by far is to not put a penis into a vagina or other body part.
Why that aspect of sex education is so taboo I will never understand. I mean, it hardly sounds "hot", and if you hammer that home enough, you may get a convert or ten.
Why must the whole thing be about morality? Why the sanctimony?
Because one of our most fundamental drives as living organisms is to reproduce. It feels really good to make that penis-vagina connection. We feel a need to. And since we aren't all saints, some of us may choose to give in and enjoy sex. And there are plenty of ways to keep conception and disease at bay and still be able to have sex. Why should we refuse to teach people about these?
I have sex pretty much every day. I'm not married. Yet, I have no diseases, and no conceptions have ever occurred. How could that be? Condoms and birth control. I have one partner, who takes the pill. With perfect use of the pill, there is no chance of pregnancy. And because we are monogamous, we don't have to worry about STD's.
Sure, abstinence is the most effective way to avoid disease or conception. And staying inside the house all day is the best way to avoid getting in a fatal car accident. But we still use seat belts and sidewalks.
KeilwerthReborn: My point was basically that the thing is the thing. There are potential consequences to the thing, and there are ways (of various efficiency) to avoid said consequences. Why is this a controversial thing to teach kids? Obviously they might go ahead and do it anyway (indeed, their bodies are begging them to), but if they were given a full view of the potential consequences they might, at least, take steps.
Again, how does morality interfere with calling attention to the basics? I just don't buy the idea that some kids sit around with their equipment until, on the eve of their wedding, someone strolls in to their cell to point out that their penis/vagina has heretofore unknown uses that they should try out after the ceremony. It just strikes me as utterly unrealistic.
KeilwerthReborn: My point was basically that the thing is the thing. There are potential consequences to the thing, and there are ways (of various efficiency) to avoid said consequences. Why is this a controversial thing to teach kids? Obviously they might go ahead and do it anyway (indeed, their bodies are begging them to), but if they were given a full view of the potential consequences they might, at least, take steps.
Nothing wrong with abstinence education. It's the "only' part that is a problem. That's what this is about. These programs teach abstinence only. What's the point of that? Why limit the education? Why refuse to talk AT ALL about condoms and birth control? Does that seem not even a little stupid to you?
Again, how does morality interfere with calling attention to the basics?
Again, you make the same point you made just a little while ago. We explained why both abstinence and birth control should be taught. You continue to see the issue in black and white. Please stop, it irritates me.
I personally am in 100% support of abstinence before marriage, but I know that my opinion is shared by approximately .25% of people my age (I'm an 18 year old male). I would love to see people remain abstinent until they are married, but I'm somewhat of a realist and I know that this will NEVER happen. So teach kids the importance and benefits of abstinence, but also teach them the importance of contraceptives and safe sex. Because as we all know, kids like to do exactly what "the establishment" tells them not to. I think a mixture of both promotion of abstinence and the use of contraceptives is the key, not just one or the other.
i agree totally...as a parent of two teenagers, i hope they wait as long as possible...yet, at the same time, i of course discuss (well, mostly my wife does) sex and protection to them...almost all the kids in our neighborhood who have gotten pregnant as teens are the catholic kids who get the abstinence only talk...(we are in New Mexico with a large catholic population...obviously getting larger with each 15 year old getting pregnant)...we easily see the failure of abstinence only education...
The term "freethinker" is more commonly used to describe atheists and agnostics these days.
Because all religious people have cashed in their thinking chips and are no longer capable of independent thought ? I hope that this isn't like people declaring themselves a "bright".
Quote:
But then you have 23 year old virgins wandering around
I must try to be more clear, since several people seem to have understood me to mean something I didn't mean.
I said (or meant to say) that in this whole "abstinence" argument I have yet to hear anyone explain why it is so bad or dangerous to simply tell the kids more or less how their bodies work. If you tell kids how their bodies work, they may come to understand the various things that may happen to them if they use their bodies in certain ways.
Since a fair number will do everything anyway, tell them what they can do to avoid unintended consequences.
In other words, why does morality have anything to do with sex ed? Is it immoral for us to learn about the digestive track, too? (Mommy, where does pooh come from?)
That is probably not clearer. This is: tell every kid everything.
Strictly speaking it is a lie to say that abstinence is the only way to absolutely avoid STDs or pregnacy.
