Or does it? Yeah I'm daring to go there again...


£6m drive to cut teen pregnancies sees them DOUBLE (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198228/6m-drive-cut-teen-pregnancies-sees-DOUBLE.html)

By Daniel Martin
Last updated at 8:20 AM on 08th July 2009

A multi-million pound initiative to reduce teenage pregnancies more than doubled the number of girls conceiving.

The Government-backed scheme tried to persuade teenage girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex.

But research funded by the Department of Health shows that young women who attended the programme, at a cost of £2,500 each, were 'significantly' more likely to become pregnant than those on other youth programmes who were not given contraception and sex advice.

A total of 16 per cent of those on the Young People's Development Programme conceived compared with just 6 per cent in other programmes.

Experts said the scheme failed because it introduced girls 'at risk' of becoming pregnant to promiscuous girls they might not otherwise have met.

Because of peer pressure, the more timid teenagers were more likely to have sex and become pregnant.

The £5.9million YPDP programme was also designed to slash cannabis use and drunkenness among teenagers, but made no difference whatsoever.

Last night ministers pledged to drop the scheme after admitting it had failed. Around 40,000 teenage girls become pregnant every year in the UK, the highest level in western Europe.

The failed YPDP, launched in 2004, was based on a similar scheme in New York claimed to have significantly reduced teenage pregnancies.

However, attempts to replicate the work elsewhere in the U.S. did not lead to a fall in teenage pregnancies, casting doubt on the project as a whole.

Let's see, teach kids about sex and hand them condoms and teen pregnancies more than double. Who'd a thunk it? Maybe Texas was right to drop the state's health education requirement (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6518304.html).

Your turn...

Sex education begins at birth with parents as teachers. Unfortunately, parents have been notoriously poor (scared, uninformed, inadequate) teachers. The first question should be, how do we remedy that so sex education doesn't fall to the schools?

The first question should be, how do we remedy that so sex education doesn't fall to the schools?

Wow, I'm actually surprised at your answer. That's a sensible question that deserves serious consideration.

I think it is important to teach teens about safe sex. The fact is, while abstinence is the best option, teens will do what teens want so they might as well be safe. I can't say that I agree handing out condoms to just everyone is such a great idea. Isn't that like saying "drinking and driving is bad." and then handing someone a six pack and keys?

I think it be great if we could just rely on parents to teach their children about sex too. But considering how many parents can't even teach their children not to run and shout inside a crowded store or restaurant, can't teach their children to say please and thank you even, I don't know that I have much hope for all parents teaching their children much about sex.

Hello Steve:

This from the linked article:

A Department of Health spokesman said: 'This pilot was based on a successful American programme. It did not appear to reduce teenage pregnancy so we will not be taking it any further.'

----------------

I don't know why it doesn't work on European girls, but it apparently worked here. You don't want to be influenced by those Europeans anyway, do you? Next you'll be listening to the French.

excon

If parents would pull their heads out of their @$$ this stuff would work. My high school handed out condoms you know how many kids I have 0. You know how many girls I got pregnant who then had abortions 0.

I credit both my parents and my high school sex ed class for this. I can still see those pictures of guys who had STD's nasty stuff man.

Hello Steve:

This from the linked article:

A Department of Health spokesman said: 'This pilot was based on a successful American programme. It did not appear to reduce teenage pregnancy so we will not be taking it any further.'

----------------

I dunno why it doesn't work on European girls, but it apparently worked here. You don't want to be influenced by those Europeans anyway, do you? Next you'll be listening to the French.

It also says (which I highlighted) "attempts to replicate the work elsewhere in the U.S. did not lead to a fall in teenage pregnancies, casting doubt on the project as a whole."

Sex education begins at birth with parents as teachers.

And it should stay there.


Unfortunately, parents have been notoriously poor (scared, uninformed, inadequate) teachers. The first question should be, how do we remedy that so sex education doesn't fall to the schools?

Oh, that's easy. Just stop teaching sex ed in schools. It's not the government's job, it's not the school's job. It is the job of parents. Regardless of whether the parents do the job well or not, schools should stay out of it. It ain't the public school's job to fix the failings of parents.

THAT is how you remedy it so that it doesn't fall to the schools. You simply leave them out of it.

Elliot

Hello Steve:

This from the linked article:

A Department of Health spokesman said: 'This pilot was based on a successful American programme. It did not appear to reduce teenage pregnancy so we will not be taking it any further.'

----------------

I dunno why it doesn't work on European girls, but it apparently worked here. You don't want to be influenced by those Europeans anyway, do you? Next you'll be listening to the French.

excon

"Successful" as defined by whom? By that DOH official, certainly. But how did he measure "success" of the American system. Statistically speaking, it's been as much of a failure in the USA as it was in the UK. So I'm not sure how he is defining "success" in the system.

On the other hand, it seems that the UK knows enough to stop what ain't working. The USA could learn from our British cousins.

Elliot

I am biased on this answer... I for one, have been teaching my daughter, who is 5, all I can. (within reason of course! She is only 5) mostly about 'good touch bad touch' for now, and stranger danger.

I was raped when I was 11, because I didn't know what the guy was doing to me until it hurt, in which case it was too late, he was 19 and very capable of holding me down.

We didn't have sex ed in schools (nor did my parents teach me about it) until I was 13. Had I KNOWN about any of it, I would NOT have followed this guy into the woods like he asked me to.

So yeah... I will be teaching my daughter as soon as she can understand it. I want her SAFE. I don't want her to go through what I did.

But then again, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. Yes... she may get pregnant as a teen... however, as horrible as it sounds, I would MUCH MUCH MUCH rather her have sex CONSENTUALLY, and on her own terms, and ENJOY it, than have her be raped.

Being raped so young completely DESTROYED my chances at a NORMALY sexual life. Fortunately my hsuband is patient with my fears and flashbacks, but my child should NOT have to deal with this...



Wow sorry to rant...

Yeah... I am completely FOR sex education! And I say it should be a normal part of the education process.

Does anybody else see the coloration between the sexual revolution of the 60's and the rise in STD's and teen pregnancies?
Bottom line is no matter how much Sex education kids get, it will never stop the problem. The problem has to be attacked on moral, yes religious grounds. Our society needs to return to a moral society. Then and only then will this problem actually go down.

Hello 450:

I see a connection between the PILL and the sexual revolution. Now we simply need people to USE it. I suggest that what lies in the way of full compliance, is sex education - or the lack thereof.

Morals has nothing to do with it. In fact, there are good and moral people who engage in non-marital sex. I know you think they're all going to hell, but that's another thread.

excon

The catholic school down the street from my public high school had more teen pregnancy then my school. And they didn't have any sex ed class.

Does anybody else see the coloration between the sexual revolution of the 60's and the rise in STD's and teen pregnancies??
Bottom line is no matter how much Sex education kids get, it will never stop the problem. The problem has to be attacked on moral, yes religious grounds. Our society needs to return to a moral society. Then and only then will this problem actually go down.
No one (especially not someone from a Christian home) EVER got pregnant sans marriage before the late '60s...

Yeah, I went to a private school. Grades k-8.the church tried to do this coffee house thing to get people together and create a fun social environment. They stopped it because they caught too many 7th and 8th graders having a little too much fun...
And the girls that seemed to be the most promiscuous were the ons from the families the most involved in the church. At least one of the girls from my class whose family was deeply involved in the church (I think there were about 13 girls total) had her first baby when she was about 17.

Wondergirl, I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not... but that's not true...


People were having premarital sex and having babies before marriage LONG before the 60s. They were known as spinsters. And they just weren't talked about. Like child abuse. Its something that's kept behing closed doors. 'its a family issue' was the trend back then.

Its always happened. We are just more aware of it now.

Hello 450:

I see a connection between the PILL and the sexual revolution. Now we simply need people to USE it. I suggest that what lies in the way of full compliance, is sex education - or the lack thereof.

Morals has nothing to do with it. In fact, there are good and moral people who engage in non-marital sex. I know you think they're all going to hell, but that's another thread.

excon
Anyone who reads the pregnancy questions posted on this site will realize that today's teens have no interest in birth control. They can get it for free, easily, without parents knowing, but it's not something they think seriously about (especially not at that party at Suzy's house last week).

wondergirl, im not sure if you were being sarcastic or not...but thats not true...


people were having premarital sex and having babies before marriage LONG before the 60s. they were known as spinsters. and they just werent talked about. like child abuse. its something thats kept behing closed doors. 'its a family issue' was the trend back then.

its always happend. we are just more aware of it now.
I was being sarcastic (thus the "................"). I can give you a list of names of my high school classmates who were having sex and "backstreet abortions" and secret babies back in the early '60s.

They were not known as spinsters. Those were the women who never married.

Yes, unwed mothers were talked about, but not out loud, just in hushed whispers. Pregnant girls were sent away to an aunt's for "schooling" or "vacation" or "to lend a hand" until after the baby was born and given up for adoption.

Anyone who reads the pregnancy questions posted on this site will realize that today's teens have no interest in birth control. They can get it for free, easily, without parents knowing, but it's not something they think seriously about (especially not at that party at Suzy's house last week).Hello CB:

Then their fathers should strap on a chastity belt. I'll bet 450 approves of THAT!

excon

And it should stay there.



Oh, that's easy. Just stop teaching sex ed in schools. It's not the government's job, it's not the school's job. It is the job of parents. Regardless of whether the parents do the job well or not, schools should stay out of it. It ain't the public school's job to fix the failings of parents.

THAT is how you remedy it so that it doesn't fall to the schools. You simply leave them out of it.

Elliot

That's what NOT to do. What is your solution TO DO when parents fall short with educating their kids, and the fall out is unwanted babies and tax payer burden.

I was being sarcastic (thus the "................"). I can give you a list of names of my high school classmates who were having sex and "backstreet abortions" and secret babies back in the early '60s.

They were not known as spinsters. Those were the women who never married.

Yes, unwed mothers were talked about, but not out loud, just in hushed whispers. Pregnant girls were sent away to an aunt's for "schooling" or "vacation" or "to lend a hand" until after the baby was born and given up for adoption.

Ahhh see, I misudnerstood the term spinster :) thanks.

I thought you were being sarcastic :P

Our society needs to return to a moral society. Then and only then will this problem actually go down.
I grew up in that moral society. It was in small-town America where every family was Catholic, Lutheran, or Methodist. All went to church on Sunday mornings (no stores were open and no work was done at home either). Families attended church picnics and vacation Bible school in the summer, and, by the time you were 16, you were expected to help out in Sunday School or go to the adult Bible classes. The church was the center of social life.

If that society was so moral, why did the kids drive up to Devil's Nose by the lake and "park"? Why were there "submarine races"? Why was the ride called "Over the Falls" the most popular for teens at Seabreeze Amusement Park? Did the fact that, before it went up and over the "falls," each boat floated along slowly inside a very dark tunnel have anything to do with it? Why did so many dates start in town at a movie, go to Dairy Queen, and end up in a cornfield? (Do you know how well-hidden a car is in a summer cornfield?)

I grew up in that moral society. It was in small-town America where every family was Catholic, Lutheran, or Methodist. All went to church on Sunday mornings (no stores were open and no work was done at home either). Families attended church picnics and vacation Bible school in the summer, and, by the time you were 16, you were expected to help out in Sunday School or go to the adult Bible classes. The church was the center of social life.

If that society was so moral, why did the kids drive up to Devil's Nose by the lake and "park"? Why were there "submarine races"? Why was the ride called "Over the Falls" the most popular for teens at Seabreeze Amusement Park? Did the fact that fact that, before it went up and over the "falls," each boat floated along slowly inside a very dark tunnel have anything to do with it? Why did so many dates start in town at a movie, go to Dairy Queen, and end up in a cornfield? (Do you know how well-hidden a car is in a summer cornfield?)

Well said :D

Hello again, Wondergirl:

I don't know. I grew up in a hip city to leftist parents who didn't go to church or Temple. I STILL wasn't getting any.

Maybe it was the cornfield. We didn't have any of them around.

excon

Anyone who reads the pregnancy questions posted on this site will realize that today's teens have no interest in birth control. They can get it for free, easily, without parents knowing, but it's not something they think seriously about (especially not at that party at Suzy's house last week).

In a culture that promotes promiscuity, sexual empowerment for teens, that makes contraceptives – even prescription contraceptives - readily available to kids and abortion providers that still agree to provide abortions to minors without parental consent in violation of state law, is it really any wonder that kids don’t listen to parents? Society has taught them to bypass parental values and authority.

That's what NOT to do. What is your solution TO DO when parents fall short with educating their kids, and the fall out is unwanted babies and tax payer burden.

Again blaming the parents for their 'shortfalls.' Why is it that no one else ever fails our kids, like Planned Parenthood and the schools?

In a culture that promotes promiscuity, sexual empowerment for teens, that makes contraceptives – even prescription contraceptives - readily available to kids and abortion providers that still agree to provide abortions to minors without parental consent in violation of state law, is it really any wonder that kids don’t listen to parents? Society has taught them to bypass parental values and authority.
But the parents aren't the ones telling them anything. So why don't kids use readily-available birth control? Certainly teens have good common sense and know that a pregnancy can result from having sex...

But the parents aren't the ones telling them anything. So why don't kids use readily-available birth control? Certainly teens have good common sense and know that a pregnancy can result from having sex...................

Not sure what you meant by that first line, but I don't really know that anyone, schools or parents can get through to many teens in the face of the culture they live in... but I'd generally rather it be left up to the parents.

Bottom line is, there isn't much you can do about it.

I am biased on this answer....I for one, have been teaching my daughter, who is 5, all i can. (within reason of course! she is only 5) mostly about 'good touch bad touch' for now, and stranger danger.

i was raped when i was 11, because i didnt know what the guy was doing to me untill it hurt, in which case it was too late, he was 19 and very capable of holding me down.

we didnt have sex ed in schools (nor did my parents teach me about it) untill i was 13. had i KNOWN about any of it, i would NOT have followed this guy into the woods like he asked me to.

so yeah...i will be teaching my daughter as soon as she can understand it. i want her SAFE. i dont want her to go thru what i did.

but then again, im on the oposite end of the spectrum. yes...she may get pregnant as a teen...however, as horrible as it sounds, i would MUCH MUCH MUCH rather her have sex CONSENTUALLY, and on her own terms, and ENJOY it, than have her be raped.

being raped so young completely DESTROYED my chances at a NORMALY sexual life. fortunately my hsuband is patient with my fears and flashbacks, but my child should NOT have to deal with this...



wow sorry to rant...

yeah...i am completely FOR sex education! and i say it should be a normal part of the education process.

Jenniepepsi,

Your story is a touching one. I am sorry for the experience you had as a kid. BTW, I was also molested as a kid by a trusted adult, so I know a bit about what you are speaking.

I think that you are taking the right approach with your daughter. YOU are taking the responsibility to teach her what you think she is able to handle, rather than relying on a school system to do it for you. I salute you for this.

