Concidering the rates of STD's (including HIV) and teenage pregancies are on the rise i think its time we had a proper discussion about how much control parents should be alowed to excercise over their children and how much sociaty should be alowed to EXPECT from them.

Should sociaty concider keeping adolessants uninformed about sexually related matters to be neglect?

and

Should parents be alowed to keep there children from properly run sexual education programs and if so why?

Concidering the rates of STD's (including HIV) and teenage pregancies are on the rise i think its time we had a proper discussion about how much control parents should be alowed to excercise over their children and how much sociaty should be alowed to EXPECT from them.

Should sociaty concider keeping adolessants uninformed about sexually related matters to be neglect?

and

Should parents be alowed to keep there children from properly run sexual education programs and if so why?

I would generally base the problem on lack of "family base" everyone is becoming so distant and schedules are always conflicted women are working and men are work more awkward hours and frankly the family has more economic and egotistical matters to worry about than sitting at the dinner table and conversing.

I think 6th grade is where sexual education should start.
Homework would involve the parents of the students working together.

I do not think parents should have any say in a childs education because SEX is such a huge part of ones spectrum and for a parent to say no is ignorant.

For the sake of reference here are some statistics on the US compared to other countries

chart a) U.S. teenagers have higher pregnancy rates, birthrates and abortion rates than adolescents in other developed countries

http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/fb_teens02/chart_a.gif

chart b) Differences in levels of teenage sexual activity across developed countries are small.
http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/fb_teens02/chart_b.gif


LESSONS LEARNED FROM CROSS-NATIONAL STUDIES
• Differences in sexual activity and the age at which teenagers become sexually active do not account for the wide variation in pregnancy and STD rates among comparable developed countries, such as Canada, France, Great Britain, Sweden and the United States.

• Strong public support and expectations for the transition to adult economic roles, and for parenthood, provide young people with greater incentives and means to delay childbearing.

• Countries with low levels of adolescent pregnancy, childbearing and STDs are characterized by societal acceptance of adolescent sexual relationships, combined with comprehensive and balanced information about sexuality and clear expectations about commitment and prevention of pregnancy and STDs within these relationships.

• Easy access to contraceptives and other reproductive health services contributes to better contraceptive use and, in turn, low teenage pregnancy rates.



http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_teens.html

concidering this i should add 2 more questions.

Should parents be notifided if their child accesses contraception?
Should parents be alowed to decide if their child can access contraception?

Asguard, the article is from 2001 and the data used is at most recent is 1995!
Do you have anything more recent?:shrug:

the other interesting thing about it is:

• The primary reasons why U.S. teenagers have the highest rates of pregnancy, childbearing and abortion among developed countries is less overall contraceptive use and less use of the pill or other long-acting reversible hormonal methods, which have the highest use-effectiveness rates.

• Factors in cross-country differences in teenagers' contraceptive use include negative societal attitudes toward teenage sexual relationships, restricted access to and high costs of reproductive health services, ambivalence toward contraceptive methods and lack of motivation to delay motherhood or to avoid unintended pregnancy.

ill try, my favorite source (the ABS) has little cross country data on trends like this and the WHO's data tends to deal with the third world countries but i will try to find something more recent. If anything i actually expect the statistics to be worse for the US concidering the rise of the "abstance" campain

i cant varify the valitity of this source because its a blog

http://blog.cleveland.com/health/2008/07/youth_make_up_a_staggering.html


Study finds 'shocking' rate of US teen girls with sexually transmitted disease

By LINDSEY TANNER
Associated Press
Published on: 03/11/08


CHICAGO (AP) — At least one in four teenage American girls has a sexually transmitted disease, suggests a first-of-its-kind federal study that startled some adolescent-health experts.

Some doctors said the numbers might be a reflection of both abstinence-only sex education and teens' own sense of invulnerabilty. Because some sexually transmitted infections can cause infertility and cancer, U.S. health officials called for better screening, vaccination and prevention.

Only about half of the girls in the study acknowledged having sex. Some teens define sex as only intercourse, yet other types of intimate behavior including oral sex can spread some diseases.

Among those who admitted having sex, the rate was even more disturbing — 40 percent had an STD.

"This is pretty shocking," said Dr. Elizabeth Alderman, an adolescent medicine specialist at Montefiore Medical Center's Children's Hospital in New York.

"To talk about abstinence is not a bad thing," but teen girls — and boys too — need to be informed about how to protect themselves if they do have sex, Alderman said.

The overall STD rate among the 838 girls in the study was 26 percent, which translates to more than 3 million girls nationwide, researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. They released the results Tuesday at an STD prevention conference in Chicago.

"Those numbers are certainly alarming," said sex education expert Nora Gelperin, who works with a teen-written Web site called sexetc.org. She said they reflect "the sad state of sex education in our country."

"Sexuality is still a very taboo subject in our society," she said. "Teens tell us that they can't make decisions in the dark and that adults aren't properly preparing them to make responsible decisions."

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the study shows that "the national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure, and teenage girls are paying the real price."

Similar claims were made last year when the government announced the teen birth rate rose between 2005 and 2006, the first increase in 15 years.

The new study by CDC researcher Dr. Sara Forhan relied on slightly older data. It is an analysis of nationally representative records on girls ages 14 to 19 who participated in a 2003-04 government health survey.

The teens were tested for four infections: human papillomavirus, or HPV, which can cause cervical cancer and affected 18 percent of girls studied; chlamydia, which affected 4 percent; trichomoniasis, 2.5 percent; and genital herpes, 2 percent.

Dr. John Douglas, director of the CDC's division of STD prevention, said the results are the first to examine the combined national prevalence of common sexually transmitted diseases among adolescent girls. He said the data, now a few years old, likely reflect current prevalence rates.

Disease rates were significantly higher among black girls — nearly half had at least one STD, versus 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-Americans.

HPV, the cancer-causing virus, can also cause genital warts but often has no symptoms. A vaccine targeting several HPV strains recently became available, but Douglas said it probably hasn't yet had much impact on HPV prevalence rates in teen girls.

The CDC recommends the three-dose HPV vaccine for girls ages 11-12 and catch-up shots for ages 13-26.

Chlamydia, which often has no symptoms but can lead to infertility, can be treated with antibiotics. The CDC recommends annual chlamydia screening for all sexually active women under age 25. Trichomoniasis, also treatable with antibiotics, can cause abnormal discharge and painful urination. Genital herpes can cause blisters but often has no symptoms. It's not curable but medicine can help.

The CDC's Dr. Kevin Fenton said given the dangers of some STDs, "screening, vaccination and other prevention strategies for sexually active women are among our highest public health priorities."

Douglas said screening tests are underused in part because many teens don't think they're at risk, but also, some doctors mistakenly think: "Sexually transmitted diseases don't happen to the kinds of patients I see."

Teens need to hear the dual message that STDs can be prevented by abstinence and condoms, said Dr. Ellen Kruger, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans.

"You've got to hammer at them," with appropriate information at each stage of teen development to make sure it sinks in, she said.

She said there are a lot of myths out there, too — many sexually active teens think the withdrawal method will protect them, or that douching with Coca-Cola will kill STD germs.

Dr. Margaret Blythe, an adolescent medicine specialist at Indiana University School of Medicine, said some doctors hesitate to discuss STDs with teen patients or offer screening because of confidentiality concerns, knowing parents would have to be told of the results.

Blythe, who heads an American Academy of Pediatrics committee on adolescence, noted that the academy supports confidential teen screening.

Viewed 07/12/08 at 19:12 (http://www.ajc.com/health/content/health/stories/2008/03/11/std_0311.html)

The United States would tend to have more abortions and births due to the fact that it has a higher populous.

umm you do realise statistics like this are ALWAYS done per 1000, NOT as raw figures dont you?

and I fall in those 20% and less percent who by age 20 have not stained their pure soul.

and that's living in the most immoral country on planet Earth, USA.

The United States would tend to have more abortions and births due to the fact that it has a higher populous.

errr...the rates is not based on the number of population but by the ratio of the sinners to non-sinners.

I agree with Asguard's point of view, no one should have the right to decide that their kid should remain ignorant.

Concidering the rates of STD's (including HIV) and teenage pregancies are on the rise i think its time we had a proper discussion about how much control parents should be alowed to excercise over their children and how much sociaty should be alowed to EXPECT from them.

Should sociaty concider keeping adolessants uninformed about sexually related matters to be neglect?

and

Should parents be alowed to keep there children from properly run sexual education programs and if so why?

Back in the old days, society allowed people to raise their kids as they chose. That didn't change any feelings or thoughts of sex, yet it was seldom that kids we so permissive and sexually active. Nor were the teen pregnancies any huge issue.

That leads me to believe that we should return to the old ways ...like the 1900s-1950s. The parents and kids were doing something right.

I think modern society is simply too permissive ...permissive of everything. Voilence and sex glorified on TV/movies; Sex glorified in music; Sex glorified in magazines and advertising; ...we glorify sex, are permissiive of sexual activity, then we complain about it!

Baron Max

Concidering the rates of STD's (including HIV) and teenage pregancies are on the rise i think its time we had a proper discussion about how much control parents should be alowed to excercise over their children and how much sociaty should be alowed to EXPECT from them.

Should sociaty concider keeping adolessants uninformed about sexually related matters to be neglect?

and

Should parents be alowed to keep there children from properly run sexual education programs and if so why?

Who says the teens are uninformed? Perhaps they're just full of hormones which makes them immature, impulsive, and stupid sometimes. Perhaps it has something to do with how sex is everywhere these days, everyone's doing it and it's 'cool'.

Secondly who says the parents are any better informed? Their education on the subject was probably even worse.
Tying in with that is the sad fact that parents can pull their children from the education, which is mostly done on moral/religious grounds. We don't have any right to force them to attend unless the kids want to and denounce the religion they're being indoctrinated into, and at what age can we apply that? When are they 'too young to know any better?' When does that stop and why?

The United States would tend to have more abortions and births due to the fact that it has a higher populous.

You take this stuff with a grain of salt. Most of these people here have never been to the U.S. and actually believe that what they see on t.v is realistic.

You take this stuff with a grain of salt.

That would, indeed, be nice. But you see, we're led around by the nose by the news media ....whatever they say, we're supposed to worry about and discuss in Internet forums until we've decided to take away everyone's freedoms and put everyone in little padded cells for their own protection!