First, you can still get an STD from a blood transfusion, helping someone with an injury, or have it at birth.
Second, homosexual sex is guarunteed to not produce a pregnacy and I believe lesbians are actually less likely to transmit HIV than heterosexuals.
The reason these points are relevant is that the abstinence only education programs don't talk statistics unless it suits their anti-birth control agenda. Kids aren't told about the odds of getting an STD with condoms, just that condoms "won't protect you from STDs or pregnacy FOR CERTIAN." So what? Using this logic I can equally well say that abstinence is no guaruntee.
Kids aren't told that the odds of pregnacy become vanishingly small if condoms are used with other birth control (pill, diaphram, coitus interruptis). Similiarly, a program of widespread STD testing combined with condom use would reduce STD transmission to levels on course for total eradication.
I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that ignorance is somehow beneficial to our kids
I'm not saying that teaching abstinence is bad. All I'm saying is that refusing to acknowledge that some kids will end up having sex anyway is stupid. So, teach kids that abstinence is the only sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy and STDs, but if you do end up having sex, for goodness sake use a condom! Refusing to teach about birth control is just as dumb as telling everyone they can have as much sex as they want without consequence if they use a condom every time.
P.S. I think you can get genital herpes if you get a BJ from someone with a cold sore on their mouth. Not sure though. I do know that anal is a lot more likely to spread disease than vaginal sex, but I think that is common knowledge. Not sure on how well oral sex spreads disease.
Hey, if all else fails, you can always grope.
Not to be rude because you aren't the only one here who has mentioned this line of reasoning, but why does something have to be 100% perfectly applied before we attempt teaching it.
We teach people how to balance checkbooks, I bet you some people will still bounce checks.
We teach people how to eat properly, I bet you some people will still get fat and not exercise.
We teach people how to apply the golder rule and get along, I bet you people will still fight.
I just wonder where the heck this inane reasoning came from that unless everyone will apply that informaion with 100% accuracy, it isn't worth teaching.
Having gone to a public school where we had complete sex education (meaning we were first told that abstinence is the only completely safe way and then we were taught about the pill, condoms, etc.) I think complete education is the way to go. But when I hear people (mostly religious conservatives) talk about public schools and sex ed, it sounds like they think that we were paired up and told to practice putting on a condom and having sex! I really never got the impression that my teachers were telling me to go get a prescription for the pill and then go out and screw every guy I met. What I got was a better understanding of what is out there in terms of disease and the full impact of pregnancy. I don't see what's morally wrong about schools wanting to keep their studnets as safe as possible, since it is naive to think that a bunch of fifteen and sixteen year olds will hear: "Don't have sex till you're married" and actually follow that advice, especially if it's coming from their health teacher or even the President of the United States.
Well, as I have mentioned, I teach at a junior high school - ages 11-15 (though mostly 12-14).
We do have sex ed. - for one week, once a year. It used to be taught in the science classes, by the science teachers. Lately it has been taught in the PE classes, by the PE teachers.
The teacher is REQUIRED (under penalty of death ) to read, word-for-word, from a SCRIPT approved by a committee of 'concerned' parents and the school district. Though I haven't asked, I'm sure the script advocates abstinence only.
The students must bring permission slips saying their parent allows them to experience this sex ed. class. Some parents opt to have their child take the alternative offering, which is a 'community survival' course. I have no idea what they cover in that; maybe how to stay safe when on the streets and when at shopping malls. Who knows?
The ultra-religious parents don't want their kid learning about sex at school.
The classes consist of a 30-minute video, and then the kids can write down anonymous questions on cards that they pass up to the teacher. The teacher reads through the cards and then replies to the ones for which he/she actually knows the answer. haha
Questions (as I have mentioned elsewhere on this board, I think?) such as: 'what if you get the wrong hole?' 'Can a girl get pregnant if she swallows?' So though the script is confining, I assume that the Q&A session provides kids an opportunity to ask what they are unsure about.
I must also add that the boys' classes are taught by male teachers, and the girls' classes by female teachers - though occasionally this varies if there aren't enough teachers of the designated sex.
What you have to remember is that if a kid goes home and repeats something his/her parent finds unacceptable, the parent could raise a ruckus or even sue! Never a dull moment in US public education!