I happen to have a background in the martial arts. I am teaching my 8-year-old son and 7-year-old daughter how to defend themselves. (I'm not teaching them the stuff you use in sparring or sport fighting. I'm teaching them the REAL martial arts... how to cause real damage to an opponent, including broken bones, torn muscles, dislocated joints and unconsciousness. I want my kids to REALLY be able to defend themselves.) That is part of my daughter's anti-rape and my son's anti-molestation training. In my judgement, they are too young to talk about sex at this point, so I am waiting for what I judge to be the right time to educate them in that area. But that's MY choice.

The point is that I'm taking that responsibility on myself, not leaving it to their schools. Sex ed, including education about sexual predation, is too important an issue to leave to the state or the schools.

Thanks for your story. It is a compelling one.

Elliot

In ireland it is a falsely held belief that if you have a baby you will get free housing.. however you can get on a housing list and usually within 3 years you will get free housing with reduced rent.
What you do get is a lone parents allowance from the social welfare,rent allowance,free medical,free dental treatment and when your child attends school another allowance to cover the cost of their education.
As a single mother you are entitled to a back to work allowance ALONG with your other social welfare allowances,grants for college,oh,and a child minding grant!

Sounds good.

Our social welfare system is broke.

My two teenage daughters are going on 17 and 18 and have only gotten one 40 min sex education class since they started school.

At the end of the current school year 3 girls under the age of 17 were pregnant in their school,and proud of it,as were there parents.

How the hell do you fight a system that only verbally bow hoos teen pregnancy,but supports it with their actions.

I would also like to say that I was also a teen mother,and used,yes used the very same system for two years,to further my education and become independent of the state.
The system here makes it easy to sit back and take advantage..
A time limit on social welfare supports should be in place,or at least policed so the recipient is forced to avaluate their situation and make improved ajustments to better their position.

Hello 450:

I see a connection between the PILL and the sexual revolution. Now we simply need people to USE it. I suggest that what lies in the way of full compliance, is sex education - or the lack thereof.

I agree. The most effective way to use the pill is to have the female squeeze it tightly between her knees. Any other method of use still leaves the possibility of pregnancy, AND the possibility of STDs.


Morals has nothing to do with it. In fact, there are good and moral people who engage in non-marital sex. I know you think they're all going to hell, but that's another thread.

Excon

You're right, excon. Morals have nothing to do with it. But what you teach kids is what kids do. If you teach them about having sex, they will have sex.

For you, the goal seems to be preventing teen pregnancy because it's bad for kids. Not because of the moral issues, but because of the health issues.

For me, the goal is preventing teen sex because it's bad for kids. Not because of the moral issues, but because of the health issues.

And the fact is that preventing teen sex is less likely to result in teen pregnancy or STD transmission than teaching them to use a condom or the pill. That is a fact that you simply cannot spin. Unless you happen to be Christian and believe in the immaculate conception, it is impossible for someone who has not had sex to become pregnant. And even if you are Christian and believe in the story of Jesus, the liklihood of it happening AGAIN, 2000 years after the last time it happened, is minimal... much lower than the chances of getting pregnant using a condom or with birth control.

BTW, my wife became pregnant with my 2nd child while she was on a birth control pill. They aren't all that effective, truth to tell. And condoms break. They are less than 100% effective. And many STDs are not prevented through condom use anyway.

Teaching sex ed is much less effective a method than teaching abstinence.

In any case, the question isn't WHAT we should teach. The question is WHO should be doing the teaching. I think that's the parents' prerogative. You, as usual, want to rely on the government to take care of it for you.

I don't trust the government that far. There was a time you didn't either, but you've changed over time. The government should teach kids about sex, should take care of your medical care, etc.

What ever happened to your healthy libertarian distrust of government?

You've become a shill for The Man. It's rather disappointing.

Elliot

Again blaming the parents for their 'shortfalls.' Why is it that no one else ever fails our kids, like Planned Parenthood and the schools?

Because ET doesn't believe in Planned Parenthood and the schools teaching sex ed.. So my question to him is where do they get correct info when the parent falls short. He says it is only the parent's job. He does not have a solution for when the parent does not do it.
I say don't complain if you don't have a better solution.

The system here makes it easy to sit back and take advantage..
A time limit on social welfare supports should be in place,or at least policed so the recipient is forced to avaluate their situation and make improved ajustments to better their position.

Unfortunately our system works much the same way.

Because ET doesn't believe in Planned Parenthood and the schools teaching sex ed.. So my question to him is where do they get correct info when the parent falls short. He says it is only the parent's job. He does not have a solution for when the parent does not do it.
I say don't complain if you don't have a better solution.

I think you missed the point. Whether Elliot believes in PP or sex ed in schools is irrelevant to my question. Why is it that no one else ever fails our kids, like Planned Parenthood and the schools? Why do people on your side of the fence on this always blame the parents?

Not sure what you meant by that first line, but I don't really know that anyone, schools or parents can get through to many teens in the face of the culture they live in...but I'd generally rather it be left up to the parents.
Parents (and the church), if they tried (and most of the time, they didn't), didn't get through to the teens back in the '40s and '50s and '60s either.

they are too young to talk about sex at this point
You've already missed the boat with them. Sex should be part of the conversation from birth on. You don't think their peers talk about sex?

You're right, excon. Morals have nothing to do with it. But what you teach kids is what kids do. If you teach them about having sex, they will have sex.
Back when rocks were cooling, most of my peers' parents never said a word about sex to their kids. Mum was the word. Parents knew kids would immediately try it if they were taught anything about sex. We kids were supposed to figure out everything by osmosis. Most of them did by trial and error--in the back seats of cars, in hay lofts, in dark stairwells, at home where parents were out shopping, at home in the rec room with parents upstairs in the living room.

I grew up in that moral society. It was in small-town America where every family was Catholic, Lutheran, or Methodist. All went to church on Sunday mornings (no stores were open and no work was done at home either). Families attended church picnics and vacation Bible school in the summer, and, by the time you were 16, you were expected to help out in Sunday School or go to the adult Bible classes. The church was the center of social life.

If that society was so moral, why did the kids drive up to Devil's Nose by the lake and "park"? Why were there "submarine races"? Why was the ride called "Over the Falls" the most popular for teens at Seabreeze Amusement Park? Did the fact that, before it went up and over the "falls," each boat floated along slowly inside a very dark tunnel have anything to do with it? Why did so many dates start in town at a movie, go to Dairy Queen, and end up in a cornfield? (Do you know how well-hidden a car is in a summer cornfield?)


Really amazing WG you again did not read what I said. I said it would go down! I never said or implied teen pregnancy or the spread of STD's would be eliminated. All you as a librarian need to do is look at the statistics for the transmission of STD's and teen pregnancy and you can see when it really started it's climb. It was in the 60's.

Our society needs to return to a moral society. Then and only then will this problem actually go down.
That will never happen. The worm has turned. You can't stuff the genie (I. e. freedom, personal rights) back into the bottle. There's no way to force this country into what you call a "moral society" again short of a nuclear catastrophe or some kind of decimation of the population where theocrats are in charge. Please hand me a burqa now already.

Hello Righty's:

Here's the problem. You don't want sex education in school. You don't want condoms handed to your kids. You're NOT going to teach them at home about sex. You pretend that they won't have sex. When they get pregnant, you don't want them to have an abortion. After the baby is born, you don't care about the baby's welfare, his health or even if he lives on the street.

You guys are a piece of work.

excon

Really amazing WG you again did not read what I said. I said it would go down! I never said or implied teen pregnancy or the spread of STD's would be eliminated. All you as a librarian need to do is look at the statistics for the transmission of STD's and teen pregnancy and you can see when it really started it's climb. It was in the 60's.
And women didn't have to be at home any longer 24/7, but could have jobs and freedom. People could buy fresh meat after six p.m. and could shop at many places after that same time; stores stayed open until 9! Expressways and interstates were built across the U.S. so it no longer took six days to travel from NC to ID. People didn't have to always dress like they were going to church; dress became more casual. Married women didn't have worry about producing more children than they could afford. Society (slowly) became more egalitarian with equal advantages, so people could work for success. (Color) Television came into many homes, adding entertainment and educational possibilities.

Hello Righty's:

Here's the problem. You don't want sex education in school. You don't want condoms handed to your kids. You're NOT going to teach them at home about sex. You pretend that they won't have sex. When they get pregnant, you don't want them to have an abortion. After the baby is born, you don't care about the baby's welfare, his health or even if he lives on the street.

You guys are a piece of work.

excon

Ex, sorry buddy but that's bullsh*t. You oughtta know better by now than to try and get such such BS past me.

ex, sorry buddy but that's bullsh*t. You oughtta know better by now than to try and get such such BS past me.
That's what the parents in the '30s and '40s and '50s and early '60s did -- they did not talk about sex, because talking about it would make their kids want to try it out. If parents didn't mention it, the kids would never, ever know about it until their wedding night.

That's what the parents in the '30s and '40s and '50s and early '60s did -- they did not talk about sex, because talking about it would make their kids want to try it out. If parents didn't mention it, the kids would never, ever know about it until their wedding night.

What does what ex said have to do with what "parents in the '30s and '40s and '50s and early '60s" did? He's talking about us - now - and it's bullsh*t.

You don't want sex education in school. You don't want condoms handed to your kids. You're NOT going to teach them at home about sex. You pretend that they won't have sex. When they get pregnant, you don't want them to have an abortion. After the baby is born, you don't care about the baby's welfare, his health or even if he lives on the street.
He's talking about us - now - and it's bullsh*t.Hello again, Steve:

I know you don't like it put into such crass terms, but what, in particular, wasn't correct?

The only thing that MIGHT be incorrect, is what you right winged Christians teach your children about sex. My GUESS is you don't include birth control in that discussion, and the main thrust (pun intended) would be to WAIT until marriage to have sex.

Please tell me about your support for the poor single mothers and their hungry children. I must have missed it. As a matter of fact, didn't one of your rightwinged sisters, a CONGRESSWOMAN in fact, say recently that hunger is a good motivator for kids?? She DID!!

Do you want me to dig up her name? I will.

excon

Back when rocks were cooling, most of my peers' parents never said a word about sex to their kids. Mum was the word. Parents knew kids would immediately try it if they were taught anything about sex. We kids were supposed to figure out everything by osmosis. Most of them did by trial and error--in the back seats of cars, in hay lofts, in dark stairwells, at home where parents were out shopping, at home in the rec room with parents upstairs in the living room.

Yep... alll true. And you know what? Fewer kids got pregnant. Fewer people got STDs. Seems to me that despite the fact that so many people had to figure it out the hard way on their wedding nights and the fact that so many teens didn't know how and usually ended up making a fool of themselves with a girl in the hayloft or in the back seat of their Chevy, things were actually better. There was lot's of "heavy petting" as it was called, but very little actual sex. There were fewer kids getting in trouble with pregnancy or getting sick from STDs.

And if the goal of sex ed, as most proponents say, is to prevent teen pregnancy and prevent STDs, then perhaps we should go back to what worked in the old days.

Yeah, kids fumbled around more... and even adults fumbled around more. So what? Kids were safer, and adults still figured out how to make babies for the next generation of kids.

Seems to me that the good ol' days really were good.

Elliot

Hello Righty's:

Here's the problem. You don't want sex education in school. You don't want condoms handed to your kids. You're NOT going to teach them at home about sex. You pretend that they won't have sex. When they get pregnant, you don't want them to have an abortion. After the baby is born, you don't care about the baby's welfare, his health or even if he lives on the street.

You guys are a piece of work.

excon

Here's the problem as I see it: You want the government to teach your kids about sex, because you're too lazy to do it yourself. You want the government to pay for your abortions, because you don't want to pay for them yourself. You want the government to hand out condoms because you're too lazy to keep an eye on your kids and keep them out of trouble yourself. You want the government to pay for the kids health care because you're too cheap and lazy to do it yourself. You want the government to give the kid benefits paid for by the tax dollars earned by others because you're too cheap and lazy to pay for it yourself. And you don't give a cr@p about how paying for all this affects the rest of the people, because you are too self-centered to care about anyone but yourself and the benefits you think you deserve.

You guys are a piece of work.

Elliot

Hello again, Steve:

I know you don't like it put into such crass terms, but what, in particular, wasn't correct?

Most of it.


You don't want sex education in school.

Not true, we don't want Planned Parenthood type "comprehensive sex education" from kindergarten on. We don't want schools and pro-abortion groups like PP undermining parental authority. We want the option to opt out of programs that offend our morals and undermine our rights as parents. In short, we want to retain our right to be the parent, free from what we see as the damaging, offensive, one-sided bullsh*t propagandas and agendas of these groups.


You don't want condoms handed to your kids.

True.


You're NOT going to teach them at home about sex.

A bold assumption which you admit.


You pretend that they won't have sex.

There is no evidence to come to that conclusion. We're not clueless neanderthals.


When they get pregnant, you don't want them to have an abortion.

True. And according to the rhetoric from abortion providers, neither do they. They SAY they want abortion to be rare, but it's "just words."


After the baby is born, you don't care about the baby's welfare, his health or even if he lives on the street.

That is the biggest bullsh*t line of them all. Who do you think is at the forefront of promoting and facilitating adoption, ministering to the emotional needs of women in crisis, providing shelters, food, clothing, diapers and other assistance? It darn sure isn't Planned Parenthood.


My GUESS is you don't include birth control in that discussion, and the main thrust (pun intended) would be to WAIT until marriage to have sex.

Guess being the operative word. And what's wrong if our main 'thrust' would be to wait, they're MY kids not yours.


Please tell me about your support for the poor single mothers and their hungry children. I must have missed it.

You must have because I have documented here recently, reluctantly. I don't generally talk about what I do for others because I don't need the validation and what I do is between me, them and God. If you look, you'll find it... and you'll also see one of my foes on this subject acknowledge it.


As a matter of fact, didn't one of your rightwinged sisters, a CONGRESSWOMAN in fact, say recently that hunger is a good motivator for kids?? She DID!!

And I have to pay for what one moron said? I'll remember that next time Biden opens his mouth.

That's what the parents in the '30s and '40s and '50s and early '60s did -- they did not talk about sex, because talking about it would make their kids want to try it out. If parents didn't mention it, the kids would never, ever know about it until their wedding night.

Yep. And it worked. Fewer kids got pregnant. Fewer got STDs. A few did, but much fewer than today, despite sex ed supposedly designed to prevent teen pregnancies and STDs.

Elliot

I think the point everyone is trying to make is that it is the parents responsibility to teach their kids about sex. But when parents don't teach their kids about sex or they only teach them half of what the kids should know then the school should step in and do something about it.

But as usual that goes over the rights head and they think the left wants the government to do it. Which is not true at all.

Or does it? Yeah I'm daring to go there again...

Let's see, teach kids about sex and hand them condoms and teen pregnancies more than double. Who'd a thunk it? Maybe Texas was right to drop the state's health education requirement (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6518304.html).

Your turn...

I have been saying for years (at least 15 yrs) that the sex education system as it is is what is causing teens to become pregnant. Having more relationships and basically turning many into sluts and unwed mothers. That is why they were trying to introduce the abstinence alternative to be taught along side the sex education.
I think there is something wrong with a society that has kids coming to sites like this asking what is wrong with them because they are 16 or 22 and still a virgin.
I have been telling people for years that the more sexual relationships you get into and the more porn you are watching the more desensitized you can become. I see how males have such a hard time bonding any more and I believe that the convenience of sex is only the tip of the ice berg.