Baron Max

I think all children should be put to work on a farm as soon as they can walk. That will take care of their education.

I think all children should be put to work on a farm as soon as they can walk. That will take care of their education.

I don't know if you joking or not, but a farm is a fantastic way to learn about the world. The interaction of farm animals most often makes human interaction a major joke!

Baron Max

My grandma kept farm animals. Goat, chicken. The neighbors had cows, ducks, dogs. We had cats, a tortoise. My father bred fantail pigeons. An uncle breeds fish, which my mum also used to do years ago. I think its fantastic.

errr...the rates is not based on the number of population but by the ratio of the sinners to non-sinners.

I am aware of this. Though in a country with a higher populous I would expect abortion programs to be prominent even though those numbers aren't raw.

phandentium we are comparing OCED counties NOT easten eroup here

phandentium we are comparing OCED counties NOT easten eroup here

It's Eastern Europe, not easten eroup.

And abortion rates in Eastern Europe are still lower than in USA.

now what was it about Australia...

the graph didnt compare Australia but it was similar to canada and the UK acording to the artical the graph came from. Give me a couple of hours to try to dig up recent figures

ok this site shows data by state and national for australia from 71-04. However its ONLY for live births not abortions, the statistics for abortions is only accurate in SA where they are automatically reported


http://www.fpq.com.au/pdf/Teen_pregnancy_indicator.pdf

now the interesting thing about this chart is the states which are above the national adverage.

The NT has its own issues and alot of this will be because of the aborigional population, wether a high teenage birth rate amongst aborigionals is a good thing or a bad thing is a debate for somewhere else. The reason im setting it asside is because it isnt as clear cut as the other states as to wether education or culture is the case

Queensland which has a higher percentage of the sorts of people you would find in the deep south of the US (ie pauline hanson types and religious nuts:p) has a concistantly higher birth rate than the national adverage.

WA and tassi are the same with concistantly higher birth rates

Vic, NSW, ACT and SA are all consistantly BELOW the national adverage.

Comparing the US to Australia directly in 2004 the US had 41.1 per 1000 and Australia had 16.3 per 1000 (mother aged 15-19)

the problem is in finding rates of pregancy insted of birth or abortion which seems to be impossable

http://www.free-condom-stuff.com/pdfs/sp_page_12.pdf
an interesting artical but unreferenced and there for unvarifiable

Who says the teens are uninformed? Perhaps they're just full of hormones which makes them immature, impulsive, and stupid sometimes. Perhaps it has something to do with how sex is everywhere these days, everyone's doing it and it's 'cool'.

Secondly who says the parents are any better informed? Their education on the subject was probably even worse.
Tying in with that is the sad fact that parents can pull their children from the education, which is mostly done on moral/religious grounds. We don't have any right to force them to attend unless the kids want to and denounce the religion they're being indoctrinated into, and at what age can we apply that? When are they 'too young to know any better?' When does that stop and why?
I don't think it is merely that they are stupid. Most girls my age are terrified of getting pregnant. On the other hand, girls often don't have the self confidence to insist on using a condom.

I don't think it is merely that they are stupid. Most girls my age are terrified of getting pregnant. On the other hand, girls often don't have the self confidence to insist on using a condom.

Confidence could also be a factor. Probably a big one that I missed.
Also I supposed I could have mentioned social experience.
I think a lot of people do stupid things sometimes though, and it's hard to come up with reasons why. Although I don't believe them to be genuinely ignorant or ill-informed. I think they know perfectly well how to have safe sex, they just choose not to sometimes and make bad decisions. Sometimes people just don't care about consequences. For this reason I made sure to include immaturity and impulsiveness in my reasons.
For example it's easy for things to get a little heated, and people at that age often make bad decisions in those situations.
There's also quite a culture for getting drunk and having sex, and in the state of mind people are sometimes in they don't think clearly about being sensible with who they sleep with, or the consequences.
Sure there are perfectly sensible ones who keep the presence of mind to be safe, but we don't hear about those do we?

Confidence could also be a factor. Probably a big one that I missed.
Also I supposed I could have mentioned social experience.
I think a lot of people do stupid things sometimes though, and it's hard to come up with reasons why. Although I don't believe them to be genuinely ignorant or ill-informed. I think they know perfectly well how to have safe sex, they just choose not to sometimes and make bad decisions. Sometimes people just don't care about consequences. For this reason I made sure to include immaturity and impulsiveness in my reasons.
For example it's easy for things to get a little heated, and people at that age often make bad decisions in those situations.
There's also quite a culture for getting drunk and having sex, and in the state of mind people are sometimes in they don't think clearly about being sensible with who they sleep with, or the consequences.
Sure there are perfectly sensible ones who keep the presence of mind to be safe, but we don't hear about those do we?

I agree, immaturity is a factor too and so is social experience.

A lot of the time young people especially that specific type of male who are always trying to be hard and cool, if they know something is dangerous they will make a point of doing it anyway to look cool.

I agree, immaturity is a factor too and so is social experience.

A lot of the time young people especially that specific type of male who are always trying to be hard and cool, if they know something is dangerous they will make a point of doing it anyway to look cool.

In my day, back in the early Stone Age, the young women kept their knees together and didn't give in to those "cool males".

See? What's changed that makes/allows the young girls to spread their legs now ...as opposed to back in the old days? The girls have changed, and it's the girls that have to take the responsibilities for their own health and wellbeing (pregnancy and STDs is "health and wellbeing"). If they don't, who will? Surely not the cool, hard young males?!

Baron Max

Max, but it is the males who are at the root of the problem. Male children should be taught with a book in one hand and a ruler in the other. The ruler is to crack them in the head or the hands, when it is necessary.

Should sociaty concider keeping adolessants uninformed about sexually related matters to be neglect?


Yes.


Should parents be allowed to keep there children from properly run sexual education programs and if so why?

No. Because children have the right to be informed about what can happen to them in life and by teaching them about sex PROPERLY in school is only just another course in the biology science. Parents say they should teach their own children but many don't and if they did then they shouldn't object to having sex education taught because they have already taught their own children so what difference would it make if they are taught over again.

I agree, immaturity is a factor too and so is social experience.

A lot of the time young people especially that specific type of male who are always trying to be hard and cool, if they know something is dangerous they will make a point of doing it anyway to look cool.

Don't forget though that those males tend to get the girls, I suspect if they never got laid they'd soon stop being idiots. A lot of women have developed the same problem and it does take two to tango.
It's more that it's seen as cool to have sex though, and being safe or not is never mentioned. The questions people ask their friends are always based along the lines of "did you?" not "did you do it safely?".

Max, but it is the males who are at the root of the problem. Male children should be taught with a book in one hand and a ruler in the other. The ruler is to crack them in the head or the hands, when it is necessary.

I think everything has a problem. The system, which educates the young males and females, and, because of said system, many males and females. And no, I don't support the 'spare the rod, spoil the child' mentality. There are wiser methods of instilling discipline in children then 'might is right'.

I agree with cosmictraveller: We should, at the very least, consider that keeping adolescents uninformed about sexually related matters to be neglect and we should not allow parents to keep there children from properly run sexual education programs because, as cosmictraveller aptly put it:
"children have the right to be informed about what can happen to them in life and by teaching them about sex PROPERLY in school is only just another course in the biology science. Parents say they should teach their own children but many don't and if they did then they shouldn't object to having sex education taught because they have already taught their own children so what difference would it make if they are taught over again."

Now, as to what's 'proper', a lot of people can debate that one ;)

In my day, back in the early Stone Age, the young women kept their knees together and didn't give in to those "cool males".

See? What's changed that makes/allows the young girls to spread their legs now ...as opposed to back in the old days? The girls have changed, and it's the girls that have to take the responsibilities for their own health and wellbeing (pregnancy and STDs is "health and wellbeing"). If they don't, who will? Surely not the cool, hard young males?!

Baron Max

Men have hardly set the best of examples, how can anyone expect women to behave differently? Both parties are responsible for themselves.

Men have hardly set the best of examples, how can anyone expect women to behave differently? Both parties are responsible for themselves.

Society bears responsibility as well; people do what they feel will make them happy. For instance, if they are taught that if they want to have sex but don't want to have kids, they should use condoms, they could spare themselves a fair amount of grief.

Should parents be allowed to keep there children from properly run sexual education programs and if so why?

No. Because children have the right to be informed about what can happen to them in life and by teaching them about sex PROPERLY in school is only just another course in the biology science. Parents say they should teach their own children but many don't and if they did then they shouldn't object to having sex education taught because they have already taught their own children so what difference would it make if they are taught over again.

What about religious factors? If a select few object to this who are we to force the issue on those people?
If we have that right then are we infringing on freedom of religion?:shrug:

Society bears responsibility as well; people do what they feel will make them happy. For instance, if they are taught that if they want to have sex but don't want to have kids, they should use condoms, they could spare themselves a fair amount of grief.
They already are taught that however. They might not follow through on it, but they know it.
Granted, one of the reasons for this is they may not fully understand the consequences of their actions in the sense that they might not know exactly what raising a child involves, or they just assume an abortion is an option without talking to their partner(for whatever reason).
There certainly isn't any ignorance on the fact that unprotected sex can cause pregnancy and allow someone to catch an STD.
There is however some level of ignorance on other things, hence phrases like "I didn't know oral counts". So the education covers only the basics.

Should Should parents be allowed to keep there children from properly run sexual education programs and if so why?

No. Because children have the right to be informed about what can happen to them in life and by teaching them about sex PROPERLY in school is only just another course in the biology science. Parents say they should teach their own children but many don't ...

Perhaps we should ask ourselves why there's such a difference now, in mordern society, as opposed to what was done in the 40s and 50s? We didn't have nearly the problem then as we do now ...so they must have done something right back in the old days.

Perhaps a return to those days of yesteryear might be warranted? ..when girls were on a pedestal of purity and goddess-ness, and the boys talked a lot and did little?

Baron Max

What about religious factors? If a select few object to this who are we to force the issue on those people?
If we have that right then are we infringing on freedom of religion?:shrug:

What does teaching sex education have to do with the Bible or religion ?? It is a reproductive science that everyone learns either from their parents or friends so where's the problem ?

It is a reproductive science that everyone learns either from their parents or friends so where's the problem ?