I should add that my state has a HIGH teen pregnancy rate
.......consequences for which we, the taxpayers, always foot the bill.
Btw - since Clinton, there has been a HUGE increase in oral sex among teens, especially among young teens - the age-group I teach.
And how did this come about? Well, the Republicans insisted on investigating Clinton for private matters; and details of the investigation were of course reported on the nightly news during family viewing hours. Ergo, millions of kids became interested in finding out about oral sex much earlier than they normally might have. So, the very conservative religious types essentially caused a HUGE increase in what they would probably consider aberrant sexual behavior. Serves them right for being such goody two-shoes.
somedays i wonder if a parenting license wouldn't be a bad idea. and unlike a marriage or driver's license, which only disqualifies you if you're not breathing when you apply, this might have some actual TRAINING and COUNSELING beforehand. but methinks there are about seven million complications with that plan that would stop it dead in its tracks.
In SC I was yelled at by my 6th grade teacher for mentioning abortion during the sex ed class. They only were teaching abstinence sex ed in our 'experimental' sex ed class. Far more sucessful in the state was private groups giving out information and condoms.
Some things private concerns do do better than the public.
somedays i wonder if a parenting license wouldn't be a bad idea. and unlike a marriage or driver's license, which only disqualifies you if you're not breathing when you apply, this might have some actual TRAINING and COUNSELING beforehand. but methinks there are about seven million complications with that plan that would stop it dead in its tracks.
Hi Rok -
I think this is a great idea. After all, raising a child is probably the most important job people ever do; yet they receive no real education/training for it.
It would be to the great benefit of society to provide such required training - say, in order to deliver a baby at any hospital in a given state. The training would start in the early months of pregancy, and would be required for both parents by LAW, whether they were married or not. If they refused, they would jeopardize the status of their driver's license and other licenses certified by the state in question.
Comments
Also, I was just thinking that when I was informed (by the parents) about the nature of my penis, I hardly rushed out of the room to try it out. I suspect that prudes encourage far more sex than they prevent precisely by making it seem so naughty, but I can only back that up anecdotally (look at the birth rates of countries where prudes dominate the discourse, for example).
Prevent Teen Pregnancy with BLOWJOBS AND ANAL
My Hero
Originally posted by GregInMex
If you put a penis into a vagina, there is a good chance that a pregnancy will result
(snip)
Why that aspect of sex education is so taboo I will never understand. I mean, it hardly sounds "hot", and if you hammer that home enough, you may get a convert or ten.
I'm not saying that teaching abstinence is bad. All I'm saying is that refusing to acknowledge that some kids will end up having sex anyway is stupid. So, teach kids that abstinence is the only sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy and STDs, but if you do end up having sex, for goodness sake use a condom! Refusing to teach about birth control is just as dumb as telling everyone they can have as much sex as they want without consequence if they use a condom every time.
P.S. I think you can get genital herpes if you get a BJ from someone with a cold sore on their mouth. Not sure though. I do know that anal is a lot more likely to spread disease than vaginal sex, but I think that is common knowledge. Not sure on how well oral sex spreads disease.
Hey, if all else fails, you can always grope.
Originally posted by GregInMex
One thing that, for some bizzare reason, never seems to make it through the moral fog is this:
If you put a penis into a vagina, there is a good chance that a pregnancy will result. One significant possible result of pregnancy is at least one child (pregnancy can be avoided by proper use of contraceptives). Another significant possible result of putting a penis into a vagina (or any other body part) is deadly disease (there are slightly reliable countermeasures to this). If you want to be certatin of avoiding pregnancy and/or certain types of disease, the best option by far is to not put a penis into a vagina or other body part.
Why that aspect of sex education is so taboo I will never understand. I mean, it hardly sounds "hot", and if you hammer that home enough, you may get a convert or ten.
Why must the whole thing be about morality? Why the sanctimony?
Because one of our most fundamental drives as living organisms is to reproduce. It feels really good to make that penis-vagina connection. We feel a need to. And since we aren't all saints, some of us may choose to give in and enjoy sex. And there are plenty of ways to keep conception and disease at bay and still be able to have sex. Why should we refuse to teach people about these?
I have sex pretty much every day. I'm not married. Yet, I have no diseases, and no conceptions have ever occurred. How could that be? Condoms and birth control. I have one partner, who takes the pill. With perfect use of the pill, there is no chance of pregnancy. And because we are monogamous, we don't have to worry about STD's.