I actually got the facts on what I have been talking about now.


Hug the Monkey: Oxytocin: The Book (http://www.hugthemonkey.com/2006/10/love_chemistry__1.html)

His Brain, Her Brain: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=his-brain-her-brain)

I think the point everyone is trying to make is that it is the parents responsibility to teach their kids about sex.

Well, that's the point that we conservatives are making. The libs seem to be up in the air on that one. Many seem to believe that it is primarily the job of the schools.


But when parents don't teach their kids about sex or they only teach them half of what the kids should know then the school should step in and do something about it.

Here is where we conservatives disagree. We believe that even if parents fail to do the job, it is NOT the job of the schools or the government to teach sex ed to our kids.


But as usual that goes over the rights head and they think the left wants the government to do it. Which is not true at all.

Ahh... but they do. Or at least some of them do. If Excon is to be believed, only the schools can possibly do the job right. It seems that many others share that opinion.

Seems to me that you can only talk about what YOU believe. YOU believe that the job is really with the parents, but if they fail, then it's the job of the schools. Excon seems to disagree with your representation, and you have misprepresented what I believe as well, and what I believe that other conservatives here believe.

So... rather than try to explain "the point that everyone is trying to make", why don't you stick to making the point that YOU want to make. Let others make their own point.

Elliot

But as usual that goes over the rights head and they think the left wants the government to do it. Which is not true at all.

Come on spit, I've seen at least twice here that we parents are failures so these things MUST be taught in school, and I've argued with them enough to know that's in spite of our wishes.

Yes they insist it is up to the schools or we wouldn't be where we are today. Back in the 60's the subject was taboo so many parents didn't tell their kids anything so the people that wanted sex education used that to their advantage and look where it has gotten us.
Teens having babies and having the social programs support them. Then the tax payers complain that the money is coming out of their pocket yet they do not connect the dots that led it to this.

You may claim it is not the left pushing these but the Right has always been about morality. Remember the left mocking 'the moral majority' in the 80's

I think there is something wrong with a society that has kids coming to sites like this asking what is wrong with them because they are 16 or 22 and still a virgin.

Bingo, you couldn't have hit the nail more squarely on its head.

Seems to me that the good ol' days really were good.
And I have to pay for what one moron said? I'll remember that next time Biden opens his mouth.Hello El and Steve:

You guys always bring up morons from the left. I'll stop if you'll stop.

Yes, El, the old days were good. But, it had nothing to do with MORALS, as you would have us believe. It had to do with pregnancy. The pill took care of that.

So, as good as the old days were, we are NOT going to DIS-INVENT the birth control pill. I'm sorry to bring you the news, but the "old days" ain't going to happen again. To WISH that they would magically reappear isn't a very smart political position.

excon

Here is where we conservatives disagree. We believe that even if parents fail to do the job, it is NOT the job of the schools or the government to teach sex ed to our kids.


If I read your comment correctly even if a parent does a P*ss poor job of educating their child then the child should just remain ignorant of sex. Basically let them get a STD or get pregnant and that'll learn 'em.

You don't see a flaw in that approach?

ET someone has to pick up the slack for the good of the country.

If parents would pull their heads out of their @$$ this stuff would work. My high school handed out condoms you know how many kids I have 0. You know how many girls I got pregnant who then had abortions 0.

I credit both my parents and my high school sex ed class for this. I can still see those pictures of guys who had STD's nasty stuff man.

Same here. I couldn't agree more. I credit my parents and my sex ed teachers in high school. I too, have zero kids and have had zero abortions.

The problem is that it is being treated like an either/or thing either we go back to the mistakes of the 50's and 60's or we keep having the schools doing what they have been doing and having the problems it creates.

The way it is now kids see sex as something you have to do to be normal.

I think the major point that is being over looked is teaching the kids responsibility

What ever happened to the program where the kids had to take the doll and could not leave it. If it cried you had to get it to calm down. If you left it unattended it cried.
Also the empathy pregnancy thing where you wear a thing that lets you feel how a pregnant woman feels.
Then there is the fact that many guys are paying child support out to different moms for the next 18 years or more.
Then there is the fact that many teen moms get tired of the responsibility of being mom and want their teen life back and end up passing the baby off to their mom.

The most effective thing though I think may be to teach kids about finding real love and not settling for less because of the oxytocin and bonding and how having sex outside of a good relation can diminish bonding abilities and desensitizes them to truly loving.
Which is why I believe many guys find it hard to actually be a good boyfriend and why many girls are crying that he changed over the months or years. They simply mistake the sex for the love and then the novelty of the sex wears off.

http://www.bio.uci.edu/public/press/2005/hisherbrain.pdf


Research has shown that women who were currently involved in a committed relationship experienced greater oxytocin swells in response to positive emotions than single women, leading researchers to speculate that a close, regular relationship may influence the responsiveness of the hormone. So, do the math:

•Oxytocin is produced as a result of touch
•Oxytocin causes feelings of intimacy and closeness
•Oxytocin triggers powerful orgasms
•Women in committed relationships experience enhanced oxytocin production
The facts would suggest that women in committed relationships have better sex!

Oxytocin Hormone: The Cuddle Hormone is the Body's Own Love Potion - Filly.ca (http://www.filly.ca/health/body/sexual_health/Oxytocin.asp)

Teen Abstinence Oxytocin (http://www.ampartnership.org/TeenAbstinenceOxytocin.asp)

Hello El and Steve:

You guys always bring up morons from the left. I'll stop if you'll stop.

The difference is we don't judge all of the left by one moron, we criticize our own morons like Mark Sanford and the foot tapper for instance, PLUS we don't celebrate our morons like "cold cash" Jefferson and that slippery Murtha (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/07/another-shoe-drops-for-murtha/)guy.

Hey speech didn't Murtha Say he does it all for his constituents and he would do it again?! What a Dbag

Yep it took more than one moron to screw up politics as well as it took one moron to screw up social problems.

If I read your comment correctly even if a parent does a P*ss poor job of educating their child then the child should just remain ignorant of sex. Basically let them get a STD or get pregnant and that'll learn 'em.

You don't see a flaw in that approach?

ET someone has to pick up the slack for the good of the country.

That is the flaw I see in Ets way. He does not provide a back up plan. It would be great if all parents did their job correctly, but when they don't , who steps in? I'm waiting on his answer because he seems to always answer by saying... It's not the goverments job, or the schools job. Should there not be a back up plan?

Hello El and Steve:

You guys always bring up morons from the left. I'll stop if you'll stop.

Yes, El, the old days were good. But, it had nothing to do with MORALS, as you would have us believe. It had to do with pregnancy. The pill took care of that.

Huh... I think you are confused here. In the old days (30s - 60s), teens didn't get pregnant because they didn't have sex. They didn't have sex because nobody taught them how. The pill is NOT the reason they didn't get pregnant.

Sex ed taught kids who would otherwise not known about sex how to have sex. The pill gave them the excuse to have sex without worrying about getting pregnant. Problem is that the pill isn't 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. Not even close. And it most certainly doesn't stop the spread of STDs.

I say things were better in the 30s-60s when kids just didn't have sex.


So, as good as the old days were, we are NOT going to DIS-INVENT the birth control pill.

I'm not saying we should disinvent the pill. I'm saying we should disinvent sex ed.


I'm sorry to bring you the news, but the "old days" ain't going to happen again. To WISH that they would magically reappear isn't a very smart political position.

Excon

Is there a reason that eliminating sex ed from schools is an impossible political position? I certainly don't think so. It is very likely to happen. Just as in the UK, they are dropping the program because it has failed based on the numbers (see the OP), we could just as easily drop it here.

As for issues of morality, YOU are the one arguing about morality. I'm talking about the numbers. MORE kids are getting pregnant today than in the old days. MORE kids are getting STDs than in the old days. Sex ed has not served to reduce the number of teen pregnancies or the spread of STDs. Ergo, sex ed in schools is a failure at it's stated goal. What we had BEFORE sex ed worked better at preventing teen pregnancy and STD spread. It's not a moral issue, it's a simple numbers issue. And the numbers alone say you are wrong in supporting sex ed.

But you can't argue with those facts and numbers, so you prefer to question my moral position... a moral position that I haven't even brought up.

You're floundering, excon.

Elliot

If I read your comment correctly even if a parent does a P*ss poor job of educating their child then the child should just remain ignorant of sex. Basically let them get a STD or get pregnant and that'll learn 'em.

You don't see a flaw in that approach?

ET someone has to pick up the slack for the good of the country.

Actually, what I'm saying --- and the historical numbers bear this up as fact --- is that kids without sex ed are less likely to have sex, get pregnant or have STDs. Kids from the 1930s-1960s didn't have sex ed, and had sex before marriage much less often. That is historical fact, and not really subject to debate. You can try, the but the numbers are pretty cut and dry.

Therefore, if I do, as you say, "a pi$$ poor job" of educating my kids about sex, there is a greater likelihood they won't have sex in the first place. Which means they won't get pregnant or get STDs.

In your hypothetical case of me doing a "pi$$ poor job" of teaching my kids about sex and then not having sex ed in school, my kids are less likely to have sex than a similar kid who is poorly educated at home and DOES have sex ed in school.

So again, given your hypothetical case, I'd say the country is better off without sex ed in schools to teach kids how to screw around. A kids who is completely clueless about sex is less likely to engage in it than one who has the book knowledge from a sex ed class. Again, we can compare the example of the kids of the 30s - 60s, who's parents didn't teach them sex and neither did their schools, to today's kids who's parents don't teach them about sex, but who DO get sex ed in school. The kids who didn't have sex ed were less likely to have sex than the ones with sex ed.

So in response to your final sentence: NO, we don't have to pick up the slack for the good of the country. Trying to pick up the slack for the good of the country is what caused the problem in the first place and has resulted in that problem growing, not shrinking as expected.

Elliot

ET did I say you did a P*ss poor job or did I say a parent. Man you got some ego on you to think I was saying you did a P*ss poor job. But I would expect that from someone who thinks he is wolverine.

All I can say is thank goodness that my parents and my sex ed teacher did their jobs or maybe I would have a 15 year old right now.

ET did i say you did a P*ss poor job or did i say a parent. Man you got some ego on you to think I was saying you did a P*ss poor job. But i would expect that from someone who thinks he is wolverine.

All I can say is thank goodness that my parents and my sex ed teacher did their jobs or maybe I would have a 15 year old right now.

I never accused you of saying it was me you were referring to. I was using myself as an example because it's less impolite than saying "you". "I" and "me" statements are just more polite than trying to point to others.

You seem to spitting quite a bit of venom at others today for no reason...

Elliot

I apologize then I admit I am feeling a bit ornery today. Just itching to get done this week and go on vacation.

I didn't want to say you did a bad job because it sounds like you teach your kids well.

I apologize then I admit I am feeling a bit ornery today. Just itching to get done this week and go on vacation.

I didn't want to say you did a bad job because it sounds like you teach your kids well.

I appreciate that. No harm done.

Or as they say where I come from, "No blood no foul." ;)

Elliot

Yes no blood no foul!! Words I live by!

My children brought home letters from school a few weeks ago asking for my consent on sex education lessons.

It is a new lesson starting from age 4-12 in our school.
After a bot of thought I gathered if the school thought it a good lesson then I would agree.

My 5 and 7 year old's first lesson was them being introduced to massage!
Yes you can imagine the thoughts running through my head when I asked them about school lessons that day and my 6 year old son piped up " we did massage on introduced".

I then was informed that the massage class was to teach the children that before we touch another person we have to ALWAYS ALWAYS ask permission and no matter how much we want to touch that person if they say NO then NO means No.
I thought it a very positive approach to them being taught to respect other's bodies.

My 10 year old on the other side had a more productive lesson.
While I was having a bath she came to sit and her nightly girly mum and daughter chat.
I almost drowned when she piped up " You have had sex 5 times mum aint you!?
"Why do you think that " I managed to ask
She then went on to inform me that to have babies you have to have sex and as I have 5 children I have in her account had sex 5 times. This she was pleased with.
When I informed her that you can have sexual intercourse without the result of a baby she found it disgusting! She could not understand if you did not want a baby why would you want to do such a thing.

My 10 year old now knows all about the protective contraception methods ( she listed more than I could think of)

Then bless she pointed to my cotton wool pads ( make up remover pads) and stated proudly she would need them soon.
I asked why 9expecting her to say she would be using my foundation soon) to be told " Well when I start bleeding I will need pads"
Bless xxxx

One other aspect of this discussion that so far has not been broached. Television/movies/advertising all have contributed to promiscuous sex which had brought on the discussion today. Kids just have too much time and too much money on their hands. One of the arguments has dealt with the 30's-60's. But you have to remember that prior to WWII this country was really more rural than urban. Kids were either going to school or working the family farm/ranch, and did not have time or money to get into trouble. It was a great occasion to go into town on a Saturday night to go to a movie. And when you went to that movie the most you would see might be a kiss. What is so bad about wanting to return our society to a time when you were not afraid to leave your home at night? Your kids could play in the neighborhood after dark with out fear of being snatched? And the worst thing that happened was the neighbors out house got tipped over. Why is it that liberals do not see the foolish path that we are being led down and not want change for the better. Heck, if you really want to get right down to it. If we were to return to a moral society maybe people like alkaida would stop trying to destroy us.

I say things were better in the 30s-60s when kids just didn't have sex.

Elliot

You better make sure they get sex off TV, music clips, magazines and every other form of media kids are exposed to these days as well... You're dreaming if you think eliminating sex ed will eliminate / reduce kids exposure to sex. Absolutely dreaming...

And I'm not a believer of comprehensive sex ed in schools. If some parents want to choose not to have their kids participate then fine. They can make that choice. I also don't believe it should be taught until a certain age. Certainly not in primary school (that's until about the age of 12 - 13 down here). I do however feel that physical education which includes learning about one's body and its sexual organs and how they work is an essential part of one's development. To deprive a teenager or young adult of that seems insane to me.

Do you suggest that no sexual education be carried out at all unless it is from the parent? Does this include teaching children about their body and its reproductive organs at school?

One other aspect of this discussion that so far has not been broached. Television/movies/advertising all have contributed to promiscuous sex which had brought on the discussion today. Kids just have too much time and too much money on their hands. One of the arguments has dealt with the 30's-60's. But you have to remember that prior to WWII this country was really more rural than urban. Kids were either going to school or working the family farm/ranch, and did not have time or money to get into trouble. It was a great occasion to go into town on a Saturday night to go to a movie. And when you went to that movie the most you would see might be a kiss. What is so bad about wanting to return our society to a time when you were not afraid to leave your home at night? Your kids could play in the neighborhood after dark with out fear of being snatched? And the worst thing that happened was the neighbors out house got tipped over. Why is it that liberals do not see the foolish path that we are being led down and not want change for the better. Heck, if you really want to get right down to it. if we were to return to a moral society maybe people like alkaida would stop trying to destroy us.

I tend to agree with you. But a return to those days just isn't going to happen. And to hold out hope waiting is valuable time lost in finding other ways to fix the problems.

Do you agree?