How did humans learn that, say, 1,000 years ago when there were no schools?

Baron Max

In my day, back in the early Stone Age, the young women kept their knees together and didn't give in to those "cool males".

See? What's changed that makes/allows the young girls to spread their legs now ...as opposed to back in the old days? The girls have changed, and it's the girls that have to take the responsibilities for their own health and wellbeing (pregnancy and STDs is "health and wellbeing"). If they don't, who will? Surely not the cool, hard young males?!

Baron Max

I asked my grandmother about teen sex in the 1950s. She said that she remembered a lot of myths floating around because bad information was passed from friend to friend. Different values were instilled in children, saying that they would forever shame their family if a girl were to get pregnant. So they did like many practicing Mormons do now. Got married young. My grandmother said that by the time she was 18 almost all of her friends were married. Where as the values now are quite a bit different. My parents never would have let me get married at 16, (just so I could have sex which is why my grandmother got married) they're still giving me a hard time about it now and I'm not even a teenager anymore.

What does teaching sex education have to do with the Bible or religion ?? It is a reproductive science that everyone learns either from their parents or friends so where's the problem ?
Sadly I can't answer this as I don't have those beliefs. I'm just aware that people object to the teaching for various reasons, often religious. Back when I was receiving my education there was an option offered to parents to opt their children out of it, some of whom decided to take up the offer because(as was relayed to me) it was inappropriate according to their religion.
I suppose they could have just been using that as an excuse for their prudish nature though.

Sadly I can't answer this as I don't have those beliefs. I'm just aware that people object to the teaching for various reasons, often religious. Back when I was receiving my education there was an option offered to parents to opt their children out of it, some of whom decided to take up the offer because(as was relayed to me) it was inappropriate according to their religion.
I suppose they could have just been using that as an excuse for their prudish nature though.

Ah, but what created their prudish nature? A lot of religions aren't exactly known for their avant garde views on sexuality :rolleyes:

Ah, but what created their prudish nature? A lot of religions aren't exactly known for their avant garde views on sexuality :rolleyes:

No question, but that still doesn't give us any right to impose on their beliefs. If they want to opt out they should have that option otherwise we'd be no better than those trying to force the 'abstinence only' policy on others who don't agree with them.

No question, but that still doesn't give us any right to impose on their beliefs.

I believe that society has a right to impose education on its members, so that its members don't make terrible mistakes in their life (such as unwanted pregnancies). However, I think the debate should also be widened on another issue- what do the -children/minors- want. I have a feeling that the -children/minors- would be much less averse to better sex ed then their parents. And if I had to vote on whether I think the child or the parent should be able to decide what sex ed they should be able to have, as is the case at times in regards to whether a child/minor has an abortion, my vote is wholeheartedly for the child/minor.



If they want to opt out they should have that option otherwise we'd be no better than those trying to force the 'abstinence only' policy on others who don't agree with them.

I've heard that the abstinence only policy is losing out because, if anything, not teaching children about contraceptive measures has apparently resulted in more teen pregnancies, not less.

Don't forget though that those males tend to get the girls, I suspect if they never got laid they'd soon stop being idiots. A lot of women have developed the same problem and it does take two to tango.
It's more that it's seen as cool to have sex though, and being safe or not is never mentioned. The questions people ask their friends are always based along the lines of "did you?" not "did you do it safely?".

Maybe having sex is cool with girls too, but with most girls I've met it's more about being seen to have a boyfriend than actually having sex.

Originally Posted by Anti-Flag

Don't forget though that those males tend to get the girls, I suspect if they never got laid they'd soon stop being idiots. A lot of women have developed the same problem and it does take two to tango.
It's more that it's seen as cool to have sex though, and being safe or not is never mentioned. The questions people ask their friends are always based along the lines of "did you?" not "did you do it safely?".

Maybe having sex is cool with girls too, but with most girls I've met it's more about being seen to have a boyfriend than actually having sex.

I agree. I've got no studies to back this up; more like anecdotal experience as well. In essence, that adolescent females tend to have sex more to keep their boyfriends then because they themselves are so keen on trying it. I'm not saying that I believe that this applies to all adolescent females and I could certainly believe that they could 'get into it' after the initial part (they'd be getting older as well ofcourse).

I definitely agree. I have no research either, but judging from what a lot of girls say it is more about keeping a guy.

I definitely agree. I have no research either, but judging from what a lot of girls say it is more about keeping a guy.

Okay, I just have to ask! Why does a girl want to "keep" a guy ...if not for sexual pleasures? And, yeah, the reverse question is also implied.

Baron Max

Okay, I just have to ask! Why does a girl want to "keep" a guy ...if not for sexual pleasures? And, yeah, the reverse question is also implied.

Baron Max

Company, companionship, security. Not all guys need or even want to have sex early either, although I think this is much rarer. However, from what I've heard, guys hormones are raging at a young age, while women never get as stir crazy as guys and their peak is apparently later on in life.

LOL, what's the purpose of sexual education? :rolleyes: Just teach kids to use birth control. Uh oh, Sarah Paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalin! :eek:

I believe that society has a right to impose education on its members, so that its members don't make terrible mistakes in their life (such as unwanted pregnancies). However, I think the debate should also be widened on another issue- what do the -children/minors- want. I have a feeling that the -children/minors- would be much less averse to better sex ed then their parents. And if I had to vote on whether I think the child or the parent should be able to decide what sex ed they should be able to have, as is the case at times in regards to whether a child/minor has an abortion, my vote is wholeheartedly for the child/minor.
We may have to agree to disagree on some points then, I don't feel we have a right to infringe on people's beliefs through force; and as the minors have legal guardians that are responsible for them, it may be their choice(see below).
I must ask though, as I questioned above for the parents; likewise if the minor wants to opt out of it because of their beliefs should they be allowed to? You could be right that they are less likely to do so, but they should have the choice yes?
This leads to another question, just how much responsibility, control, and influence should parents/guardians have over minors and their education? If we deem them old enough to decide their own education with regards to morality and beliefs, why still prosecute the parents when they fail to show up for school at all? Are they mature enough to decide for themselves or aren't they? I don't think we can have it both ways. This is of course an entirely seperate subject. :)


I've heard that the abstinence only policy is losing out because, if anything, not teaching children about contraceptive measures has apparently resulted in more teen pregnancies, not less.
It's a ridiculous policy as far as most people are concerned, there are very few people that it would actually work for but if it does then it's their choice.
Where I draw the line is when they advocate everyone should be forced to join in on the basis of beliefs(religious or otherwise). As I say, one side has no more right to force their beliefs than the other does.

Maybe having sex is cool with girls too, but with most girls I've met it's more about being seen to have a boyfriend than actually having sex.
It's a mixture of both I suppose, there's a lot of one night stands or short term flings amongst the young, and most happily have sex to keep their boyfriend/girlfriend and for a bit of fun. I don't think men and women are all that different.
Either that or there's a small percentage of women that REALLY get around.:p

Company, companionship, security. Not all guys need or even want to have sex early either, although I think this is much rarer. However, from what I've heard, guys hormones are raging at a young age, while women never get as stir crazy as guys and their peak is apparently later on in life.

Oh hell no, we do get stir crazy.

Try getting me to concentrate on something when....you know.

It's just socially unacceptable to say so. We're only allowed to want love, not sex. So girls go on about love and keep all that deadly dark sexual stuff to themselves.

Oh hell no, we do get stir crazy.

Lol :-). Grats on hitting the 3k post mark, btw :-)


Try getting me to concentrate on something when....you know.

It's just socially unacceptable to say so. We're only allowed to want love, not sex. So girls go on about love and keep all that deadly dark sexual stuff to themselves.

Laugh :-). Well in regards to hormones, women generally have less testosterone. Ofcourse, they're more sensitive to it. I don't know, I guess I grew up thinking that adolescent males had these raging hormones, not the females.

Anyway, I went looking up testosterone and got this from wikipedia:
"In both men and women, testosterone plays a key role in health and well-being as well as in sexual functioning. Examples include enhanced libido, increased energy, increased production of red blood cells and protection against osteoporosis. On average, an adult human male body produces about forty to sixty times more testosterone than an adult female body, but females are, from a behavioral perspective (rather than from an anatomical or biological perspective), more sensitive to the hormone.[1] However the overall ranges for male and female are very wide, such that the ranges actually overlap at the low end and high end respectively."

Which, quite frankly, doesn't seem to tell me much. What I'd like to know is -how- much more sensitive women are in general and how, exactly, does it affect the libido? Also, how does society affect things? Women certainly act differently in North America then they do in Afghanistan.

I definitely think that women are generally pickier about the partner(s) they're with, for what to me is an obvious evolutionary reason- men can impregnate a thousand women, but women can only have a few children and the effort is a lot greater. So they've frequently picked men who have what might be called 'doting father' qualities and this, in turn, has affected society so that there are more doting father types. Ofcourse, they also like the beguiling types and can at times be fooled into going for womanizers who won't help much if pregnancy does indeed occur.

All of this is, to me, a little amusing. I like to think that I'd be a great doting father but at the same time I'm enamoured by the idea of a polyamorous lifestyle. No cheating; the rules are simply different, for both sides. I've heard of parents who have apparently done quite well in this lifestyle. I don't have a crystal ball and I don't know what my future holds but I really can't see myself giving up the polyamory ideal even if it doesn't work out quite so well for me.

Anyway, in case anyone's interested, here's a little youtube show with the concept (in this case, 1 woman and 2 men):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2-MTs_Lsog&feature=channel_page

Back in the old days, society allowed people to raise their kids as they chose. That didn't change any feelings or thoughts of sex, yet it was seldom that kids we so permissive and sexually active. Nor were the teen pregnancies any huge issue.

That leads me to believe that we should return to the old ways ...like the 1900s-1950s. The parents and kids were doing something right.

I think modern society is simply too permissive ...permissive of everything. Voilence and sex glorified on TV/movies; Sex glorified in music; Sex glorified in magazines and advertising; ...we glorify sex, are permissiive of sexual activity, then we complain about it!

Baron Max

So what do you suggest?

Originally Posted by Asguard

Concidering the rates of STD's (including HIV) and teenage pregancies are on the rise i think its time we had a proper discussion about how much control parents should be alowed to excercise over their children and how much sociaty should be alowed to EXPECT from them.