Sure, abstinence is the most effective way to avoid disease or conception. And staying inside the house all day is the best way to avoid getting in a fatal car accident. But we still use seat belts and sidewalks.
Again, how does morality interfere with calling attention to the basics? I just don't buy the idea that some kids sit around with their equipment until, on the eve of their wedding, someone strolls in to their cell to point out that their penis/vagina has heretofore unknown uses that they should try out after the ceremony. It just strikes me as utterly unrealistic.
Originally posted by GregInMex
KeilwerthReborn: My point was basically that the thing is the thing. There are potential consequences to the thing, and there are ways (of various efficiency) to avoid said consequences. Why is this a controversial thing to teach kids? Obviously they might go ahead and do it anyway (indeed, their bodies are begging them to), but if they were given a full view of the potential consequences they might, at least, take steps.
Nothing wrong with abstinence education. It's the "only' part that is a problem. That's what this is about. These programs teach abstinence only. What's the point of that? Why limit the education? Why refuse to talk AT ALL about condoms and birth control? Does that seem not even a little stupid to you?
Originally posted by GregInMex
Again, how does morality interfere with calling attention to the basics?
Again, you make the same point you made just a little while ago. We explained why both abstinence and birth control should be taught. You continue to see the issue in black and white. Please stop, it irritates me.
Originally posted by DMBand0026
I personally am in 100% support of abstinence before marriage, but I know that my opinion is shared by approximately .25% of people my age (I'm an 18 year old male). I would love to see people remain abstinent until they are married, but I'm somewhat of a realist and I know that this will NEVER happen. So teach kids the importance and benefits of abstinence, but also teach them the importance of contraceptives and safe sex. Because as we all know, kids like to do exactly what "the establishment" tells them not to. I think a mixture of both promotion of abstinence and the use of contraceptives is the key, not just one or the other.
i agree totally...as a parent of two teenagers, i hope they wait as long as possible...yet, at the same time, i of course discuss (well, mostly my wife does) sex and protection to them...almost all the kids in our neighborhood who have gotten pregnant as teens are the catholic kids who get the abstinence only talk...(we are in New Mexico with a large catholic population...obviously getting larger with each 15 year old getting pregnant)...we easily see the failure of abstinence only education...
g
The term "freethinker" is more commonly used to describe atheists and agnostics these days.
Because all religious people have cashed in their thinking chips and are no longer capable of independent thought ? I hope that this isn't like people declaring themselves a "bright".
But then you have 23 year old virgins wandering around
Like zombies ?
I said (or meant to say) that in this whole "abstinence" argument I have yet to hear anyone explain why it is so bad or dangerous to simply tell the kids more or less how their bodies work. If you tell kids how their bodies work, they may come to understand the various things that may happen to them if they use their bodies in certain ways.
Since a fair number will do everything anyway, tell them what they can do to avoid unintended consequences.
In other words, why does morality have anything to do with sex ed? Is it immoral for us to learn about the digestive track, too? (Mommy, where does pooh come from?)
That is probably not clearer. This is: tell every kid everything.
Strictly speaking it is a lie to say that abstinence is the only way to absolutely avoid STDs or pregnacy.
First, you can still get an STD from a blood transfusion, helping someone with an injury, or have it at birth.
Second, homosexual sex is guarunteed to not produce a pregnacy and I believe lesbians are actually less likely to transmit HIV than heterosexuals.
The reason these points are relevant is that the abstinence only education programs don't talk statistics unless it suits their anti-birth control agenda. Kids aren't told about the odds of getting an STD with condoms, just that condoms "won't protect you from STDs or pregnacy FOR CERTIAN." So what? Using this logic I can equally well say that abstinence is no guaruntee.
Kids aren't told that the odds of pregnacy become vanishingly small if condoms are used with other birth control (pill, diaphram, coitus interruptis). Similiarly, a program of widespread STD testing combined with condom use would reduce STD transmission to levels on course for total eradication.