Sadly no. I do not agree with that. There are ways to fix the problems with our country. But most people are unwilling to give up the wealth that sex brings them. While I know it is not all of the problems, the fix needs to start at the bottom with moral parents and parenting most people are not willing to do what is necessary. Does not stop me and other like minded families from doing their part to stop the root of the problem. Then we as parents and voting adults need to hold our elected officials to a higher standard. Those that fail must be removed from office as fast as possible and replaced with people of good moral character. It can be done.

And i'm not a believer of comprehensive sex ed in schools. If some parents want to choose not to have their kids participate then fine. They can make that choice. I also don't believe it should be taught until a certain age. Certainly not in primary school (that's til about the age of 12 - 13 down here). I do however feel that physical education which includes learning about one's body and its sexual organs and how they work is an essential part of one's development. To deprive a teenager or young adult of that seems insane to me.

You're a good man, Skell. To me that would be a reasonable compromise. Just leave the agendas out of it.

My children brought home letters from school a few weeks ago asking for my consent on sex education lessons.

It is a new lesson starting from age 4-12 in our school.
After a bot of thought I gathered if the school thought it a good lesson then I would agree.

My 5 and 7 year old's first lesson was them being introduced to massage !!
Yes you can imagine the thoughts running through my head when I asked them about school lessons that day and my 6 year old son piped up " we did massage on introduced".

I then was informed that the massage class was to teach the children that before we touch another person we have to ALWAYS ALWAYS ask permission and no matter how much we want to touch that person if they say NO then NO means No.
I thought it a very positive approach to them being taught to respect other's bodies.

My 10 year old on the other side had a more productive lesson.
While I was having a bath she came to sit and her nightly girly mum and daughter chat.
I almost drowned when she piped up " You have had sex 5 times mum aint you!?
"Why do you think that " I managed to ask
She then went on to inform me that to have babies you have to have sex and as I have 5 children I have in her account had sex 5 times. This she was pleased with.
When I informed her that you can have sexual intercourse without the result of a baby she found it disgusting! She could not understand if you did not want a baby why would you want to do such a thing.

My 10 year old now knows all about the protective contraception methods ( she listed more than I could think of)

Then bless she pointed to my cotton wool pads ( make up remover pads) and stated proudly she would need them soon.
I asked why 9expecting her to say she would be using my foundation soon) to be told " Well when I start bleeding I will need pads"
Bless xxxx

Perfect example of what I'm talking about, Mum2Five. Thanks for posting it.

First of all, can we find no better way to teach 5-year-old kids to respect each other's private space and not to touch each other without permission than to teach them massage? What was the point of the massage part, other than to teach "the pleasure of touch"? And what is the point of teaching that other than to get kids sexually interested... at the age of 5. If the goal of the lesson was to teach kids to respect each other's bodies and rights to not be touched, teaching massage was not only unnecessary, it may have been countreproductive. It taught kids to touch each other in a manner that, if extended not too much farther, can become sexual.

Then there's the 10-year-old daughter. Despite the fact that the child is obviously bright, she does not yet have an understanding that sex can happen without resulting in a baby. She knows about contraception, but she doesn't know that sex can also be an act of love between two people, or for that matter it can be "sport", and NOT result in a baby. Is she ready for that fact? I don't know and neither does the school. Mum2five can answer that question, because she knows her daughter. But the school CAN'T. And therein lies the problem with a school-based curriculum of sex ed. It cannot gauge the abilities of the children on an individual basis.

Elliot

You better make sure they get sex off TV, music clips, magazines and every other form of media kids are exposed to these days as well... You're dreaming if you think eliminating sex ed will eliminate / reduce kids exposure to sex. Absolutely dreaming...

And i'm not a believer of comprehensive sex ed in schools. If some parents want to choose not to have their kids participate then fine. They can make that choice. I also don't believe it should be taught until a certain age. Certainly not in primary school (that's til about the age of 12 - 13 down here). I do however feel that physical education which includes learning about one's body and its sexual organs and how they work is an essential part of one's development. To deprive a teenager or young adult of that seems insane to me.

Do you suggest that no sexual education be carried out at all unless it is from the parent? Does this include teaching children about their body and its reproductive organs at school?

Don't think I don't have issues with sex on TV. I do. But I handle that by monitoring what my kids watch. That's another issue that too many parents want to leave to the government to handle through government censorship rather than taking the time to monitor their kids.

I have no problem with a biology lesson on human biology that includes a description of sexual organs or a discussion of gestation and embryonic development in humans. What I have a problem with is a sex ed class that describes how to use the sexual organs and then encourages it by telling kids how to use them without getting into trouble.

Elliot

You're a good man, Skell. To me that would be a reasonable compromise. Just leave the agendas out of it.
What I have a problem with is a sex ed class that describes how to use the sexual organs and then encourages it by telling kids how to use them without getting into trouble.Hello again, El:

I was about to post that I agree with both Steve and Skell that sex education should be about the parts, and not how, when, or even IF the parts should be used.

You, and the Woverine apparently believe that sex education not only tells kids about their parts, but ENCOURAGES them to use 'em.

You'll have to forgive me, but I don't believe that. You'll have to direct me to a person, ANY PERSON, whether he be a member of the ACLU, the American Socialist Party, or Planned Parenthood, who thinks kids SHOULD screw.

I know you have a screwed view of the left, but screwing isn't something we think kids should do. Hard to believe, isn't it?

excon

You'll have to forgive me, but I don't believe that. You'll have to direct me to a person, ANY PERSON, whether he be a member of the ACLU, the American Socialist Party, or Planned Parenthood, who thinks kids SHOULD screw.

I have documented this many times ex. Of course they aren't going to come right out and say "we think kids SHOULD screw" in so many words, they use noble sounding terms like "youth empowerment (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppswcf/files/Southwest%20and%20Central%20Florida/Choice_Notes_Spring09.pdf)" (pdf), "enhance understanding of sexuality" and "reproductive health." Then they teach them (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/teen-talk/sex-masturbation-25033.htm) all the ins and outs (pun intended) of sex in ANY form they want. They not only think kids SHOULD screw, they think kids should be able to bypass their parents (and the law) to have abortions if they want one.

You may not believe kids should screw but PP definitely does.

Sex isn't rocket science. If I guy and a girl are together and his and her "special purpose" feel tingly they are going to figure it out eventually. I wasn't twelve when I had my first sex class cause I went to a repressive catholic school. But I was 12 the first time I had sex. No one ever talked to me about sex before then. Or a few years after.

I think I was a sophomore or JR in high school for my first sex ed class, basically showing the inner working of male and female reproductive organs. Talked about STD's and pregnancy. Talked about having safe sex and how abstinence is the only way that works 100%.

Speech I clicked that teach them link and to be honest all the questions on there are almost the same questions my 15 and 16 year old guys cousins asked me. I asked them if they ever talked to their dads about this and they were just said no they couldn't talk to them about this. After we talked I went right to their dads and let them know, you would have thought I just pardoned them from death row. My cousins are now 18 and 19 0 kids 0 abortions!!

Sex isn't rocket science. If I guy and a girl are together and his and her "special purpose" feel tingly...

LOL, I haven't heard that term in forever. Let's just let them watch "The Jerk" instead of sex ed classes.


Speech I clicked that teach them link and to be honest all the questions on there are almost the same questions my 15 and 16 year old guys cousins asked me. I asked them if they ever talked to their dads about this and they were just said no they couldn't talk to them about this. After we talked I went right to their dads and let them know, you would have thought I just pardoned them from death row. My cousins are now 18 and 19 0 kids 0 abortions!!

You know Spit, it may come as a shock to some of these people here but I was a kid, too and I understand. I can agree that parents often do a poor job of communicating with their kids, especially on sex. So wouldn't it be more prudent to spend more time and resources on 'empowering' parents and encouraging them to talk to their children than just trying to take over for parents? I mean seriously, a 6-year-old can access PP's teen site and why on earth should they be faced with "All About the Anus?"

I hoped someone picked up on the "The Jerk" reference!!

You are right kids can but it is uo to the parents to block that stuff. I don't look at it as taking over for the parents. I look at it as a back up for parents too afraid to talk about stuff. But I do agree all about the Anus is a bit much.

Hello again, El:

I was about to post that I agree with both Steve and Skell that sex education should be about the parts, and not how, when, or even IF the parts should be used.

You, and the Woverine apparently believe that sex education not only tells kids about their parts, but ENCOURAGES them to use 'em.

You'll have to forgive me, but I don't believe that. You'll have to direct me to a person, ANY PERSON, whether he be a member of the ACLU, the American Socialist Party, or Planned Parenthood, who thinks kids SHOULD screw.

You can not believe it all you want. It doesn't change the facts. If sex ed is teaching 5-year-olds massage, then there is a problem with sex ed. I have no problem with a bio class that teaches about the sexual organs and human gestation, as I said. But teaching 5-year-olds how to touch each other... do you agree with such a curriculum?


I know you have a screwed view of the left, but screwing isn't something we think kids should do. Hard to believe, isn't it?

Excon

I don't think that the people on the left want kids to be having sex. However, in their attempts to avoid the problems of kids having sex, they are Inadvertently (at least in most cases) accomplishing the exact opposite of their goal. Mum2five's post is a perfect example of that. In their efforts to teach kids to be able to "say no" to sexual touching, which was the goal of the lesson, they are actually teaching kids massage, which if taken too much farther is a form of sexual touching. Massage is, in fact, one of the more commonly used forms of foreplay.

Believe it or not, I don't question the intentions of sex ed supporters. I just question their methods and whether they work. As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, I do indeed question their motives and intentions. But that is a topic for another day. But the average supporter of sex ed.. I don't question their intent. Just their methods.

Elliot

I hoped someone picked up on the "The Jerk" reference!!!!!

You are right kids can but it is uo to the parents to block that stuff. I don't look at it as taking over for the parents. I look at it as a back up for parents too afraid to talk about stuff. But I do agree all about the Anus is a bit much.

The parents should also be able to decide if they want PP to be the backup. PP and too many schools don't care what the parents want.

The parents should also be able to decide if they want PP to be the backup. PP and too many schools don't care what the parents want.

I agree with that the parents should pick the back up. But I guess most of them aren't picking a back up I don't know. Around me PP was just the building the girls went to to get check ups if they didn't have insurance or if a guy got an STD they would go there or if I girl wanted an abortion. Do they go out and talk to kids or do kids have to go to them (website or inperson). I never talked to single person from PP.

Do they go out and talk to kids or do kids have to go to them (website or inperson). I never talked to single person from PP.

It just depends on the location and such, but they do both. They also provide, sponsor and suggest curriculum. They are the single most active player in this, and that's what bothers me knowing their positions, agenda and behavior.

Out of curiosity, why would a 5 or 6 year old be on the computer in the first place? The only time my 5 year old is on the computer is sitting with me while on disney.com

out of curiosity, why would a 5 or 6 year old be on the computer in the first place? the only time my 5 year old is on the computer is sitting with me while on disney.com

Excellent question. And why should a 5 year old be learning massage?

Elliot

I can understand teaching good touch and bad touch but was the massage part really necessary.

Why would a 5 /6 year old be on a computer ?

Well my three kiddies 5/6 and 10 all use the computer to complete the awards they are given by their school.

They all have a username and password and there is a website where they go to complete extra homework i.e. they work towards awards and are rewarded.
So the school encourages 5/6 year olds to use the computer.

Or does it? Yeah I'm daring to go there again...



Let's see, teach kids about sex and hand them condoms and teen pregnancies more than double. Who'd a thunk it? Maybe Texas was right to drop the state's health education requirement (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6518304.html).

Your turn...

Maybe the reason sex education does not work is simply biological?

Like it or not after puberty, teens can have and want to have sex. Simple biolgical / hormonal drive amped up by our oversexualized media. A generation or 2 or 3 folks got married and started having kids in their teens. I don't think any amount of "education" is going to alter the biological drive.

It would be interesting to survey those teens who had sex education AND who became pregnant, or got someone pregnant and ask them, WHY?

Is it gov benefits? For the males, what is the chance of having to pay child support? Especially if you have not graduated high school and have no job? There is no consequence for these guys. Do these kids have a future? College, a professional career- something in the future to work for, aim for? I know for myself, I could not go through 20 years of schooling if I had a kid as an 18 year old - how many of these teens have future goals? How much does drug and or alcohol use influence the incidence of unprotected sex?


There are so many factors other than sex education that play a role in teen pregnancy.
Until we find out the whys and address those issues, then neither sex education nor "just say no" or "wait till marriage" will work at reducing teen pregnancy.





G&P

I think you are right inthebox and I also believe a major part is because they are so flooded with the idea from everywhere that they believe they are not normal if they are a virgin at 16.
Kids ask here all the time what is wrong with them that they haven't had sex yet.

Maybe the reason sex education does not work is simply biological?

It would be interesting to survey those teens who had sex education AND who became pregnant, or got someone pregnant and ask them, WHY?
I'm guessing first of all, no one thinks pregnancy is going to happen. Secondly, they don't think that far -- instant gratification, go for the moment, and to hell with anything else. (Studies have been done on this.) Thirdly, like smoking and drinking, sex is supposedly a "right of passage" into adulthood, or at least to make one look like and think he/she is an adult. Fourthly, the media, especially movies and TV, say to please yourself and to have sex, and magazines like Cosmo even give hints and helps on the how-to part of the deal. Fifthly, Internet is full of anything sexual--tips, techniques, porn, graphics. Sixthly, no one in authority is telling kids not to have sex, and, even if they did, authority figures mean very little to kids in 2009.

Exactly wondergirl BUT it is alarming how many teenage girls actually do it with all intentions of wanting to have a baby.
The boys of course do think it won't happen and nobody is telling them that it CAN happen to them and then they are in for the long haul of child support payments.

Maybe the reason sex education does not work is simply biologicalHello in:

Where, besides your church, did you learn that sex education doesn't work?? It works just fine. Could it work better? Sure.

excon

Yeah it could work better by actually teaching kids responsibilities rather than if it feels good its your body. The rate of teenage pregnancies is result enough to show that it isn't working as is.

Exactly wondergirl BUT it is alarming how many teenage girls actually do it with all intentions of wanting to have a baby.
Their "rite of passage" into adulthood plus "someone who will love me"

Hello in:

Where, besides your church, did you learn that sex education doesn't work???? It works just fine. Could it work better? Sure.

excon
Went to Lutheran school from grade 5-8, and sex was never mentioned. In church youth group (teens), sex was never mentioned. Parents didn't talk about it either. The only word about it was "Don't" and we weren't sure what we weren't supposed to not do.

The only word about it was "Don't" and we weren't sure what we weren't supposed to not do.Hello Carol:

And, after you did it, you said, "that couldn't have been what we weren't supposed to do, could it"?

excon

Hello Carol:

And, after you did it, you said, "that couldn't have been what we weren't supposed to do, could it"?

excon
I was a virginal bride, so something worked. Stupidity helps.

Hello in:

Where, besides your church, did you learn that sex education doesn't work???? It works just fine. Could it work better? Sure.

excon

Yep. Sex ed works. Kids who take sex ed know about sex.

And go know... what they learn is what they use. And it results in more teen pregnancies, more STD spread, and more abortions. Whereas kids who don't know about sex tend to have less of it, at least from an historical perspective, resulting in fewer pregnancies and fewer cases of STD spread.