Should sociaty concider keeping adolessants uninformed about sexually related matters to be neglect?

and

Should parents be alowed to keep there children from properly run sexual education programs and if so why?

Back in the old days, society allowed people to raise their kids as they chose. That didn't change any feelings or thoughts of sex, yet it was seldom that kids we so permissive and sexually active. Nor were the teen pregnancies any huge issue.

That leads me to believe that we should return to the old ways ...like the 1900s-1950s. The parents and kids were doing something right.

And also a fair amount of things wrong. However, I'm with BetrayerofHope- what do you suggest?



I think modern society is simply too permissive ...permissive of everything. Violence and sex glorified on TV/movies; Sex glorified in music; Sex glorified in magazines and advertising; ...we glorify sex, are permissiive of sexual activity, then we complain about it!

Sex isn't always glorified. It's why abstinence until marriage programs still exist, although they are thankfully losing ground now as they've proven to be generally ineffective. I maintain that the main problem isn't that society as a whole is too permissive, but that society as a whole still doesn't like factually dealing with its youth concerning sexuality. I firmly believe that what is needed is better sexual education and not just sexual education per se but -relationship- education. People don't just think about sex they think about the people they want to have sex -with-. So I certainly believe that things like protective measures during sex is something that should definitely be taught in school (not as in, do this, but as in, -if- you do this, protect yourselves and here's how). But I -also- believe that students should be taught about what constitutes a healthy relationship, sexual or otherwise, and how to create and nurture such relationships.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Society bears responsibility as well; people do what they feel will make them happy. For instance, if they are taught that if they want to have sex but don't want to have kids, they should use condoms, they could spare themselves a fair amount of grief.

They already are taught that however. They might not follow through on it, but they know it.

They are frequently not taught that, actually. It's called 'abstinence until marriage'. Thankfully, it's on the wane as it has been shown to be ineffective.



Granted, one of the reasons for this is they may not fully understand the consequences of their actions in the sense that they might not know exactly what raising a child involves, or they just assume an abortion is an option without talking to their partner (for whatever reason).

I think it's an option without talking to one's partner. I certainly believe it should be. A man doesn't have to be pregnant for 9 months, so it's easy for him to spout platitudes. The woman is the one who has to do the work for 9 months.



There certainly isn't any ignorance on the fact that unprotected sex can cause pregnancy and allow someone to catch an STD.

You sure about that? I myself am a little interested in these abstinence until marriage courses and whether or not they actually make it clear what sex -does- other then possibly give diseases and be seen as 'bad'.



There is however some level of ignorance on other things, hence phrases like "I didn't know oral counts". So the education covers only the basics.

Well, oral can't result in pregnancy so it should definitely be seen somewhat differently.

They are frequently not taught that, actually. It's called 'abstinence until marriage'. Thankfully, it's on the wane as it has been shown to be ineffective.
We don't teach that here, not in a very very long time! Our schools teach sex ed, any abstinence policies are strictly from outside of the education system. It may be different state-side(in parts) but surely they have standardised sex ed too? Surely the vast majority of 14-19 year olds know that they should use condoms when having sex(regardless of if they actually take that advice or not).


I think it's an option without talking to one's partner. I certainly believe it should be. A man doesn't have to be pregnant for 9 months, so it's easy for him to spout platitudes. The woman is the one who has to do the work for 9 months.
I meant that a man may assume that's what's going to happen without actually discussing it, and his partner may not believe in abortion. They should be having safe sex, but regardless people need to understand they have to talk certain things through first, such as what they're going to do should a pregnancy occur. You're probably correct that some form of relationship education should occur and cover these things. Young people need to understand how hard it is to raise a child, but the truth is a lot of them are not in relationships before they have sex, so they don't talk things through.


You sure about that? I myself am a little interested in these abstinence until marriage courses and whether or not they actually make it clear what sex -does- other then possibly give diseases and be seen as 'bad'.
I'd go so far as to say that at that age virtually all are aware that sex is the cause of pregnancy and having sex is risking it. This is the basic that sex ed covers, beyond that the quality varies depending on location, teacher etc.
Diseases is more of a grey area(see below).




Well, oral can't result in pregnancy so it should definitely be seen somewhat differently.
Exactly, but it can still pass on disease. This is where the sex ed lets people down in only covering basics, you get annoyingly frequent questions like "can I get STDs from oral?" or "can I get pregnant from oral?".
It's not detailed enough that's for sure, but by 14 most kids know where babies come from and how they're made(give them some credit), they might not know it in great detail, they may even ignore it in their immaturity and say "you might get pregnant, but then again you might not", but essentially they know.
One other reality is that I'm sure there are thousands of questions that could be asked about sex, it would be impossible for an education system to cover them all so we have to cover the most important and frequent ones and at some point we have to be able to point them in the right direction to learn for themselves and research it.

The bad thing is that most kids tend to fall for old wives tales. Like you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex or jumping up and down after sex keeps you from getting pregnant or if the girl's on top you can't get pregnant. Kids get stupid advice from their friends and many if not most don't really feel comfortable talking to their parents or teachers about it, so there is no one to tell them those myths are just that. My grandmother thought she wouldn't get pregnant if she ate a lot of mints and she had her first child at 16. (but I guess it doesn't count because she was married already).

cutsie why do you think i belive we should inforce MANDITORY (NO ONE can get out of it and no parent can stop there child reciving it) science based sexual eduction.

And i dont just mean how to put on a condom but i mean DETAILED education. One of my partners friends belived that you could get pregant from giving a blow job, another belived thatyou couldnt get SDTs while giving head. Another belived that you could get pregnant from KISSING.

This is not the fault of the adolessents, this lies squarly with the parents. Why the parents and not the education system? because i have seen SHines (the SA, sexual health organisation) course and there is no way in hell anyone would belive these myths if they had gone through it.

I rember the sexual health lecture we had in grade 6 and i have always been puzzled by 1 thing. Though we went through the basics as a group, they then split us into boys and girls and went through (with us at least) basic A&P and a few other things. I have always felt it was quite stupid not to give the whole lecture to the whole class. After all most men need to know about what a period is, the reproductive cycle ect. ALL boys and girls should be taught what an IUD is just so they NEVER use one. The same is true of the girls, they need to know about the A&P of males as well.


Oh and for all those people saying that the problem is that kids wernt having sex in earlier times. Are you all really that stupid? ever herd of a shot gun weding? what about the fact that most children were married off at 16?

The difference is that now most people are still studying at 16 and DONT want to chose a mate. They certianly dont want to get married and then be forced to have child after child because contraception is unavaliable like it was in the 1900's

Concidering the rates of STD's (including HIV) and teenage pregancies are on the rise
Let's stop right there and look at the facts:

The teen pregnancy rate in the United States has fallen to historic lows, abortion rates have declined dramatically and more women are having children out of wedlock, a study published Monday said.

The teen pregnancy rate dropped 38 percent from 1990 to 2004, with abortion rates down by half and birth rates down by more than a third, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Study said.

However, pregnancy rates among Hispanic and black teens and young women were more than double that of their white counterparts. http://www.rawstory.com/news/afp/US_teen_pregnancy_rate_near_histori_04142008.html
So no teen pregnancy crisis, after all. What about STD's?

Once again, a study has found a wide gap between blacks and whites, and yet again the news is not good for African-Americans.

The latest study, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shows that an alarming 48% of African-American girls ages 14-19 have a sexually transmitted disease, compared with 20% of young white and Mexican-American females. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/04/black-teen-std.html
See also:
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_STD_Rates_Soaring_in_Teen_Girls_CDC_Study_Rev eals_15041.html
Son of a bitch! Half of black teens have an STD!!!! Verses one in five white or hispanic teens. I certainly wouldn't oppose some more sex ed,especially for these young black girls. But I think a major part of the problem is the destruction of the black family and the black subculture that holds up pimps as role models.

umm mad, the study i found said 1 in 4 people under the age of 20 had at least 1 STD. Thats across the WHOLE population. There is something seriously wrong with a quater of the population being infected with an STD

umm mad, the study i found said 1 in 4 people under the age of 20 had at least 1 STD. Thats across the WHOLE population. There is something seriously wrong with a quater of the population being infected with an STD
I agree. But look at the data broken down by race. It's one in five for whites and hispanics verses one in two for black teens. While one in five is bad enough, one in two is absurd and disturbing. And I seriously doubt that the difference is lack of sex ed among black teens.

I don't know about STDs but if we take a look only at the USA it appears that since the 50s there was a decline of teen pregnancies (with the exception of a peak in the 90s), but an increase of non-marital births. This basically confirms what cutsiemarie said earlier. Which also means that apparently there never was an "innocent" time where teens did not have sex.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

That being said, it appears that in other countries there is a stronger decline (same link).

Mad i would rather see the data broken down by the level of sexual education provided. For instance is it higher or lower amongst adolessants taught only abstance?

THAT is the infomation which either proves or disproves the efficasy of sexual education

Half of black teens have an STD!!!! Verses one in five white or hispanic teens. I certainly wouldn't oppose some more sex ed,especially for these young black girls. But I think a major part of the problem is the destruction of the black family and the black subculture that holds up pimps as role models.

The problem with many African Americans is some sort of ignorant wall that surrounds many black individuals. That even black kids from good homes and good families still have this stigma about using condoms for some reason it's just frowned upon. The same stigma that surrounds adopting children of another race, receiving psychological help or any kind of counseling of any kind, or ideas about homosexuality (as the last election proved) they get stuck in this rut of refusing to broaden their horizons. I grew up in a pretty well area and the black kids I went to school with would still get up and arms about condom usage, like STDs were just some joke someone made up. For many black kids to insist upon using a condom in a sexual situation is to fight against the odds. All though my high school had a comprehensive sexual education program they didn't really push the importance of condoms at all. It was a really big deal to my mother, so she made a big deal for me, but if she had never said anything I probably wouldn't be very adamant about condom usage as I am now. I had to beat my boyfriend over the head to get him to use one and unfortunately a lot teens are forceful like that. That's just what I've noticed about the black community, it really annoys me.

cutsie thats kind of my point, the most prevelant form of STD isnt HIV, its HPV. The thing about this virus is that some strains cause cervical cancer but as far as i know almost ALL strains cause female infertility. Gardesel protects against the most common strains which cause cancer but not all the strains which cause infertility.