I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that ignorance is somehow beneficial to our kids
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
I'm not saying that teaching abstinence is bad. All I'm saying is that refusing to acknowledge that some kids will end up having sex anyway is stupid. So, teach kids that abstinence is the only sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy and STDs, but if you do end up having sex, for goodness sake use a condom! Refusing to teach about birth control is just as dumb as telling everyone they can have as much sex as they want without consequence if they use a condom every time.
P.S. I think you can get genital herpes if you get a BJ from someone with a cold sore on their mouth. Not sure though. I do know that anal is a lot more likely to spread disease than vaginal sex, but I think that is common knowledge. Not sure on how well oral sex spreads disease.
Hey, if all else fails, you can always grope.
Not to be rude because you aren't the only one here who has mentioned this line of reasoning, but why does something have to be 100% perfectly applied before we attempt teaching it.
We teach people how to balance checkbooks, I bet you some people will still bounce checks.
We teach people how to eat properly, I bet you some people will still get fat and not exercise.
We teach people how to apply the golder rule and get along, I bet you people will still fight.
I just wonder where the heck this inane reasoning came from that unless everyone will apply that informaion with 100% accuracy, it isn't worth teaching.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
Prevent Teen Pregnancy with BLOWJOBS AND ANAL!
Hi BR -
And what does the girl get out of this scenario?
****ed up the ass and/or a mouthful of ***?
Shouldn't it be a 50-50 sorta thing????
Just wondering........
We do have sex ed. - for one week, once a year. It used to be taught in the science classes, by the science teachers. Lately it has been taught in the PE classes, by the PE teachers.
The teacher is REQUIRED (under penalty of death
The students must bring permission slips saying their parent allows them to experience this sex ed. class. Some parents opt to have their child take the alternative offering, which is a 'community survival' course. I have no idea what they cover in that; maybe how to stay safe when on the streets and when at shopping malls. Who knows?
The ultra-religious parents don't want their kid learning about sex at school.
The classes consist of a 30-minute video, and then the kids can write down anonymous questions on cards that they pass up to the teacher. The teacher reads through the cards and then replies to the ones for which he/she actually knows the answer.
Questions (as I have mentioned elsewhere on this board, I think?) such as: 'what if you get the wrong hole?' 'Can a girl get pregnant if she swallows?' So though the script is confining, I assume that the Q&A session provides kids an opportunity to ask what they are unsure about.
I must also add that the boys' classes are taught by male teachers, and the girls' classes by female teachers - though occasionally this varies if there aren't enough teachers of the designated sex.
What you have to remember is that if a kid goes home and repeats something his/her parent finds unacceptable, the parent could raise a ruckus or even sue! Never a dull moment in US public education!
I should add that my state has a HIGH teen pregnancy rate
.......consequences for which we, the taxpayers, always foot the bill.
Btw - since Clinton, there has been a HUGE increase in oral sex among teens, especially among young teens - the age-group I teach.
And how did this come about? Well, the Republicans insisted on investigating Clinton for private matters; and details of the investigation were of course reported on the nightly news during family viewing hours. Ergo, millions of kids became interested in finding out about oral sex much earlier than they normally might have. So, the very conservative religious types essentially caused a HUGE increase in what they would probably consider aberrant sexual behavior. Serves them right for being such goody two-shoes.
Some things private concerns do do better than the public.
Originally posted by rok
somedays i wonder if a parenting license wouldn't be a bad idea. and unlike a marriage or driver's license, which only disqualifies you if you're not breathing when you apply, this might have some actual TRAINING and COUNSELING beforehand. but methinks there are about seven million complications with that plan that would stop it dead in its tracks.
Hi Rok -
I think this is a great idea. After all, raising a child is probably the most important job people ever do; yet they receive no real education/training for it.
It would be to the great benefit of society to provide such required training - say, in order to deliver a baby at any hospital in a given state. The training would start in the early months of pregancy, and would be required for both parents by LAW, whether they were married or not. If they refused, they would jeopardize the status of their driver's license and other licenses certified by the state in question.
Does that sound too draconian?
Which seven million did you have in mind?
The secretary of healt is taking major flack for stopping a government paid CD-rom that was to supplement the class taught sexual education.
The reason for him to stop it? In a multimedia presented dictionary containing hundreds of issues urine and animal sex is mentioned in a neutral way.
Luckily a private citizent have taken the task of copying the CD so at least here in Copenhagen the efford isn´t´wasted.
As I said. Same discussion on different levels.