Yep, sex ed works. It doesn't stop the problem of teen sex. But those kids are very well educated in how to have sex. Not sure that's better, though. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not.

As for where else we have learned that sex education doesn't work... let's see.

There's researchers Robert Rector and Rebeca Hagelin who write for the Heritage Foundation.

There's Barbara Dafoe Whitehead of the theAtlantic.com, who wrote this article: The Failure of Sex Education - 94.10 (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/failure.htm)

There's this article in Rense.com that first appeared on Yahoo: Teen Sex Education A Total Failure - Study (http://www.rense.com/general26/failure.htm)

There's this article from the John Birch Society. - Why Sex Education is Doomed to Failure (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/4421)

There are plenty of places besides churches that say that sex ed doesn't work... and not just from a moral standpoint, but from a statistical standpoint as well.

Sorry, excon, but your claim that sex ed is frowned upon only by the Church and only for moral reasons is pure BS. Statistically speaking, sex ed in schools has failed and failed miserably. It accomplishes NONE of its stated goals.

Elliot

And go know... what they learn is what they use. And it results in more teen pregnancies, more STD spread, and more abortions.Hello again, El:

I don't know what happens to you but, sometimes your politics gets in the way of your common sense. Your position is, that if kids didn't learn about sex in school, they wouldn't do it.

I must say, that of all the wacky things you say, this is, by far, one of the wackiest.

excon

Hello again, El:

I dunno what happens to you but, sometimes your politics gets in the way of your common sense. Your position is, that if kids didn't learn about sex in school, they wouldn't do it.

I must say, that of all the wacky things you say, this is, by far, one of the wackiest.

excon


Statistics back it up. History backs it up. YOUR OWN ANSWERS will back it up, if you are willing to be honest about it. (Which I doubt.)

Answer these questions honestly:

When were there more teen pregnancies, now or in the 30s - 60s?

When did sex ed in school start?

Based on the prior two questions, did the advent of sex ed prevent teen pregnancies?

The answers are very simple, excon. Even you can get them right.

At BEST, sex ed has had no effect on teen pregnancies. At worst, it has had a hand in increasing the number of teen pregnancies. Either way it is a failure.

Whereas, based on the statistics, kids in the 30s - 60s without sex ed in school were less likely to have sex and get each other pregnant.

You can try to minimize it all you want. The data is out there for you and the rest of the world to review.

But you've made up your mind and refuse to be confused by facts.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

I dunno what happens to you but, sometimes your politics gets in the way of your common sense. Your position is, that if kids didn't learn about sex in school, they wouldn't do it.

I must say, that of all the wacky things you say, this is, by far, one of the wackiest.

excon

My position is that when we lived in a time where kids didn't learn about it, they were less likely to do it, resulting in fewer pregnancies, fewer STDs and fewer abortions.

And now that we live in a time when they do learn about it, they are doing it more, resulting in more pregnancies, more STD spread and more abortions.

These are statistical facts. They aren't "my position". It is simple fact.

My position is that BASED ON THIS SIMPLE FACT, sex ed is a failure in its stated goals of preventing sex among teens, preventing teen pregnancies, preventing STD spread and preventing abortions. And based on that failure, we need to change what we are doing to day to something that we know worked in the past.

You claim that my position on global warming constitutes "ignoring the facts". I'd say that your position on sex ed is ignoring the facts and the failures and the problems caused by sex ed.

YOU are the one blinded by political position, excon. You won't even acknowledge that the statistics on teen sex, teen pregnancy and teen STDs became greater at the same time that sex ed was introduced to the American public school system. THAT is the sign of someone blinded by politics.

Elliot

Answer these questions honestly:

When were there more teen pregnancies, now or in the 30s - 60s?

When did sex ed in school start?

Based on the prior two questions, did the advent of sex ed prevent teen pregnancies?Hello again, El:

Let me see if I understand your logic... If you see stars, it must be night... But, if you DON'T see stars, it must NOT be night. Ergo, sex education - ballooning teen pregnancy rate - must be it!

You rightwingers really don't know much about sex, do you?

excon

When were there more teen pregnancies, now or in the 30s - 60s?
Back then, there was the fear factor. Ignorance too. Books, magazines, the limited amount of TV shows that were on, and movies didn't talk about sex except maybe there was a veiled reference now and then. Girls especially didn't have a clue about sex. The girls who did (we called them the "sluts" but not sure why, but they sure looked like "bad girls") hung out on the street corner across from the high school and smoked with the guys with greasy slicked-back hair and probably a ducktail (a la Fonzie?) whom we called the "hoods." Most of them wore black leather jackets with lots of zippers and combed their hair a lot.

Our parents told us not to be like the sluts, not to have sex. We didn't own black leather jackets with zippers plus we didn't know what "sex" was, so we figured we were okay. "Sex" sounded nasty, like nothing fun or good for us like Cheerios was, so we did our Latin translations and memorized the geometric proofs to stay busy.

Our parents knew where we were 99% of the time, and, if we were out and about shopping or at a movie, we had to check in (had to find a pay phone) if the situation changed somehow. My mother told me my minister father would have to quit the ministry and our family would have to go into hiding if I ever got pregnant. I didn't know how one got pregnant, so I said "okay" in a muffled voice and disappeared quickly up to my room to do homework. I certainly didn't want those bad things to happen by doing something I didn't know about. For a long time, I thought kissing was what got a girl pregnant, so I didn't allow that. Holding hands seemed innocent enough, and it didn't make me pregnant. Whew! It was trial and error, like science class.

I wish I had had been taught what "sex" is. That would have made me a less fearful teen who sublimated like crazy. A good dose of sex education, factual with pictures and a lack of embarrassed explanation, along with the moral guidelines that were implicit somewhere in the fear factor stuff, would have been exactly what I needed and would have been a lot better than what I got.

Therefore, sex education + moral guidelines - fear factor = good.

I wish I had had been taught what "sex" is. That would have made me a less fearful teen who sublimated like crazy.Hello again, El:

I UNDERSTAND what you're saying. If kids don't know about sex, they won't do it. I'm just saying that you're completely bonkers, and that what YOU'RE saying makes absolutely no sense on its face.

To wit: If what you say is true, that people have to be instructed about what goes where, BEFORE they'll actually PUT you know what and you know where, we wouldn't be here.

Your politics are BLINDING you to an NON contravertable fact. Poor, poor conservatives.

excon

Back then, there was the fear factor. Ignorance too.

Absolutely true. There was the fear factor around sex, and that fear factor kept kids out of trouble.

So... do you think that eliminating that fear factor by teaching kids about sex has been effective at keeping teen sex and teen pregnancies low? Or has it had a negative effect on teen sex statistics?

From my point of view familiarity breeds contempt, and teens now have contempt for the fears that they OUGHT TO HAVE about sex.


Books, magazines, the limited amount of TV shows that were on, and movies didn't talk about sex except maybe there was a veiled reference now and then. Girls especially didn't have a clue about sex. The girls who did (we called them the "sluts" but not sure why, but they sure looked like "bad girls") hung out on the street corner across from the high school and smoked with the guys with greasy slicked-back hair and probably a ducktail (a la Fonzie?) whom we called the "hoods." Most of them wore black leather jackets with lots of zippers and combed their hair a lot.

Our parents told us not to be like the sluts, not to have sex. We didn't own black leather jackets with zippers plus we didn't know what "sex" was, so we figured we were okay. "Sex" sounded nasty, like nothing fun or good for us like Cheerios was, so we did our Latin translations and memorized the geometric proofs to stay busy.

Hey... don't be dissin' my Cheerios.:rolleyes::p


Our parents knew where we were 99% of the time, and, if we were out and about shopping or at a movie, we had to check in (had to find a pay phone) if the situation changed somehow. My mother told me my minister father would have to quit the ministry and our family would have to go into hiding if I ever got pregnant. I didn't know how one got pregnant, so I said "okay" in a muffled voice and disappeared quickly up to my room to do homework. I certainly didn't want those bad things to happen by doing something I didn't know about. For a long time, I thought kissing was what got a girl pregnant, so I didn't allow that. Holding hands seemed innocent enough, and it didn't make me pregnant. Whew! It was trial and error, like science class.

I wish I had had been taught what "sex" is. That would have made me a less fearful teen who sublimated like crazy. A good dose of sex education, factual with pictures and a lack of embarrassed explanation, along with the moral guidelines that were implicit somewhere in the fear factor stuff, would have been exactly what I needed and would have been a lot better than what I got.

Therefore, sex education + moral guidelines - fear factor = good.

But fear of those things happening to you kept you from going there. You stayed a good girl, and you didn't get pregnant. So, for whatever reason, the fear factor worked. You never became a negative statistic. As much as you might PERSONALLY wish to have known more about sex, as a general rule, not knowing about it, and being fearful of it is what kept you from doing something bad.

A generation later, things changed. Kids got sex ed in school, and so were more knowledgeable. But the schools left the moral guidelines out of this sex education, and because sex ed included classes about abortion and contraception, the fear factor was gone too. With no moral guidelines and no fear factor, all that was left was knowledge of how to do it. The resultant equation for kids today is:

Sex ed - moral guidelines - fear factor = teen sex + teen pregnancies + teen abortion + STD spread.

Whereas when you grew up the equation was:

Moral guidelines + fear factor - sex ed = no sex + confusion

Frankly, that equation has a better result than the one kids today are getting. There's nothing wrong with a little confusion. You managed to survive it, and so did most of your peers. And at least you didn't get pregnant.

BTW, boys were just as clueless about sex when you were growing up as girls were. Don't think otherwise. Boys just talked a better game.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

I UNDERSTAND what you're saying. If kids don't know about sex, they won't do it. I'm just saying that you're completely bonkers, and that what YOU'RE saying makes absolutely no sense on its face.

To wit: If what you say is true, that people have to be instructed about what goes where, BEFORE they'll actually PUT you know what and you know where, we wouldn't be here.

Your politics are BLINDING you to an NON contravertable fact. Poor, poor conservatives.

excon
Yes, back then I was a child of VERY conservative parents. And there were kids who "did it." Sharilyn did it with Jacques in her parents' rec room, and Sharilyn's parents had warned her too (were pillars of our congregation). We tried to find out what it was they did. Sherilyn was coy, but she did mention Jacques used a condom. (We didn't know what that was, but it must have worked because Sherilyn never got pregnant.)

It was the girls who were ignorant and fearful, most too scared to experiment (the pregnancy thing, you know, and families having to go into hiding); the guys tried like crazy to teach us in the hay lofts and in the cornfields. The guys were farmers' sons so they knew stuff. Jacques knew stuff too, but he wasn't a farmer's son. He was from France and had a neat accent.

A generation later, things changed. Kids got sex ed in school, and so were more knowledgeable. But the schools left the moral guidelines out of this sex education
True, but the media were the bigger culprits. Sex ed at Lutheran grade school and public high school plus moral guidelines (with discussion) at home would have been the ideal.

Don't blame sex ed. Blame the parents and the breakdown of the family.

Hello again, El:

Lemme see if I understand your logic.... If you see stars, it must be night... But, if you DON'T see stars, it must NOT be night. Ergo, sex education - ballooning teen pregnancy rate - must be it!

You rightwingers really don't know much about sex, do you?

excon

I'm sitting here trying to figure out how you can compare what I said to your ridiculous comments about stars and night.

What I said was: When there was no sex ed, there was less teen sex. Now that there is MORE sex ed, there is more teen sex. You can't see the connection between the two? It's seems to me that YOU are the one missing the stars and the night... whatever the heck that means.

I also happen to know that in Yeshivas, Orthodox Jewish religious private schools, where sex ed is NOT taught (purely for religious reasons), the incidence of teen sex and teen pregnancies approaches ZERO. Orthodox Jewish women tend to go to their marriages as virgins more often than not. We Orthodox Jews generally don't have "shotgun weddings" because some girl got pregnant. Which seems to be another indicator that when there is no sex ed, there is much less teen sex.

There tends to be another factor at play here... Many --- not all---Yeshivas tend to be sticklers about making sure that the students don't watch TV or see movies. So the kids also don't have the outside sexual influences that other kids normally get from the media. But that actually proves my point all the more... the less that kids are exposed to sexual influences like sex ed or TV/Movies, the lower the chances of them having premarital sex.

I know you don't like to hear it, but the statistical evidence can't be ignored. Even in modern society, when there is no sex ed (and limited sexual influence from the media), there is less teen sex.

Elliot

True, but the media were the bigger culprits. Sex ed at Lutheran grade school and public high school plus moral guidelines (with discussion) at home would have been the ideal.

Don't blame sex ed. Blame the parents and the breakdown of the family.


One more point excon,

Even if you argue that sex ed DOESN'T cause teen pregnancy, sex ed is STILL a failure, because it clearly isn't PREVENTING teen pregnancy. It is either a failure because it is the cause of the problem, or it is a failure at its own stated goal of being the CURE for the problem. Either way, it fails.

And you can't seem to find any evidence that what I say isn't true. There's no statistical information to back up your position and you know it.

Elliot

Absolutely true. There was the fear factor around sex, and that fear factor kept kids out of trouble.
I didn't want to be afraid. Had I known stuff, I would have behaved. I had that moral compass in me.

BTW, boys were just as clueless about sex when you were growing up as girls were. Don't think otherwise. Boys just talked a better game.
No, the boys knew stuff. They knew how to push our buttons and ring our chimes. (My first kiss was magical; I can still feel my toes curl.) Like I said, they were farmers' sons, but were too polite to share the details of what they knew. They knew we would be even more scared ("You're going to do WHAT?"), so they worked mostly with our buttons and chimes. There was no alcohol or drugs, just apple cider on well-supervised hayrides.

Even if you argue that sex ed DOESN'T cause teen pregnancy, sex ed is STILL a failure, because it clearly isn't PREVENTING teen pregnancy.
But it would work if it were taught correctly.

I'm sitting here trying to figure out how you can compare what I said to your ridiculous comments about stars and night.

What I said was: When there was no sex ed, there was less teen sex. Now that there is MORE sex ed, there is more teen sex. You can't see the connection between the two? It's seems to me that YOU are the one missing the stars and the night... whatever the heck that means.

I also happen to know that in Yeshivas, Orthodox Jewish religious private schools, where sex ed is NOT taught (purely for religious reasons), the incidence of teen sex and teen pregnancies approaches ZERO. Orthodox Jewish women tend to go to their marriages as virgins more often than not. We Orthodox Jews generally don't have "shotgun weddings" because some girl got pregnant. Which seems to be another indicator that when there is no sex ed, there is much less teen sex.

There tends to be another factor at play here... Many --- not all---Yeshivas tend to be sticklers about making sure that the students don't watch TV or see movies. So the kids also don't have the outside sexual influences that other kids normally get from the media. But that actually proves my point all the more... the less that kids are exposed to sexual influences like sex ed or TV/Movies, the lower the chances of them having premarital sex.

I know you don't like to hear it, but the statistical evidence can't be ignored. Even in modern society, when there is no sex ed (and limited sexual influence from the media), there is less teen sex.