Now acording to something i was reading the most widly used form of contraception is the pill. This isnt a surprise or even a bad thing. Couples in monmogioms realtionships tend to chose the pill over condoms because its alot easier and alot of women are on it anyway for other reasons. However as you know it provides NO protection against STD's, there are only 2 forms which do, the male and the female condoms.

There was a study done by one of the condom manifactures in australia on sexual health which if i can find i will post here. Now some people will say this is biased because of who sponsored it but i disagree in this case. Yes they were promoting condom use but i dont think that is a bad thing and there for i dont see the resurch as being biased.

Some of the findings wouldnt be a surprise to anyone with a brain. For instance people from a low socioeconomic background are less likly to use contraception, and people unders the influence of alchole and drugs are less likly to use contraception.

Im not meaning to suggest that education is the be all and end all but it is a very important part. Im a strong surporter of things like free condoms in schools and universities and places like SHine who also provide the pill at WELL below the PBS rates. Not to mention that im a strong surporter in pt confidentuality in these matters no matter WHAT age the adolessant is (baring child abuse) in order to encorage adolessants to seek medical advice for things like the pill.

Futher more i was STRONGLY oposed to the morning after pill becoming perscription only for adolessants. That had to be the most moronic idea i had ever herd actually but concidering who proposed it (the catholic MP Tony Abbott, former Minster for Health and aging) im really not that surprised. His comment that he was shocked to hear that women as young as 14 were using the morning after pill was so stupid. It seems no one thought to ask him wether he thought women as young as 14 having abortions or having children was a better alternitive.

Anyway cutsie, concidering your experiance do you think that leaving it in the hands of parents or the goverment putting more resorces into better informing young people is the way to go? Especially when you concider things like the fact that you can get STD's from oral sex, do you think parents would be willing to talk about this in a logical way?

One study i herd about (and i dont have the paticulars of this, it was something i came in at the end of on the radio) was talking about the link between STD and teenage pregancy awearness and oral sex. They had found that as awearness of these issues increased and adolessants felt that vaginal sex was more dangerious, rates of oral sex went up. Now oviously this works for SOME STD prevention and for pregancy prevention but makes no difference to others like herpies (both kinds). Actually Herpies rates go up because so much of the population is infected with the coldsore version and its not well understood that this can be passed on to infect the genitals as well.

Anyway i havent yet found the Ansal Study but i did find this from SHine

http://www.shinesa.org.au/index.cfm?objectid=A8957C11-E081-51EF-A72F927BF92DE86C

I had to beat my boyfriend over the head to get him to use one and unfortunately a lot teens are forceful like that. That's just what I've noticed about the black community, it really annoys me.Here's how paranoid I was. After the first time I had sex, I casually threw the condom in the trash (it was in my bedroom in the basement at midnight, new year's eve). Anyway, after taking the girl home, I was sitting there thinking, "Hmmmm. 80% effective. That means 20% chance I may have knocked her up. I wonder...." So I retrieved the condom and tested it for holes by filling it with water. It passed the test.

I even remember the first time I almost had sex. I was making out with this girl at a party at her house. She seemed quite receptive to whatever I wanted to do. So, after rounding third base I reached for the condom that had been sitting in my wallot creating a circular impression for quite a while. As I was fumbling around with it, her damned big brother (A senior, I think. I was a sophomore at the time) popped in and spoiled the fun. It was probably a good thing, that was a really old condom. It might have disintegrated during use. I replaced it shortly afterwards and even practiced putting it on so I wouldn't be fumbling around like that first time.

Anyway, my point is I never even considered sex without a condom until my girlfriend went on the pill.

Mad on your post 61 i thought you might find this interesting

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/29/1030508075014.html

Mad on your post 61 i thought you might find this interesting

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/29/1030508075014.html
Yeah, slick Willy (Bill Clinton) strikes again. He convinced the nation that oral sex wasn't sex. If only girls thought that way when I was in high school!

And I seriously doubt that the difference is lack of sex ed among black teens. That's one of the differences.

Another is mother's educational level. Those might be related.

A third is two parent families with at least one parent in a career job - an example of payoff for discipline.

A fourth is religion, which plays a larger role on average in black families.

A fifth is absence of adult male authority in the general environment - tends to cow the predatory teen boy.

A sixth is racism - which of course connects to one through four above.

iceaura...sex drive is also related to the average genitalia size...and not to be overly prudent, but black men are gifted in their pants.

That's one of the differences. (lack of sex ed)

Another is mother's educational level. Those might be related.

A third is two parent families with at least one parent in a career job - an example of payoff for discipline.

A fourth is religion, which plays a larger role on average in black families.

A fifth is absence of adult male authority in the general environment - tends to cow the predatory teen boy.

A sixth is racism - which of course connects to one through four above.
I'm with you on 2,3 and 5. But I don't see either religion or racism as causes of STD's in black teens. Really, I think number 5 is the true root cause. The black family structure, especially in inner cities, has almost completely collapsed. This creates many single parent families. It leaves a lack of responsible male role models. It increases the chance of the family being in poverty. On and on.

come on mad, you might be a christan but your also a DOCTOR. You have never seen how religion twists sexuality?

i peged you as more intelligent than that

come on mad, you might be a christan but your also a DOCTOR. You have never seen how religion twists sexuality?
Religion adds a certain thrill to sex. A certain naughtiness that wouldn't be there otherwise. There's nothing like a rebellious girl raised by strict parents. She has the pleasure of sex itself, plus the pleasure of rebelling against her parents. It makes it much easier to convince her to say, "yes". Nevertheless, it shouldn't keep her from using a condom while she's out slutting around. Do you have any data showing that increased church attendance or whatever is positively associated with STD rates?

only anacdotally unfortunatly. I would LOVE to do resurch on it but *shrug* Anacdotally the more fundermentalist someone is, especially if they have been home schooled or taught in a religious school rather than the state system the less they have seemed to understand about how sex works and the dangers involved.

As i said though i havent been able to find any resurch on it though

I few things I found interesting is the differences in teen pregnancy. If only accounting for non-hispanic white teenagers (to make matters easier) the highest is 77 per 1000 in Arkansas, and 71-73 in Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky, South Carolina. The lowest was in North Dakota (33 per 1000). All numbers were from 2000.
Is anyone aware of difference in sex-ed in these states?
And, as already mentioned, the pregnancy rates in other countries (including all ethnicity) like Germany, France and Sweden are well below 20 per 1000. The UK is somewhere near North Dakota, though.

I had to beat my boyfriend over the head to get him to use one and unfortunately a lot teens are forceful like that. That's just what I've noticed about the black community, it really annoys me.
Ugh that really pisses me off!

I refused to ever do anything without a condom, still do.

1.5 minutes of pleasure is not worth an STD or going all the way to england for an abortion.

My dorm building my freshman year of college had a condom-candy bucket in the lounge, so people good just go and grab condoms whenever they wanted too, but some bimbos ruined it and poked holes in all of the condoms and left a note saying premarital sex was wrong, but they weren't kind enough to leave the note near the bucket so there were quite a few "accidents". So the year after you had to knock on the resident adviser's door and ask for them. So it deterred a lot of students because they were too embarrassed to ask. I think they should put them in a cheap vending machine.

But I don't see either religion or racism as causes of STD's in black teens. Other people do. The correlations are high.

Do you have any data showing that increased church attendance or whatever is positively associated with STD rates? Several studies of abstinence only sex ed programs - associated with religious communities and schools - have found higher STD rates in the older teens. I'm sure you've noticed them - they were in the papers, on the news, etc.

Or you could peruse the stats in general:
Here's the top ten states for church attendance in the US, from here http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060502/news_lz1n2thelist.html

Alabama
Louisiana
South Carolina
Mississippi
Utah
Arkansas
Nebraska
North Carolina
Tennessee
Georgia

Here's the top ten for rate of syphilis, from here http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats00/Tables/2000Table23.htm
Tennessee *
North Carolina *
Indiana
South Carolina *
Maryland
Georgia *
Mississippi *
Louisiana *
Arkansas *
Arizona

70% overlap.

Other people do. The correlations are high.
Several studies of abstinence only sex ed programs - associated with religious communities and schools - have found higher STD rates in the older teens. I'm sure you've noticed them - they were in the papers, on the news, etc.Being religious doesn't necessarily mean you support abstinence only sex ed. So, even though I might have noticed those studies, they are irrelevent.

Or you could peruse the stats in general:
Here's the top ten states for church attendance in the US, from here http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060502/news_lz1n2thelist.html

Alabama
Louisiana
South Carolina
Mississippi
Utah
Arkansas
Nebraska
North Carolina
Tennessee
Georgia

Here's the top ten for rate of syphilis, from here http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats00/Tables/2000Table23.htm
Tennessee *
North Carolina *
Indiana
South Carolina *
Maryland
Georgia *
Mississippi *
Louisiana *
Arkansas *
Arizona

70% overlap.That's pretty weak evidence. I could just as easily point out the overlap with the states with the highest % of African Americans:

Mississippi(27%) Louisiana (32%), Georgia (30%), Maryland (30%), South Carolina (29%), and Alabama(27%)
You'll note that all but one of those states made your STD list. Yet the very religious Utah and Nebraska did not. How do you account for that? If religion were actually a major factor in the risk of STD's, shouldn't Utah be at the top of the list?

Being religious doesn't necessarily mean you support abstinence only sex ed. So, even though I might have noticed those studies, they are irrelevent. The direction of argument was the opposite - supporting abstinence only sex ed means you are likely to be religious. It was a means of identifying likely religious influence independently of State designation.

You'll note that all but one of those states made your STD list. Yet the very religious Utah and Nebraska did not. Nebraska is up there - just not in the top ten for syphilis.

Utah is the anomaly. But it appears to emphasize the influence of religion in the matter.

Barring the Mormons and their early marriage practices, the correlation with church attendance is stronger, by rank, than that with race - despite the known strong correlation with race.

cutsie, i hope she faced criminal charges.

On the issue of where to place them though there is always an option of having a FREE vending machine to despence them. That way they are still free but they are secure.