Elliot

I see your connection. But we isn't really just talking about orthodox jewish kids are we? What about the kids who's parents don't control everything that enters their lives? There's LOTS of them. How do we prevent sex from entering their lives? Not going to happen. Therefore they need to be taught about it from someone in a position of responsibility. If it ain't a parent then it needs to be someone.

Perhaps its unfortunate but not all the kids in the world live in the same little Jewish bubble that you and your kids live in. Not even close.

Your connection that NO Sex ed means NO teen sex way oversimplifies the issue. You even acknowledge in your post above that there are a helluva lot more external influences in children's lives these days. To simply say that the cause of teen sex is sex ed itself is absurd.

One more point excon,

Even if you argue that sex ed DOESN'T cause teen pregnancy, sex ed is STILL a failure, because it clearly isn't PREVENTING teen pregnancy. It is either a failure because it is the cause of the problem, or it is a failure at its own stated goal of being the CURE for the problem. Either way, it fails.

And you can't seem to find any evidence that what I say isn't true. There's no statistical information to back up your position and you know it.

Elliot

So what's your answer?? Just stop talking about sex to teenagers and they'll stop having it? That's it?

And for those that do, God will sort it all out I suppose??

C'mon Elliot... You can't see any merit in today's society to teaching kids of a certain age about the workings of their body AND sex?

Your solution may have worked 60 years ago and it may work in the utopia your kids grow up in, but in reality it's just not going to happen.

When there was no sex ed, there was less teen sex

Methinks you are railing about the wrong thing.

With the increase in teen sex, there was:
* increased TV time and more sitcoms that got more and more ribald in a race for ratings
* increasing numbers of magazines devoted to Boomer teens
* the population increased (1946-1964 especially)
* civil rights happened which opened up individual rights
* "me generation" flowered (egoism encouraged by TV and movies)
* women got jobs outside the home and jobs could be found with hours 24/7
* family suppertime disappeared (members working variety of shifts, thus intro of TV dinners)
* teens got jobs at growing number of fast-food restaurants (new concept) and could afford their own cars (and were suddenly mobile)
* small-town and farm life began to steadily disappear as people moved to the cities (better-paying jobs) and farms became suburbs (where cars were necessary)

All of the above (and more) led to increased teen sex, sex ed or not. In fact, sex ed was begun to combat the sexual revolution.

Methinks you are railing about the wrong thing.

With the increase in teen sex, there was:
* increased tv time and more sitcoms that got more and more ribald in a race for ratings
* increasing numbers of magazines devoted to Boomer teens
* the population increased (1946-1964 especially)
* civil rights happened which opened up individual rights
* "me generation" flowered (egoism encouraged by tv and movies)
* women got jobs outside the home and jobs could be found with hours 24/7
* family suppertime disappeared (members working variety of shifts, thus intro of tv dinners)
* teens got jobs at growing number of fast-food restaurants (new concept) and could afford their own cars (and were suddenly mobile)
* small-town and farm life began to steadily disappear as people moved to the cities (better-paying jobs) and farms became suburbs (where cars were necessary)

All of the above (and more) led to increased teen sex, sex ed or not. In fact, sex ed was begun to combat the sexual revolution.

Exactly! Its not as simple as Elliot would have us believe.

I've read this thread from start to finish.. and I've come to the conclusion that sex ed should be taught,by schools and parents.. but we as adults cannot supervise nor police teenagers every second of every day,they fall to the pressures of their peers,boyfriends/girlfriends and the media.

Our hope as parents and taxpayers is that the majority listen and use protection... sadly I feel I'm taking a very pollyanna outlook here.

There are 12 and 13 year olds having sex,and getting pregnant.
When I was that age I didn't know what a willie looked like,when I was 15/16 I would not let a penis within 10feet of my vagina for fear of pregnancy.

I just think teenagers think it won't happen to them,only the girl up the road.

In saying all this,I do feel if we at least inform our teens about sex,it gives them a better chance to make choices.

But it would work if it were taught correctly.

THAT IS the whole entire problem it is not taught correctly
It is taught like something that sounds so glamorous that they HAVE to have it or else they think there is something wrong with them. They are not taught the side where the guy can be tricked into getting her pregnant because she wants a baby so bad. They are not taught that the guy will be paying child support for years to come depending on how many girls he gets pregnant. They are not taught about how the more sex partners they have their oxytocin can diminish and then they are wondering why the guy (or girl) is bonding with the porn or the video game instead of wanting them any more. They are not taught that many teen age girls get tired of the novelity of having a baby and then expect their mom to raise it. There are so many things like responsibility and reality of sex they do not cover. Instead they teach its your body do what you want just make sure you wear a condom and accept homosexuality.

You know we keep going around and around about this issue and I bet none of you know what many schools teach in sex ed on a day to day basis. I think it would be a good idea to get the facts by maybe posting a question in the teen section so the teens here can answer what things they are taught about in sex ed.

THAT IS the whole entire problem it is not taught correctly
It is taught like something that sounds so glamorous that they HAVE to have it or else they think there is something wrong with them. They are not taught the side where the guy can be tricked into getting her pregnant because she wants a baby so bad. They are not taught that the guy will be paying child support for years to come depending on how many girls he gets pregnant. They are not taught about how the more sex partners they have their oxytocin can diminish and then they are wondering why the guy (or girl) is bonding with the porn or the video game instead of wanting them any more.
From what I've gathered from the teens I deal with at the library where I work, sex ed is a big joke. Who listens to such crap?? The teens know it all and sit through classes smirking and passing notes to each other. The guys have been carrying around condoms for years, but more as a fun, status-y thing to do. (Heck, who uses a condom? That's sissy stuff!) The teens KNOW (from students who've survived the course) that the teacher is going to hold up colorful pictures of body parts (*giggle*) or tell you to turn to certain pages in the textbook. Once that happens, class attention doesn't exist. Inside jokes and humorous comments abound. Embarrassed students think about England. The sex ed class itself is a joke.

Sex ed should begin in preschool.

SO, why is it that the education system, the one who claims to never have enough money are spending millions of tax payer dollars on a class that does not work? Could it be to support the Teachers unions membership?

So what good is the sex ed then?

Where I live it is more like I described. They are taught about sex and they think it is the thing you are suppose to do because you are a teen. Then girl 14 wants baby. Guy wants girl. Girl gets pregnant...
Girl is pregnant with baby #4 by her 21st birthday.
They are taught that being gay or bi is natural so they think it is something they should try just because it is 'natural'.

All they are doing is planting these things in kids heads and the media backs it up. Instead of just presenting facts in a responsible way they make it out to be something teens need to do or else they feel ostrisized. Like I said look at all the kids that come here asking what is wrong with them because they are still a virgin.
That in itself tells me something is wrong with the way sex ed is handled.

SO, why is it that the education system, the one who claims to never have enough money are spending millions of tax payer dollars on a class that does not work? could it be to support the Teachers unions membership?

Yeah something like that! It doesn't work end of story!
It needs fixed. I am all for sex ed IF they would restructure it in an effective way.

so what good is the sex ed then?

Where I live it is more like I described. They are taught about sex and they think it is the thing you are suppose to do because you are a teen. Then girl 14 wants baby. Guy wants girl. Girl gets pregnant.......
Girl is pregnant with baby #4 by her 21st birthday.
They are taught that being gay or bi is natural so they think it is something they should try just because it is 'natural'.

All they are doing is planting these things in kids heads and the media backs it up. Instead of just presenting facts in a responsible way they make it out to be something teens need to do or else they feel ostrisized. Like I said look at all the kids that come here asking what is wrong with them because they are still a virgin.
That in itself tells me something is wrong with the way sex ed is handled.
Have you sat in on sex ed classes? Have you talked with the teens yourself, or are you just reporting your impressions and suppositions based on observation? They got the virgin thing from sex ed class or from somewhere else? You KNOW they are taught that being gay or bi is natural?

Yeah I talk to teens and young adults all the time. They get it from school and the media.
One guy that is in law and in his 20's told me he laid on his bed with a 12 yr old boy and showed him how to mastrabate and he didn't see a thing wrong with it.
I am not saying it is entirely the sex ed but something isn't right

I also read news articles and listen to parents calling radio stations saying what their kids are being taught. Also read articles like this Gay books at daycare 'inappropriate' - National - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gay-books-at-daycare-inappropriate/2006/05/29/1148754909758.html)

Because these things are not mandated but picked out from a variety of things the school board can choose parents don't think these things are being taught at many schools.

In Massachusetts, students in kindergarten in some schools are being read the gay children's book "King & King''.

Daycares read books to the kids like The Rainbow Cubby House

I wonder why they laugh and giggle like you say. I guess learning to put a condom on a pickle in the 6th grade just does something to them.

something isn't right
That's it in a nutshell. Now, let's make a list of what isn't right--and start with the family.

And it should stay there.



Oh, that's easy. Just stop teaching sex ed in schools. It's not the government's job, it's not the school's job. It is the job of parents. Regardless of whether the parents do the job well or not, schools should stay out of it. It ain't the public school's job to fix the failings of parents.

THAT is how you remedy it so that it doesn't fall to the schools. You simply leave them out of it.

Elliot


You cannot punish the children for something they knew no much better to do if their parents are not teaching them it is not their fault that their parents suck... and I think that it is GREAT that the schools pick up the parents slack... I for one took my sex ed serious I am now 20 yo with an infant but I have a career (Army) a house, and 2 card.. I had a father who said I don't care what you do condom or a casket.. never explain to me the results and at school they did and it spooked, I am now very successful and glad that I listened

That's it in a nutshell. Now, let's make a list of what isn't right--and start with the family.

I agree that too many parents either do not want to get into the subject with their kids or they think it is the schools job. Many parents don't even give a care about where their kids are from after school until bedtime. So maybe the question is how to get parents to get involved in teaching their kids. I don't see our great society going in that direction though.
I really don't know that there is an answer because they even say that schools that teach abstinence with sex ed have just as high a rate of pregnancy as any other program.

IDK but all I can say is what we have is broke and needs fixed... somehow.

I was born to two Lutherans, sent to a Catholic school where we were taught sex ed. My parents were great, they did talk about sex with me as well, but figured hearing it from two sources was a good idea.

My godson was born 2 months after we graduated to a very good friend. She was 17 at the time, an Italian Catholic, very strict upbringing, her parents wouldn't let her take sex ed, and they taught her nothing at home. I guess that backfired on them.

I teach sex education to my kids, because I don't want them learning it from their friends. I also teach them to be wary because I was molested as a child, from the age of 5 on by a cousin. My parents never knew. I was also raped at the age of 18, again, my parents never knew. I don't want my children to be prey, so I make sure they know what's out there.

It's a scary world out there, they should be armed with all the knowledge they can get, and they will be taking sex ed in school. In fact, my son starts next year in grade 5, but he already knows the basics.

I'm all for sex ed in schools, because sadly, there are too many parents out there that won't teach their children what they need to know.

Look at the teen boards here, some of the questions we get from 16, 17, 18 year olds plus. Simple basic knowledge, and they don't have a clue.

That's my opinion. :)

Look at the teen boards here, some of the questions we get from 16, 17, 18 year olds plus. Simple basic knowledge, and they don't have a clue.

That's my opinion. :)

That is the problem even with the sex education in schools they haven't got a clue they know go out and have sex because it is the thing teens are suppose to do and get pregnant and have babies that's about it. Then if they weren't trying to get pregnant they use abortion as a means of birth control.

have sex because it is the thing teens are suppose to do
No, it's because they have an overabundance of hormones churning through their bodies, few if any restraints, and poor judgment. And opportunities galore!

THAT IS the whole entire problem it is not taught correctly
It is taught like something that sounds so glamorous that they HAVE to have it or else they think there is something wrong with them. They are not taught the side where the guy can be tricked into getting her pregnant because she wants a baby so bad. They are not taught that the guy will be paying child support for years to come depending on how many girls he gets pregnant. They are not taught about how the more sex partners they have their oxytocin can diminish and then they are wondering why the guy (or girl) is bonding with the porn or the video game instead of wanting them any more. They are not taught that many teen age girls get tired of the novelity of having a baby and then expect their mom to raise it. There are so many things like responsibility and reality of sex they do not cover. Instead they teach its your body do what you want just make sure you wear a condom and accept homosexuality.

How do you know what and how they are teaching? Do you sit in on the classes?

How do you know what and how they are teaching? Do you sit in on the classes?
Did you see her answer to me (same questions) earlier in this thread?

"yeah I talk to teens and young adults all the time. They get it from school and the media.
One guy that is in law and in his 20's told me he laid on his bed with a 12 yr old boy and showed him how to mastrabate and he didn't see a thing wrong with it.
I am not saying it is entirely the sex ed but something isn't right

I also read news articles and listen to parents calling radio stations saying what their kids are being taught. Also read articles like this Gay books at daycare 'inappropriate' - National - smh.com.au

Because these things are not mandated but picked out from a variety of things the school board can choose parents don't think these things are being taught at many schools.

In Massachusetts, students in kindergarten in some schools are being read the gay children's book "King & King''.

Daycares read books to the kids like The Rainbow Cubby House

I wonder why they laugh and giggle like you say. I guess learning to put a condom on a pickle in the 6th grade just does something to them."

No, it's because they have an overabundance of hormones churning through their bodies, few if any restraints, and poor judgment. And opportunities galore!

Yeah opportunities galore and hormones is right so what good is the sex education when even you say they ignore it and giggle about it.
But even teens on these boards have said that it is the teen thing to do. So how are you saying no when they make that claim themselves?

yeah opportunities galore and hormones is right so what good is the sex education when even you say they ignore it and giggle about it.
But even teens on these boards have said that it is the teen thing to do. so how are you saying no when they make that claim their self?
That's where parents come into the picture. We need to get parents trained to start sex ed when the kids are little.

yeah opportunities galore and hormones is right so what good is the sex education when even you say they ignore it and giggle about it.
But even teens on these boards have said that it is the teen thing to do. so how are you saying no when they make that claim their self?

Sex is a choice that ANY person has and THAT is what needs to be taught; while it may seem like the "teen thing" to do it's going to take teens talking to teens and peers agreeing thatits good to wait and it takes ADULT INFLUENCE (no matter where it comes from school or home) and depending on who those teens feel is telling them the truthb/c some teens don't listen to there parents but feel like the teachers are more realistic or the counselors at school or whoever I am twenty years old and to this day there is a girl I went to high school with is STILL a virgin and she is 3 years my elder there was someone who's words touched her and meant something to her her and NO its not going to work for all the teens but damn if we as adults young adults peer teens and parents could touch at least one or two people in the adolescent community I know I would be very proud of myself and if all adults felt that way I think america would have a brighter future on the subject matter or tee pregnancy... I also as a young child was raped by a family friend and for a very long time was scared that if I said no to a man that he was going to take it either way so I may as well just give it to him and if some one older than me would have ever told me that there was other options then I think life would have been simpler for me growing up as a teenager.. so I am and will always be a firm believer that children and teens need INFLUENCE from adults to do the right things. And every adult is not compatible with every child but if we as parents don't try and then then have reinforcement at the schools and even rec centers and out of school classes and places children can go without fear of being judged s/a school counselors then... who can they go to their friends and as I read in the bible (dont remember which verse) It's like the blind leading the blind, and they fall into a ditch.

Abstinence-Only Education Ruined By Trip To Zoo | The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/content/radio_news/abstinence_only_education_0)

But it would work if it were taught correctly.

For the past 40 years, sex ed has been taught in our schools. For the past 40 years, it has failed to do what it said it would do; prevent teen sex, teen pregnancy and STD spread.

Suddenly now, we are supposed to assume that it can work IF WE TEACH IT CORRECTLY?

Who decides what is "correctly"? Because whoever is making that decision right now is getting it wrong. On that point I think we are in agreement.

Also, there are certain subjects that should not be taught in a classroom. Not because it is immoral to do so, but because the subject itself is not conducive to classroom learning. You can teach math and reading in a large classroom setting. But sex ed is a subject that is best taught one-on-one. A parent knows the best way to teach this subject to his/her child and can tailor his lessons to the particular child. In a classroom setting, the lesson is not tailored, but rather given in a wholesale method... and that method is likely not to be the best way for everyone in the class.

Elliot

you cannot punish the children for something they knew no much better to do if their parents are not teaching them it is not their fault that their parents suck ... and I think that it is GREAT that the schools pick up the parents slack ... I for one took my sex ed serious I am now 20 yo with an infant but I have a career (Army) a house, and 2 card.. I had a father who said I dont care what you do condom or a casket.. never explain to me the results and at school they did and it spooked, I am now very successful and glad that I listened

First of all, Kaseyatim, are you married? Does the baby have a father?

Second, with all due respect, you are 20 years old. You are NOT successful. You haven't had time yet to be successful. (I'm guessing that at age 20 you are a low-level non-com, perhaps a PFC, or a Spec1. Maybe a CPL. Somewhere between E2 and E4. That constitutes a person who is on her way to BECOMING a success, but you aren't there yet. Let me know when you hit Sgt1CL or Mstr Sgt. And we'll talk.) I'm twice your age and haven't had time yet to be considered a success, even after having been at the top of my proffession at my most recent job. I strongly approve of your career choice, but CHOOSING a career is not the same as being a success at that career. Success takes time. I hope that you become a success, but you are not there yet.

Third, you say that you listened to your teachers in school who taught sex ed. Yes, I'm sure you listened to your teachers... but what is it they said? What they likely said is "If you are going to have sex, use protection". Which you did. You had sex as a teenager, but it was with a condom.

My point is that the people who wanted sex ed in the school system told us that sex ed would prevent teen sex. I'm betting that you had sex as a teen, but that you did it "safely". You did listen to your teachers. Good girl. But what they were SUPPOSED TO BE TEACHING you (according to their own statements) was NOT to have sex. Instead, they taught you how to have sex safely.

Yes, you listened to your teachers. But what your teachers taught you was NOT what they told the world they were going to teach you. They lied. You did what you were taught. But they didn't teach you the right things.

Thus, sex ed failed in its stated goal, to PREVENT teen sex. You are proof of the system's FAILURE, not it's success.

You would have been better off with the fear of your father. That fear would have kept you from having sex as a kid, just like it kept Wondergirl from having sex as a kid.

Elliot

For the past 40 years, sex ed has been taught in our schools. For the past 40 years, it has failed to do what it said it would do; prevent teen sex, teen pregnancy and STD spread.

Suddenly now, we are supposed to assume that it can work IF WE TEACH IT CORRECTLY?

It's not just that we need to teach it correctly whatever that means, we must start teaching them "medically accurate, age appropriate comprehensive sex education" when they're 5-years-old... whatever that means. I've said it time and again, let kids be kids. Sure parents should teach them early on about inappropriate touching and such, but let the parents be the parent and work to restore an atmosphere where kids can be kids again WITHOUT all the sexual influence.

First of all, Kaseyatim, are you married? Does the baby have a father?

Second, with all due respect, you are 20 years old. You are NOT successful. You haven't had time yet to be successful. (I'm guessing that at age 20 you are a low-level non-com, perhaps a PFC, or a Spec1. Maybe a CPL. Somewhere between E2 and E4. That constitutes a person who is on her way to BECOMING a success, but you aren't there yet. Let me know when you hit Sgt1CL or Mstr Sgt. and we'll talk.) I'm twice your age and haven't had time yet to be considered a success, even after having been at the top of my proffession at my most recent job. I strongly approve of your career choice, but CHOOSING a career is not the same as being a success at that career. Success takes time. I hope that you become a success, but you are not there yet.

Third, you say that you listened to your teachers in school who taught sex ed. Yes, I'm sure you listened to your teachers... but what is it they said? What they likely said is "If you are going to have sex, use protection". Which you did. You had sex as a teenager, but it was with a condom.

My point is that the people who wanted sex ed in the school system told us that sex ed would prevent teen sex. I'm betting that you had sex as a teen, but that you did it "safely". You did listen to your teachers. Good girl. But what they were SUPPOSED TO BE TEACHING you (according to their own statements) was NOT to have sex. Instead, they taught you how to have sex safely.

Yes, you listened to your teachers. But what your teachers taught you was NOT what they told the world they were going to teach you. They lied. You did what you were taught. But they didn't teach you the right things.

Thus, sex ed failed in its stated goal, to PREVENT teen sex. You are proof of the system's FAILURE, not it's success.

You would have been better off with the fear of your father. That fear would have kept you from having sex as a kid, just like it kept Wondergirl from having sex as a kid.

Elliot


Yes I as married to my sons father ans the asme word does not touchthe every person the same and nobody will be alble to eradicate teenage sex nor pregnancy but the pointis the kids being safe and graduating and doing good for themselves instead of being nothing but strippers and hustlers trying to make a way... that's the way that I feel we should carry things... no one will stop teens completely but at least they may be saving a few lives and a few children from being born into broken home all you people are worried for is the statitics and things that are completely impossible think about the teens and how it affects them when they get an std and how it affects that child that they are pregnant with and that should be the main concern in my eyes... I will not reply too much as to what you have to say about my career because I am going to carry myself as a Soldier, but please know that you are very wrong about me and I was "on my way" to being successful @ 15 , I have been in my career 3 year and have done for myself what very few peope my age even think of doing... I think having everything I ever dreamed of is a success and right now that's me house cars bills paid family.. yeah Im successful in my eyes I am sorry you don't believe the same (now if I only I could keep fish alive :() and I never had the fear of my father he just said use a condom or die from aids (condom or a casket) this is the millennium guys it's a whole new era!! Teens are going to do it so why not protect and educate them the best that we can as parents and leaders and school staffs and WHOEVER IT TAKES its not about they lied and said that they were teahcing this ITS ABOUT THE FREAKING KIDS!! Its like if you see a toddler run into the street are you doing to run and grab them, or say no her mom should have taught her better than that so just let her get ran over, when she knew no better and even if her mom did tell her once sometimes it takes more than one voice.. yes these teens think they are adults and think they know everything but they don't and even I don't but I'm smart enough to see and learn from my mistakes and try to pass on my knowledge and even if it only touches one person/teen that's great if I touch 5,10,50,100 that even better but I'm off this thread you guys I will alwaysbe striving to teach not only my son my but adolescent popluation as far as I can reach them the best that I can reach them to make their future and the future of their children the best that it can be. With no obstcles getting in the way of their goals... another thing teens don't open up, or listen to people who they feel they can't trust...

You would have been better off with the fear of your father. That fear would have kept you from having sex as a kid, just like it kept Wondergirl from having sex as a kid.
It was "fear" of my mother, not my father. And the fear was not being scared and worried about punishment, but of disappointing her and of causing a family crisis. Big difference. I am totally against instilling that other kind of fear in a child.

I will not reply too much as to what you have to say about my career because I am going to carry myself as a Soldier, but please know that you are very wrong about me and I was "on my way" to being successful @ 15 , I have been in my career 3 year and have done for myself what very few peope my age even think of doing...I think having everything I ever dreamed of is a success and right now thats me house cars bills paid family .. yeah Im successful in my eyes I am sorry you dont believe the same.Don't let those people bring you down. If you take good care of your child, are a good spouse, are financially independent, and treat yourself and others well then you are indeed successful. Keep up the good work.

Also, there are certain subjects that should not be taught in a classroom. Not because it is immoral to do so, but because the subject itself is not conducive to classroom learning. You can teach math and reading in a large classroom setting. But sex ed is a subject that is best taught one-on-one. A parent knows the best way to teach this subject to his/her child and can tailor his lessons to the particular child. In a classroom setting, the lesson is not tailored, but rather given in a wholesale method... and that method is likely not to be the best way for everyone in the class.

Elliot

COMPLETELY AGREE... except sometimes the parrents can't get through it does take a 3rd party

Thanks karma I dontknow how to push agree on these boards I am still new!!

thanks karma i dontknow how to push agree on these boards i am still new!!!You can't on these Member Discussion boards. It's a place for people to post their opinions without worrying about people giving them "reddies".

You would have been better off with the fear of your father. Hello again, El:

I don't think fear is a good motivator. But, you're in good company. One of your righty wierdo Republican congresswoman, thinks HUNGER is a good motivator for kids too. That's why she voted against giving poor kids breakfast.

Nope. Hunger, fear, and all that right wing crap doesn't teach a thing. Telling kids what's so works pretty good, I've found.

excon

Hello again, El:

I don't think fear is a good motivator. But, you're in good company. One of your righty wierdo Republican congresswoman, thinks HUNGER is a good motivator for kids too. That's why she voted against giving poor kids breakfast.

Nope. Hunger, fear, and all that right wing crap doesn't teach a thing. Telling kids what's so works pretty good, I've found.

excon

Haven't I already discredited this woman's moronic statement? Yes I'm quite sure I did, but again you seem to have taken to that "if we have one moron we're all morons" point of view.

COMPLETELY AGREE...except sometimes the parrents can't get through it does take a 3rd party

But who decides who the 3rd party is? The government? The same guys who screw up the mail and social security? Or should PARENTS make that decision for their kids?

THAT is my point.

As for your prior points, the stated goal of sex ed is to prevent teen sex, teen pregnancies and STD spread. YOUR goal is for kids to be safe and happy, but that is NOT what the goal of sex ed is. And sex ed has failed in its STATED GOAL.

Now... if you want to argue that the stated goal of sex ed is wrong, I'll be happy to discuss that issue with you. But that is NOT my point. My point is that sex ed has failed to do what it said it would do. The statistics on teen sex, teen pregnancy and STD spread prove that they failed.

You have argued that we can't stop teens from having sex, so we might as well make them safe and teach them the right way to do it.

I disagree with that.

For years people said that we can't stop kids from smoking, drinking and doing drugs. Then there came various government and private organizations that started advertising programs to keep kids from drinking, smoking and doing drugs. These programs have been very successful. Teen drinking, drug use and smoking are all down by HUGE numbers compared to what they were a decade ago. Drunk driving accidents are down too. Are they wiped out? No. But they are better than they were. We are seeing with teen drinking, teen drug use, and teen smoking, what affect we can have if we use the power of the media to teach kids the right thing.

So, if it works for teen drugs, drinking and smoking, why can't it work for sex? Why can't we have an anti-teen-sex advertising campaign similar to the anti-drug and anti-tabaco campaigns? If it worked and is continuing to work in those other areas? Why not teach abstinence in a media advertising campaign? Why have we given up teaching kids about not having sex when we don't give up on drugs and smoking and drinking?

Do you understand what I'm saying, kaseyatim? We have decided to do sex ed in schools because we supposedly can't stop kids from having sex. But we haven't even really tried to stop them. We haven't tried the same techniques to teen sex that we have to teen drug use and teen drinking and teen smoking. We've just given up for no good reason because it is a good excuse to allow sex ed in schools. Shouldn't we try something besides sex ed in schools to stop kids from having sex in the first place?

Elliot

Haven't I already discredited this woman's moronic statement? Yes I'm quite sure I did, but again you seem to have taken to that "if we have one moron we're all morons" point of view.Hello again, Steve:

You did, and you're a good man for it. I'm just waiting for the Wolverine to agree with you, but I think he's going to throw you under the bus.

excon

Hello again, El:

I don't think fear is a good motivator. But, you're in good company. One of your righty wierdo Republican congresswoman, thinks HUNGER is a good motivator for kids too. That's why she voted against giving poor kids breakfast.

Nope. Hunger, fear, and all that right wing crap doesn't teach a thing. Telling kids what's so works pretty good, I've found.

excon

First of all, I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to school breakfasts. I have no problem with the school breakfast program. If schools are taking responsibility for the care of kids during the daytimes, that responsibility comes with supplying meals for the kids. I see no problem with that.

Second, telling a kid what's so only works if you are actually telling them what's so. Telling kids that they will be safe having sex if they use a condom or birth control is NOT the truth. They are telling kids something that isn't so. And kids get in trouble with that supposed "knowledge" every day.

But if you tell kids that the only way to be 100% sure to prevent pregnancy is to not have sex, and then you tell them what happens when they get pregnant and what happens to the fetus in an abortion, they learn not to have sex in order to avoid pregnancy. If you tell them that the only way to avoid STDs is to avoid having sex, and if you tell them what happens when you get various STDs, they tend to avoid sex in order to avoid STDs. They learn to fear the consequences of having sex out of wedlock, and so they avoid sex out of wedlock.

The problem is that sex ed doesn't teach that. Not these days anyway. Sex ed proponents actually try to avoid any discussion of abstinence as being too "religious based". Instead, they tell kids how to use condoms, how to use birth control, and where to go to get their free abortion. And they hope that kids will actually remember these lessons (many don't and end up having uprotected sex anyway despite the free condoms being handed out to them). And when kids end up becoming pregnant, getting sick, having abortions, and having babies out of wedlock, the same sex-ed proponents tell us how we need a "more comprehensive" sex ed program... which almost always continues to leave abstinence and consequences out of the lesson plan. Which means that it isn't very comprehensive at all.

They deliberately take the fear factor OUT of the sex ed classes, and the result is that these kids have no fear of sex.

The problem in a nutshell, excon, is that sex ed DOESN'T tell kids how it is or what's so. Not all of it, not the really important parts. It only tells kids the best ways to get away with having sex without getting caught. If sex ed actually DID tell it like it is... well, I would still have a problem with it as a parental rights issue. But I would be less worried by it. At least the lessons themselves would be conducive the goal of decreasing teen sex, pregnancy and STD spread. Right now it's not.

Elliot

They deliberately take the fear factor OUT of the sex ed classes, and the result is that these kids have no fear of sex.Hello again, El:

Correctamundo. They, like me, don't think fear is a good teaching tool. You do. I only mention the other whacko, because she, like you, believes that NEGATIVES are good teaching tools and motivators...

I couldn't disagree more. I think TRUTH is a better teacher than FEAR.

excon

PS> Besides, I don't think teaching a fear of sex bodes well for a healthy, happy and satisfying sex life.

I always wondered why the US mentality was geared toward "viewing violence is ok but nudity is bad".

Hello again, El:

Correctamundo. They, like me, don't think fear is a good teaching tool. You do. I only mention the other whacko, because she, like you, believes that NEGATIVES are good teaching tools and motivators...

I couldn't disagree more. I think TRUTH is a better teacher than FEAR.

excon

PS> Besides, I don't think teaching a fear of sex bodes well for a healthy, happy and satisfying sex life.