At uni you can easierly get them, dont know about the on site acomidation and where they keep them (because i dont live on campus) but both the health center (with GP's and psychs, both free i might add:p) and the student union freely give them away. Not to mention that there are so many given away in show bags that you could collect a life time surplie with ease:p

Actually they dont just give away condoms, they also give away what (if i rember right) is called a "dental dam". Its like a tissue sized piece of latex and it is placed over the vagina so that there is no direct contact when performing oral sex on a girl. I dont know how effective they are because i never tried to use one but there are a few around here somewhere that came in the condom packs we were given

I have been involved with Sex education a lot... and I think it really sucks... because just like other social movements that started off with a good intention, e.g. Feminism and HIV/AIDS intervention, Sex Education too has become just another tool in the hands of the Forces of Heterosexualization to further their agenda, i.e. to press for heterosexualization of the society, not that there is much left in the West to heterosexualize, but it poses a lot of threat to the traditional societies.

As a tool of heterosexualization, amongst the first victims of Sex education are the men's spaces. They seek to bring down the social barriers between boys and girls, and in a freaky kind of way, by trying to break the sexual barriers between the two sexes, as if their job is not to inform but to almost force boys and girls to indulge in sex. I mean this is my experience from India, of receiving as well as giving sex education.

Also, sex education as it exists now, tends to be highly sensitive to the needs of girls, but hardly caring for the needs of the boys. They tend to snatch any personal spaces from boys, force them to learn to share their spaces with the opposite sex (while recognising the need for girls to have their personal spaces)... and they specially tend to increase several folds the pressures of social manhood on the boys, instead of trying to address them.

Sex Ed could be such a curiously fun course, if liberal retards didn't so much mess it up.


I have been involved with Sex education a lot... and I think it really sucks... because just like other social movements that started off with a good intention, e.g. Feminism and HIV/AIDS intervention, Sex Education too has become just another tool in the hands of the Forces of Heterosexualization to further their agenda, i.e. to press for heterosexualization of the society, not that there is much left in the West to heterosexualize, but it poses a lot of threat to the traditional societies.

I could almost agree with some of the heterosexualization, to a point, but yeah, they are off-track. With the numbers of women of childbearing age, still rising throughout much of the world, there's a rather obvious need for increased sexual activity throughout the world, which I am in favor of, as I believe that the human race should go on growing as we were meant to. We live in a society so obsessed with sex, where everybody seems to be "doing it," and why spoil their fun, if they are doing it right, procreating within marriage, taking their responsibility to prepare the family nest, nurturing and providing for their possibly many children.


As a tool of heterosexualization, amongst the first victims of Sex education are the men's spaces. They seek to bring down the social barriers between boys and girls, and in a freaky kind of way, by trying to break the sexual barriers between the two sexes, as if their job is not to inform but to almost force boys and girls to indulge in sex. I mean this is my experience from India, of receiving as well as giving sex education.

Well I do prefer co-ed classes, but if such classes involve sexual matters, wouldn't co-ed be more appropriate at the college level only?, not breaking down the barriers of normal modesty between the sexes, at the younger more impressionable ages and confusing time of puberty? I do like for more people to indulge in sex, but not before they have properly committed to each other in marriage, to insure that there will be 2 parents sticking around to raise any children that may result.

One reason I can see for breaking down barriers, is that the world now has so many, many people. Is an excessive amount of privacy really all that realistic? However, that probably has little or nothing to do with the option of sex-segregated Sex Ed classes, so as to supposedly allow people to ask more honest questions, without all the "embarassment" of the opposite sex being around, less a factor at the college level I imagine. Although, I really don't see much point for sex-segregation, if the Sex Ed component is just a minor component of a health class, taught by a moral teacher and not some radical feminist abortion proponent. I hardly think that human reproduction discussion needs to be banned, if it isn't excessive. It could be handled calmly, normally, just like any other subject.


Also, sex education as it exists now, tends to be highly sensitive to the needs of girls, but hardly caring for the needs of the boys. They tend to snatch any personal spaces from boys, force them to learn to share their spaces with the opposite sex (while recognising the need for girls to have their personal spaces)... and they specially tend to increase several folds the pressures of social manhood on the boys, instead of trying to address them.

Do boys have such special needs? Of course, any liberal-dominated Sex Ed, is probably too much into one's face already, with things maybe they really don't want being so propagandized to confuse the students.

As usual, it seems liberals may have some "good intentions," but good intentions don't impress me much as to bad social/political policy. "Everybody's doing it," probably isn't the most morally responsible message to be driving home, among students who may prefer to remain virgins until marriage.

I am for the natural flow of human life, welcoming the human race to naturally blossom in size, so that all the more people may experience life. So sex would seem to be a big deal, for our populous age. But in order to healthily grow human populations larger, for the greater good of the many, people need stable loving families, not a bunch of promiscuity, absent irresponsible parents, and chaos.

So here's my suggestions how to reform Sex Ed:


Author Sam Blummingfeld says adding an "Ed," indicates it's not really "education." We don't have Math Ed, for example. So "Sex Ed" is immediately suspect of being a propaganda tool of the Left.
Many more conservative people suspect that sex-segregation may be appropriate for Sex Ed. So as to not violate the social barriers between the sexes as to proper modesty.
It is parents who are responsible for their children, so parents should always be allowed to "opt out" their children of any Sex Ed, no matter how good, as a way to keep such programs responsive to the accountability of parents.
It's parents who are responsible for their children, so if parents want to abolish Sex Ed, that is their right. Parents don't have to accept "competition" to the values they teach their children at home.
Sex is very simple, so a whole class about it, is suspect, or may be crammed full of teaching perversions. A few pages in a health textbook, may suffice for covering the human reproductive system.
Sex Ed should always be about morality and Abstinence Only until marriage. There is no such thing as "moral free" Sex Ed, somebody's idea of morals is always being pushed, so make sure it's the right sort of morals, and not Planned Parenthood advertisements for promiscuity and abortions.
Sex Ed should promote baby-making, within its proper context, marriage, and not seek to scare future parents out of their blessings of children. Showing a human birth during prime time TV, seems appropriate to me. But the shoddy Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons, should not be encouraged. Some children's dictionary or children's book on human anatomy, showed a drawing of the erect penis in the vagina, and the baby growing on the next page. Not a mention of population "control" nor awful "birth control," and that's much how it should be. Traditionally, reproductive drawings don't show the sexual organs "joined," but so what, I wonder? Like younger people aren't supposed to figure out how they fit together?

Concidering the rates of STD's (including HIV) and teenage pregancies are on the rise i think its time we had a proper discussion about how much control parents should be alowed to excercise over their children and how much sociaty should be alowed to EXPECT from them.

Should sociaty concider keeping adolessants uninformed about sexually related matters to be neglect?

and

Should parents be alowed to keep there children from properly run sexual education programs and if so why?

i think that mums and dads should teach they're children about sex properly and not say "sex is evil and if you do ti i'll kill you" if kids were told that sex is somthing that should be between two people who love each other and not slate sex then perhaps we wouldnt have this teenage pregnancy rise, also if kids were given decent and informed sexual eduaction at school perhaps things would be differant

LA i disagree with you in this for three reasons

Firstly alot of parents and their children feel embarisment when dealing with this and a professional can do it much easier with less embarisment and in a clinical manner. Not to mention that the children may well feel more comfertable asking questions with a proffessional rather than with their parents. For instance would you be able to ask your parents "can oral sex pass on STD's?"

Secondly and most importantly alot of parents DONT teach there children properly and the goverment has a responcability to step in if parents wont. This is the whole basis of child protection and i dont see this as any different from a child protection issue.

Lastly there is the fact that its possable PARENTS dont even know the answers to the questions or (possably worse) may have the compleat wrong infomation. For instance alot of people until the recent education campain didnt realise that cervical cancer is mostly caused by a virus which can be passed on from a single sexual incounter. I wouldnt expect schools to leave the education of science by people who might simply not know what they are talking about and sexual education is even more important

Parents are the prime people who should teach their children about sex. Not only does the Bible place parents with the responsibility for their children, but world population is now so incredibly vast, that to expect some handy "professionals" to always be around to do it, is absurd. Also, wouldn't parents prefer to have children learn their own values, and not the so-called perverted values of the "experts?"

"Sex is hereditary. If our parents didn't do it, neither would we." unknown

Parents are the prime people who should teach their children about sex. Not only does the Bible place parents with the responsibility for their children, but world population is now so incredibly vast, that to expect some handy "professionals" to always be around to do it, is absurd. Also, wouldn't parents prefer to have children learn their own values, and not the so-called perverted values of the "experts?"


Children start to become sexually aware as young as 11 or 12, but by the time they are given instruction on, for example, how to put a condom on (which here in the UK is explained when we are 16) it is likely to be too late.
Moreover, any responsible and experienced adult is perfectly qualified to explain sexual risks and practices, who said we needed hard-to-come-by trained professionals?
Lastly, re: Parents teaching sex ed in general, I have to say that it's mostly ineffective. Many, if not most, parents feel uncomfortable discussing sex with their children. My dad told me to not 'take part in that kind of thing' until I was married. Did I listen to him? No. Why? Because he was my dad, and he offered no other explanation or chance for questioning than his own traditional morals. Funnily enough, that seems to be exactly what you are proposing.


"Sex is hereditary. If our parents didn't do it, neither would we." unknown

No - not least because we wouldnlt exist.

Don't train children how to fornicate supposedly more "safely," but in how to procreate responsibly.


Children start to become sexually aware as young as 11 or 12, but by the time they are given instruction on, for example, how to put a condom on (which here in the UK is explained when we are 16) it is likely to be too late.
Moreover, any responsible and experienced adult is perfectly qualified to explain sexual risks and practices, who said we needed hard-to-come-by trained professionals?
Lastly, re: Parents teaching sex ed in general, I have to say that it's mostly ineffective. Many, if not most, parents feel uncomfortable discussing sex with their children. My dad told me to not 'take part in that kind of thing' until I was married. Did I listen to him? No. Why? Because he was my dad, and he offered no other explanation or chance for questioning than his own traditional morals. Funnily enough, that seems to be exactly what you are proposing.

Why does God put the responsibility of education, including Sex Ed, upon parents? Does the Bible say that parents are the most efficient or accurate Sex Ed people? Not at all. It's about moral responsibility, as who cares about the child, like a parent? So often what happens with Sex Ed, is the huge conservative/libtard battles, in which around half the people claim that "they are going to do it anyways," so don't require any moral standards of young people, "safer sex" only, never mind broken hearts and all that. The other half wants abstinence-only. The former category is comprised mainly of libtards and educrats, while the latter group is normal parents and sensible people. So the people get a Sex Ed that they actually like, then Planned Parenthood sues, because abstinence-only doesn't sell Planned Parenthood use of their "services" and abortions, and because Planned unParenthood is religion-phobic, having a pagan religion of their own to push, that of child sacrifice to Satan.

Now how many times do we have to have this predictable battle before we learn, that parents are responsible for their children?

And Sex Ed advocates routinely lie about the needs for their "services." What do they claim, a million teenage pregnancies per year in the U.S.? Never mind that half are to 18 and 19-year-olds who happen to be married? And they claim we need Sex Ed to combat an "explosion" of teenage births, but the way I hear it, the "explosion" of teenage births, followed the "indulge in sex" Sex Ed propaganda. Throughout all of history, most people pretty much knew what made babies. But pushing contraceptive use, promotes promiscuous and irresponsible sexual relationships, then the shoddy Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons, are soon found to be faulty? We should have know that God's standards could not likely be much improved upon by man's lack of wisdom.

We aren't even having more teenage births, subtracting out the effect of a far larger global population, but rather, aren't we really just delaying marriage longer and longer? More younger marriages, would seem an obvious answer, at least for many people who claim to be ready for the responsibilities of growing their own families.

Now if parents are too shy, to discuss such important matters with their children, maybe they will delegate it to trained experts. And hopefully they will get experts of a proper moral persuation. But there is little reason to expect that all Sex Ed will be properly moral, especially if parents are so ashamed or lazy to take their proper responsibilities for training up their children in the way they should go. But as the number of human penises and vaginas throughout the world, continue to naturally mount, I would hope that any Sex Ed, recognizes the growing need for sexual relief throughout the world, and would actually advocate proper moral natural family growth, and encourage the proper responsible babymaking.

As I recall, my Dad didn't really give me all that much information. He said that if I make a baby, I am responsible. What more did I need to not fool around? Didn't need all sorts of nasty scare videos about STDs, just to know that making a baby prematurely could be "life altering." Dad also said that it's normal when dancing with a lady, to ooze precum. Don't even have to be hard. So male female humans are made for each other. Nice to know a few details about what to expect in puberty.

Sex is very simple, so simple even a caring parent can in fact, adequately explain it. And if not, people will soon figure it out one way or another anyway. It's the rampant contraceptive pushing, that I most blame for abortions and STDs, by trying to sell people upon their shoddy false security.

World population is growing, and for some very great and profound reasons. I do hope that future generations will get tired of the failings of past generations, and turn back to the traditional family values. Which include such things as pronatalism, and having traditionally very large families, counting children as wondrous blessings from God. And that people would turn away from the sloppy promiscuity promoted by the "easy sex" contraceptive-pushing culture, towards the more natural, natural flow of human life, welcoming babies to happen as they happen. I believe mothers should be allowed to breastfeed in public, as is common in the more pronatalist, developing countries. Let the babies push out naturally, as more and more people would be glad to live.

A lot of parents already messed up, with selfish use of contraceptives themselves, leading to unstable families, divorce, and their children seeking abortions rather than life for their children. We live in a rather morally confused time.


No - not least because we wouldnlt exist.

"Sex is heretitary. If your parents didn't do it, neither would you."

Ah, I think that's supposed to be part of the joke. Because your parents couldn't so much "control themselves" and relieved their reproductive urges by having babies, neither can we, and now we have around all the more horny people than ever, and the human population goes on growing naturally, for the greater good of the many.

Your sheer ignorance and hypocrisy makes my blood boil. Be sure I had to control myself while replying to your posts.



Don't train children how to fornicate supposedly more "safely," but in how to procreate responsibly.


[quote]Why does God put the responsibility of education, including Sex Ed, upon parents? Does the Bible say that parents are the most efficient or accurate Sex Ed people? Not at all. It's about moral responsibility...
Now how many times do we have to have this predictable battle before we learn, that parents are responsible for their children?

I deal in logic, not fairytales. How about some valid points that can be proven and verified. Oh wait, that is beyond you.


And Sex Ed advocates routinely lie about the needs for their "services." What do they claim, a million teenage pregnancies per year in the U.S.? Never mind that half are to 18 and 19-year-olds who happen to be married? And they claim we need Sex Ed to combat an "explosion" of teenage births, but the way I hear it, the "explosion" of teenage births, followed the "indulge in sex" Sex Ed propaganda. Throughout all of history, most people pretty much knew what made babies. But pushing contraceptive use, promotes promiscuous and irresponsible sexual relationships, then the shoddy Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons, are soon found to be faulty? We should have know that God's standards could not likely be much improved upon by man's lack of wisdom.

What absolute bollocks - care to provide a source for those numbers? Besides, parents don't have the right to deny education to their children - they cannot choose to let their children be ignorant.
So if children really are in the hands of their parents, should we not intervene incases of domestic abuse? Incestuous rape, torture, murder - all part of their god-given right?


We aren't even having more teenage births, subtracting out the effect of a far larger global population, but rather, aren't we really just delaying marriage longer and longer? More younger marriages, would seem an obvious answer, at least for many people who claim to be ready for the responsibilities of growing their own families.

Not everyone wants to get married, and many would prefer to adopt. Delaying marriage? "Yes, you're going to get married someday so you might as well pick someone at the age of sixteen to spend the rest of your life with." So who you marry means nothing at all?



World population is growing, and for some very great and profound reasons. I do hope that future generations will get tired of the failings of past generations, and turn back to the traditional family values. Which include such things as pronatalism, and having traditionally very large families, counting children as wondrous blessings from God.

Yes, everything was perfect back in 'them days'. It's not as though poor peasant families right up to and during the industrial revolution starved as they struggled to provide for oversized families. Where was your God as children, younger and younger, were put to work down the coal mines to help provide for this 'provident' growth?

If we don't like crappy Sex Ed programs, that's reason enough. Let the government prove its reasons.


... What absolute bollocks - care to provide a source for those numbers? Besides, parents don't have the right to deny education to their children - they cannot choose to let their children be ignorant.
So if children really are in the hands of their parents, should we not intervene incases of domestic abuse? Incestuous rape, torture, murder - all part of their god-given right?

Upon what basis does the State get to second-judge the parents, and determine if they are raising their children properly? Morality is, whatever the government says it is? Everybody who dares disagree, gets their children assigned to "Hitler's Youth?" I say the state has no basis for imposing Sex Ed upon families who decline. I also believe that it is parents, who get to decide, whether they want their children vacinated or not. This Big Brother government thing, is getting really out of control, or do you not watch any "freedom" DVDs or read those sort of books, telling of runaway government abuses?

Now most people defending parental rights, aren't defending truancy and lack-of-education. Home-schoolers are subjected to a mimimal number of requirements, I think just a simple educational test once a year. Of course, most home-schoolers easily do far better, than their government-education-monopoly peers, showing how incompetent the government is at education anyway.

As far as intervening in cases of abuse, of course sometimes that's necessary. But the burden of proof is upon the government. There's a saying that too often children are removed from homes that aren't that bad, to be put with families that aren't that good. Please don't even get me started on Social Services horror stories.

And BTW, why do I keep hearing stories about Planned Parenthood, covering up cases of rape? (common topic on Pro-Life forums)


Not everyone wants to get married, and many would prefer to adopt. Delaying marriage? "Yes, you're going to get married someday so you might as well pick someone at the age of sixteen to spend the rest of your life with." So who you marry means nothing at all?

Why did "arranged marriages" work so much better, than our "shop around, marry, shop around some more" American marriages starting let's say with, the rebellious counterculture "Free Love" 1960s? I kind of wish in a way, parents still did choose mates for their children, for I might be married by now. Ever since we supposedly got freedom to decide everything for ourselves, it seems all guidance and help, has fallen away. Parents, Churches, almost won't lift a finger, to help anybody find a suitable mate to marry. "Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match. Catch me a catch. Find me a find. Matchmaker ..." What is this strange song I hear in the DVD musical "Fiddler on the Roof?" About a time so foreign to me. Where are the matchmakers anyway? Just another website out there, offering to take our money?


Yes, everything was perfect back in 'them days'. It's not as though poor peasant families right up to and during the industrial revolution starved as they struggled to provide for oversized families. Where was your God as children, younger and younger, were put to work down the coal mines to help provide for this 'provident' growth?

By their standards, families back when, were not "oversized." Rather, our families are undersized, and yet we have more population-accomodating technology than ever before, and more pathetic excuses about the perceived "burdens" of having children, than ever before?

Where was God? Oh, probably about where God is now, as we are too busy with our everyday sin to seek God, and substituting an old set of problems, say like "child labor," with a modern-day set of problems, rampant foolish debt, side-effects of contraception, God-less moral-less propaganda schools, and abortion since children aren't perceived to be worth all that much.

Funny how so few people find time to read just a measly chapter of the Bible per day, but they find all sorts of time for daily depressing news from the mainstream misleadia? But isn't the daily news, usually mostly a rerun of yesterday's depressing news? So why do we put the depressing news, higher in priority, than God's time-tested Word?

BTW, you do know that lack-of-childbearing, may be the nail in the coffin of the Social inSecurity Ponzi scheme? Seems that that too, can run out of new "investors." Maybe "oversized" families, weren't such a bad idea after all?

Walter Williams, subbing for Rush Limbaugh, made a great point just the other day. When people say we have to have something, say like Social Security, he looks at what did people do, before then. Before Social Security, old people lived with their families. But now we have forsaken God's commandment of "Honor thy father and mother," and dumped that upon the government. No wonder our economy is increasingly in a shambles.

Cellar_Door, can you now see why i surport a scientifically organised sexual education curriculum rather than a "let the parents deal with it" way of teaching sexual education?

The fact that i said it should be done by proffessionals doesnt mean that it needs to be doctors, nurses or people with doctoriates or special "sex ed" degrees. Those people should formulate a curriculum which is then taught by TEACHERS who preferably have had some training in teaching it. There is no reason why this couldnt easerly be achived and it would keep the Pronatalist's of the world out of adolessant sexuality

How can Sex Ed morally be taught, made free of basic sensible morality?


Cellar_Door, can you now see why i surport a scientifically organised sexual education curriculum rather than a "let the parents deal with it" way of teaching sexual education?

The fact that i said it should be done by proffessionals doesnt mean that it needs to be doctors, nurses or people with doctoriates or special "sex ed" degrees. Those people should formulate a curriculum which is then taught by TEACHERS who preferably have had some training in teaching it. There is no reason why this couldnt easerly be achived and it would keep the Pronatalist's of the world out of adolessant sexuality

Part of the huge problem with liberal domination of "education," is that with liberals, it's far more about "politically correct" propagandizing than it is about education.

The purpose of Sex Ed is?
a. Reducing teenage pregnancy.
b. Reducing world population growth.
c. Broadening people's horizons through education.

Whatever happened to people being their own sovereigns, and being allowed to reach their own conclusions. C, would seem to be the best answer of the 3.

public education--Where parents get together and hire a teacher.

That's not a very accurate description of the "public education" system we have now, but rather faraway politicians dictate everything. But as it is the parents, who decide whether they even want to use the government monopoly school system, hadn't they better cater to the parents, that is, if they value their jobs? Don't even "monopolies" eventually collapse, under their own corruption, if nothing else?

Now either we let the parents take responsibility for what sort of Sex Ed, if any, they want, or we have the never-ending bickering over the matter, as this or that faction, has their agenda they wish to promote? Nobody's ever going to be happy with the system, until the "customers" can freely "buy" what they want.

Consider what happens when I buy a book at the bookstore. Does some faraway "smarter than thou" committee get to debate on what the contents of that book shall contain? Which ideals shall be promoted? Does said book have to have some doctor's or educrat's or beaurocrat's stamp of approval? Not at all. The author gets to say what he wants, and I get to choose the book that seems to most speak to me, as to why I should part with the money it costs me to buy it. Whatever happened to letting people make many of their own choices, within reason?

Scientifically-organized? Ha! What a crock! So-called "scientists" seem to be among the most politically motivated these days.

BTW, I more trust ordinary health teachers to teach Sex Ed, than some "professional" or "expert." In the latter case, such "experts" are likely to be perverts or representatives from Planned Parenthood, trying to sell promiscuity, birth control, and/or abortions. For one thing, a teacher tends to teach, as he/she thinks best, or at least that used to be the case. But imagine all the mess, with a "scientific organization" of such a controversial topic. Can you imagine all the hearings, and conferences with upset parents and "experts" with their endless testimony and statements, battling over each and every aspect of the curriculum? The more centrally-planned and standardized a curriculum is, the more reason people can find to constantly battle and question it. Isn't education supposed to be about learning how to learn, and not some sick political game?

Really, there's only but 2 logical options:

a. Cater to parents.
b. Don't cater to parents, invite endless legal battles, until everybody gets fed up, and throws up their hands, and see Sex Ed ultimately destroyed.

Now which option would the horny students probably prefer? I would hazard a guess, that they would prefer option A. I would prefer option A, to option B. I would rather see Sex Ed destroyed, than it be usurped from the accountability of parents. Big Brother government is way too big already. More "egg on the face" for the foolish beaurocrats.

I got my hands on some Sex Ed video tape, that outraged parents obtained. My objection wasn't so much to the cartoon drawing of the guy's penis quickly getting hard and being promptly inserted into his girlfriend's vagina. Such is a basic fact of life. The natural flow of human life. The creation of more human life. Perhaps partly the result of there getting to be so much, much human life upon the planet. My objection is to that they weren't married, weren't being very responsible with the potent power of reproduction that God entrusted to most all humans, and that it was a huge commercial for condoms. Contraceptives are a shoddy excuse for sin and bad-decision-making. I guess we could call it the "condom distortion," in which morals suddenly don't seem to matter anymore?

LA i disagree with you in this for three reasons

Firstly alot of parents and their children feel embarisment when dealing with this and a professional can do it much easier with less embarisment and in a clinical manner. Not to mention that the children may well feel more comfertable asking questions with a proffessional rather than with their parents. For instance would you be able to ask your parents "can oral sex pass on STD's?"

Secondly and most importantly alot of parents DONT teach there children properly and the goverment has a responcability to step in if parents wont. This is the whole basis of child protection and i dont see this as any different from a child protection issue.

Lastly there is the fact that its possable PARENTS dont even know the answers to the questions or (possably worse) may have the compleat wrong infomation. For instance alot of people until the recent education campain didnt realise that cervical cancer is mostly caused by a virus which can be passed on from a single sexual incounter. I wouldnt expect schools to leave the education of science by people who might simply not know what they are talking about and sexual education is even more important

i undertsand that mums and dads dont like talking about sex, but its somthing they need to deal with, i am very open with all three of my kids even the 9yr old, i belive if they are old enough to ask questions then they are old enough to be told the truth, my sister in law has pet names for body parts, i find that silly,

I talk to my kids about everything but I also need the school to talk to them about stuff. There is medical information that I don't know about. New forms of birth control I don't know about.
And I am seriously uncomfortable talking about oral and anal sex. The schools cover that. I will answer their questions but bringing up those 2 topics.....uncomfortable.

I asked my husband to talk to our son and the first words out of his mouth were "Well, let's see. Your Mom likes...." I think the neighbors heard me screaming "shut up shut up!! No No No!!!"

I talk to my kids about everything but I also need the school to talk to them about stuff. There is medical information that I don't know about. New forms of birth control I don't know about.
And I am seriously uncomfortable talking about oral and anal sex. The schools cover that. I will answer their questions but bringing up those 2 topics.....uncomfortable.

I asked my husband to talk to our son and the first words out of his mouth were "Well, let's see. Your Mom likes...." I think the neighbors heard me screaming "shut up shut up!! No No No!!!"

can i ask why you are uncomfortable about oral and anal sex?

i know that the schools here dont teach about oral/anal sex. i think that this is a matter for perants, and no one else, we ahd kids some things in life are uncomfortable and we get over it

can i ask why you are uncomfortable about oral and anal sex?

i know that the schools here dont teach about oral/anal sex. i think that this is a matter for perants, and no one else, we ahd kids some things in life are uncomfortable and we get over it

I was raised that only whores had sex before marriage. And marriage magically made it ok. My first sexual experience was traumatic. The second just as traumatic.
I can talk about a million things with my kids. Swinging, Monogomy, homosexuality, etc. fine. The particulars of oral and anal sex, nope. I would never tell them its bad. I don't tell them any of it is bad. The school covers it in a way I couldn't and I appreciate it. I think they do a very nice job.

I also don't teach my kids to drive. They go to driver's training. Some things other people do better than I can. So I let them.

Why so bashful? Sex is a natural part of healthy life.


i undertsand that mums and dads dont like talking about sex, but its somthing they need to deal with, i am very open with all three of my kids even the 9yr old, i belive if they are old enough to ask questions then they are old enough to be told the truth, my sister in law has pet names for body parts, i find that silly,

I believe parents should be open and frank with their children about sex. As appropriate to their age and the nature of their questions. There's probably even all the more reason to be more explicit sometimes with children about sex, since most all the world is more explicit and obsessed with sex. There's more people alive than ever before, and seemingly, more and more opportunities for sex. If parents are too "embarassed" to be honest and frank about sex, there's so many competing alternatives for our children's attention. Do we really want them learning such profound things, only from magazines, TV, and their peers?

I even like the somewhat vague references to sex, that I hear on the Cosby Show, like the parents going upstairs to do (what married people do). I'm not so sure why at least the older children, shouldn't understand why it is, that their parents want to be left alone for a while. When husband and wife go upstairs to their bedroom, holding their hands a certain way, why should it be any shame, if some of the children know that it might be to bring them another baby brother or sister? They got to learn it somewhere.

If people were to be more moral about sex, then I hope they could be more relaxed about various sexual matters, and about certain predictable children's questions, like the why-should-it-be-dreaded? "Where do babies come from?" What a splendid learning opportunity, that should not go to waste, that is, if you want your children learning your morals, and not somebody else's. I imagine such learning opportunities, can go much better, if parents are relaxed and patient and ready for them, rather than the about-to-leave-home "Okay, we need to sit down sometime and have that talk about the birds and the bees." What child wouldn't by then dread the big procrastinated "sex talk." To which the child says to the bashful parent, "Oh, I already know all about that. What do you want to know?"

BTW, I think parents start off on the wrong foot, as not being the authority on much anything important, when they start off with that trendy lie, about getting their children to believe in Santa Claus. Does it not occur to anybody besides me, that children later might get the idea, that God and Jesus are just as imaginary as Santa Claus or the tooth fairy? If they are but stories, why don't we teach them to our children, as but stories. Even small children should soon become able to distinguish stories from real life. Besides, has it really been all that "fair," that Santa Claus brings more toys, to rich families, than to the poor?

I think even small children should know, that's their baby brother or sister inside, swelling Mommy's belly. And no, the baby is not in her tummy, but in a special organ for growing babies, called a womb.

I would also want for my children to know, why their parents don't practice any form of "birth control." Because more children are always welcome, should they come, or should God allow us to have more. Better shows children just how much they are wanted.

What morals would a school teach? Its like saying they teach morals in biology class.

I would also want for my children to know, why their parents don't practice any form of "birth control." Because more children are always welcome, should they come, or should God allow us to have more. Better shows children just how much they are wanted.

ah, you have the same line of thinking as the Duggar family then? If you can afford to take care of them and have the time/energy, more power to you.
http://www.duggarfamily.com/images/book20c.gif

ah, you have the same line of thinking as the Duggar family then? If you can afford to take care of them and have the time/energy, more power to you.
http://www.duggarfamily.com/images/book20c.gif

And then there are those of us who have little time or money (or both) and thank the gods for birth control ;-).

And then there are those of us who have little time or money (or both) and thank the gods for birth control ;-).

Oh, but I suspect, that God sometimes reserves his best blessings, financial and otherwise, for those of his people who trust God enough, to let God plan their families for them. How many people somehow came into money, after daring to have more children? My former home Church pastor at least. That's about when his business took off.

And what's this I see for the Duggars? More money for them? A book deal too? First the corporations donate all sorts of gifts, trying to get a little of the "unusually large" family limelight, to help out their advertising, then a TV interview, more publicity with financial side benefits, then the book deals? Almost as financially rewarding as being a politician, but without all the corrupt and pain.