The problem that you are refusing to see is that SEX ED isn't teaching the truth. They are teaching kids that condoms and the pill will make them safe. That is NOT the truth, and I don't think that even YOU say that it is. YOU know that condoms break, the pill doesn't always work, and neither of them stop STDs from spreading. Sex ed courses don't teach that FACT. They don't teach the truth.

The truth includes talking about consequences. Sex ed deliberately eliminates talk about consequences. They don't talk about what happens when you get an STD. They don't talk about what happens to the fetus in an abortion. They don't talk about what happens to a child who has a baby out of wedlock and the effects on the rest of her life.

It is fear of consequences that keep people from doing bad things. If people don't know the consequences and have no fear of those consequences, they will make mistakes due to lack of KNOWLEDGE and a lack of healthy fear.

You have heard of healthy fear, haven't you? You know, the type of fear that keeps you from crossing the street in the face of oncoming traffic, that keeps you from driving drunk, that keeps you from playing with fire. Healthy fear is a good thing. Psychologists throughout the world all recommend healthy fear. You should read up on the concept of healthy fear.

Sex ed eliminates the possibility of healthy fear by not talking about the consequences of sex. Kids, not knowing those consequences, perform the action and end up in trouble. A healthy fear of STDs, pregnancy and abortion could have prevented that from happening.

I'll bet you that every single kid, boy or girl, who has ever gotten in trouble from teen sex, has said one of two things: "I wish I knew" or "I wish I had listened".

Sex ed makes sure that they don't know, because it doesn't really tell the truth at all. It only tells the rosy parts and leaves all the nasty stuff about consequences out of the lesson plan. It takes out all the healthy fear.

Elliot

Sex ed makes sure that they don't know, because it doesn't really tell the truth at all. It only tells the rosy parts and leaves all the nasty stuff about consequences out of the lesson plan. It takes out all the healthy fear.Sex ed that doesn't tell kids that sex results in pregnancy? What sex ed is this??

The truth includes talking about consequences. Sex ed deliberately eliminates talk about consequences. They don't talk about what happens when you get an STD. They don't talk about what happens to the fetus in an abortion. They don't talk about what happens to a child who has a baby out of wedlock and the effects on the rest of her life.

It is fear of consequences that keep people from doing bad things. Hello again, El:

I can't figure you out. On the one hand, you don't like MORALS being taught along side sex education, unless they're YOUR morals.

What happened to your earlier suggestion about letting the parent teach the morals, and let the schools teach what goes where, like 2 + 2 = 4?

The problem is, as you have stated before, you think teaching them what goes where IS teaching them morals, AND it's cluing them in on something they would NEVER try if they weren't taught. BOTH of those propositions are actually quite silly.

excon

Hello again, El:

I can't figure you out. On the one hand, you don't like MORALS being taught along side sex education, unless they're YOUR morals.

What happened to your earlier suggestion about letting the parent teach the morals, and let the schools teach what goes where, like 2 + 2 = 4?

The problem is, as you have stated before, you think teaching them what goes where IS teaching them morals, AND it's cluing them in on something they would NEVER try if they weren't taught. BOTH of those propositions are actually quite silly.

excon

Again, the only person to discuss morals in this entire thread is YOU. I have stuck to facts and figures. YOU keep getting distracted by morals. And you cannot answer my points without getting lost in a moral argument because you cannot answer my points. There is no answer for them. You know I'm right.

You said that it is good for schools to tell kids what's what. I said that would be fine if they actually DID tell them what's what, but they don't. They leave out anything having to do with consequences. They therefore aren't giving kids the whole truth as you claim they do.

Instead of making some sort of argument about how they DO talk about consequences, you instead go off on some tangent about "my" morals, which I never talked about in the first place. Simply put, you have no response to my argument that sex ed in schools does not tell the whole truth, so you are trying to distract from that argument by engaging my morals.

I'm not going to let you.

Stick to the argument, or else admitt that you, as usual, can't counter my point and have no response.

If you don't answer that point, I will assume that you have no answer, and that I win. Again. As usual.

Elliot

They leave out anything having to do with consequences. They therefore aren't giving kids the whole truth as you claim they do.Hello again, El:

I know this is beyond your ability to grasp, but I'm going to give it another shot:

CONSEQUENCES connote something BAD happened to incur them. That's as moral a discussion as there is. I know you don't get it. I can't help that.

excon

Hello again, El:

I know this is beyond your ability to grasp, but I'm gonna give it another shot:

CONSEQUENCES connote something BAD happened to incur these consequences. That's as moral a discussion as there is. I know you don't get it. I can't help that.

excon

Consequences are not MORAL. Consequences are the natural outcomes of an action taken.

If one sticks his finger in a light socket, the consequence is that he is going to be shocked. If one walks outside in the rain, the consequence is that he or she will get wet and MIGHT catch a cold. That consequence connotes no MORALITY. It simply is the effect of the action taken.

Consequences can be bad or good. The consequence of studying hard and working hard is success. The consequence of not studying for a test is failing the test.

You are confusing the term "consequence" with "punishment" and "reward". PUNISHMENT and REWARD connote issues of morality. Consequence does not. I have not discussed punishment or reward. I have stuck to the issue of consequences.

So... back to the point at hand. Having sex has natural consequences. Sex ed eliminates the discussion of those consequences. Therefore sex ed does not give kids the entire truth. This is not a moral issue, this is an issue of fact.

So, now that we know that consequences are not an issue of morality (people don't get pregnant or get STDs because they are good or bad, they get pregnant or get STDs because they had sex/sexual contact), and now that we know that sex ed doesn't teach about those consequences, it becomes clear, even to you, that sex ed leaves much of the truth out of their curriculum.

So again, stop trying to turn this into a moral issue. It isn't about morals. It's about teaching the truth, which sex ed doesn't do.

Elliot

Does anyone honestly think that not giving kids an education on sex will stop them from having sex?

Would you rather these kids not learn about birth control and condoms? They're going to do it whether you inform them or not. Someone is going to teach them, believe me. Not teaching them is like sending them out with a loaded gun and not teaching them how to aim and fire. I'd rather teach them then be sorry.

Sex is a natural thing. Teens are walking balls of hormones willing to screw anything that looks at them the right way. Personally, I'd rather they be armed with knowledge and protection.

Teaching your children morals is great, and hopefully it will sink in. But, are you with them 24/7? Are they in a bubble? If not, then you have to worry about what they're learning from their friends, their peers, because I can tell you right now, their buddy isn't going to say "Oh, wait until marriage, it will be so much better". No, they'll be saying "all the cool kids are doing it, don't you want to be cool?"

Don't you remember being a teen? I do.

Does anyone honestly think that not giving kids an education on sex will stop them from having sex?

Would you rather these kids not learn about birth control and condoms? They're going to do it whether you inform them or not.

What a cop out. That's how we effect change for the better, just throw our freakin' hands up and surrender.

Does anyone honestly think that not giving kids an education on sex will stop them from having sex?

Would you rather these kids not learn about birth control and condoms? They're going to do it whether you inform them or not. Someone is going to teach them, believe me. Not teaching them is like sending them out with a loaded gun and not teaching them how to aim and fire. I'd rather teach them then be sorry.

Sex is a natural thing. Teens are walking balls of hormones willing to screw anything that looks at them the right way. Personally, I'd rather they be armed with knowledge and protection.

Teaching your children morals is great, and hopefully it will sink in. But, are you with them 24/7? Are they in a bubble? If not, then you have to worry about what they're learning from their friends, their peers, because I can tell you right now, their buddy isn't going to say "Oh, wait until marriage, it will be so much better". No, they'll be saying "all the cool kids are doing it, don't you want to be cool?"

Don't you remember being a teen? I do.


I remember being a teen. I also remember being a virgin on my wedding night. So was my wife.

Going back to the argument I have been making, Altenweg, kids who have not had sex ed actually are less likely to have sex than kids who do.

Like I said before, back in the 30s-60s there were fewer kids having sex, fewer teen pregnancies and fewer cases of STD transmission.

Then along came sex ed in schools. We were told that there was a problem with kids having sex and getting pregnant, and that sex ed would keep them from having sex, getting pregnant and passing along STDs. Sex ed became the new solution to a problem we didn't even have yet.

As the years passed, more kids were getting pregnant, more teens were having sex, and more kids were getting STDs. Sex ed may not have been CAUSING the problem, but it most assuredly wasn't preventing it either, despite the promisses that it would. And so, pro-sex-ed people decided that they needed to take Drastic Action to prevent more teen pregnancies. They were going to hand out condoms to kids.

The result? Ever increasing numbers of kids having sex, getting pregnant, having abortions and getting sick.

The problem is that sex ed doesn't work.

As I have discussed in this thread before, sex ed alone cannot eliminate teen sex. The problem with sex ed is that it teaches kids the mechanics of sex, but doesn't teach them the consequences of sex. If you tell kids "this is how you have sex 'safely', and boy does it feel good", but never tell them about what STDs can do to you, what happens to an aborted fetus, what can happen to a girl who has a child out of wedlock, or any other consequences of sex (mental, emotional, physical) all you are doing is inviting them to have sex. Many of them will forget the condom in the heat of the moment. Many others will use the condom or the pill, but they will be the unlucky ones for whom they are in effective.

The problem with sex ed in schools is the lack of a "fear factor". Kids are never taught a healthy fear of the consequences of sex. So they end up having sex when they otherwise might not have.

You, like so many others, have argued that "teens have sex, there's no way to stop it". Why do you believe that? We have seen in recent years that the media campaigns against teen smoking, teen drinking and teen drug use have all resulted in significantly lower incidence of these bad behaviors. Why do you believe that a media campaign against teen sex wouldn't also have an effect? If it works for drugs, drinking and smoking, why wouldn't it work for sex? Why are we so sure that teen sex is a fait accompli, when we have evidence that there is something that will work to teach kids abstinence from sex just like it teaches abstinence from drugs, alcohol and tobacco?

We see that sex ed in schools isn't working. It is, in fact, failing miserably at its goal of stopping teen sex and teen pregnancy and teen STD, if the statistics are to be believed. Why are you continuing to support something that clearly doesn't work when you have another option to try?

Why are you so set on sex ed in schools?

Elliot

Elliot, Altenweg is so set on it because they're going to do it anyway. So instead of trying to change things for the better we just surrender. And if that ain't enough, the government has a backup plan. The 9th Circus Court just overturned an injunction (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pill-ruling9-2009jul09,0,6469894.story) that prevented the State of Washington from penalizing privately owned pharmacies for refusing to sell the "morning after" pill.

Let's force sex ed on our children against the wishes of parents, force private businesses to sell a specific item and overrule the first amendment in the process. Welcome to the left's concept of "rights" and "freedom."

I believe the case will not end with the 9ths ruling .Anyway ;it only overturns the injuction .They did not make a decision on the case because it still has to be decided in district court .But given the track record of the loony 9th if the ruling is against the phramacy owner an appeal will be struck down.

This case could be destined for a SCOTUS decision. A store owner has the right to stock or not stock any legal item. This is even more important than the Freedom of Religion argument .Do store owners have the right to decide which products and services they provide ?

Do store owners have the right to decide which products and services they provide ?Hello tom:

We've had this discussion before. Sure a store owner has the right to decide which products to sell. However, if he wishes to be licensed by the state, the state can require him to meet the needs of the citizens of the state. If he doesn't wish to do that, he can certainly open up a dollar store. I don't think anybody will tell him what he can and can't sell there.

Does the state have the power to regulate the activities of the business's which it licenses? I would say yes. You, I guess not.

excon

I believe the case will not end with the 9ths ruling .Anyway ;it only overturns the injuction .They did not make a decision on the case because it still has to be decided in district court .But given the track record of the loony 9th if the ruling is against the phramacy owner an appeal will be struck down.

I believe they are the most overturned circuit court. Surely this kind of nonsense won't pass muster.

Hello tom:

We've had this discussion before. Sure a store owner has the right to decide which products to sell. However, if he wishes to be licensed by the state, the state can require him to meet the needs of the citizens of the state. If he doesn't wish to do that, he can certainly open up a dollar store. I don't think anybody will tell him what he can and can't sell there.

Does the state have the power to regulate the activities of the business's which it licenses? I would say yes. You, I guess not.

The state often tells businesses things it can't sell, since when do they have the power to tell a business what they MUST sell? Do they force doctors to perform abortions? There's nothing medically necessary that I'm aware of that would require FORCING a pharmacy to sell Plan B any more than there would be a medically necessary reason to FORCE a doctor to prescribe it. The "needs" of the citizens in this case can be met in other ways or by other willing providers so there is no necessity to enact such a requirement.

Schools and doctors hand them out like candy to kids.

Does the state have the power to regulate the activities of the business's which it licenses? I would say yes. You, I guess not.

excon

Certainly the government has the POWER to regulate the activities of those businesses.

But does it have the RIGHT?

Different question entirely... and the answer depends on whether you are a conservative or a statist. A conservative would say that the government does not have that right, that control of industry is left in the hands of the people, not the state. The statist would argue that the government has not only the right, but the responsibility to control what businesses do, and the people have no freedoms of their own to make those choices.

Let's see if we can guess which of those two you go for, excon.

Elliot

Do they have the right to do a lot of things they have been doing?

But who decides who the 3rd party is? The government? The same guys who screw up the mail and social security? Or should PARENTS make that decision for their kids?

THAT is my point.

As for your prior points, the stated goal of sex ed is to prevent teen sex, teen pregnancies and STD spread. YOUR goal is for kids to be safe and happy, but that is NOT what the goal of sex ed is. And sex ed has failed in its STATED GOAL.

Now... if you want to argue that the stated goal of sex ed is wrong, I'll be happy to discuss that issue with you. But that is NOT my point. My point is that sex ed has failed to do what it said it would do. The statistics on teen sex, teen pregnancy and STD spread prove that they failed.

You have argued that we can't stop teens from having sex, so we might as well make them safe and teach them the right way to do it.

I disagree with that.

For years people said that we can't stop kids from smoking, drinking and doing drugs. Then there came various government and private organizations that started advertising programs to keep kids from drinking, smoking and doing drugs. These programs have been very successful. Teen drinking, drug use and smoking are all down by HUGE numbers compared to what they were a decade ago. Drunk driving accidents are down too. Are they wiped out? No. But they are better than they were. We are seeing with teen drinking, teen drug use, and teen smoking, what affect we can have if we use the power of the media to teach kids the right thing.

So, if it works for teen drugs, drinking and smoking, why can't it work for sex? Why can't we have an anti-teen-sex advertising campaign similar to the anti-drug and anti-tabaco campaigns? If it worked and is continuing to work in those other areas? Why not teach abstinence in a media advertising campaign? Why have we given up teaching kids about not having sex when we don't give up on drugs and smoking and drinking?

Do you understand what I'm saying, kaseyatim? We have decided to do sex ed in schools because we supposedly can't stop kids from having sex. But we haven't even really tried to stop them. We haven't tried the same techniques to teen sex that we have to teen drug use and teen drinking and teen smoking. We've just given up for no good reason because it is a good excuse to allow sex ed in schools. Shouldn't we try something besides sex ed in schools to stop kids from having sex in the first place?

Elliot



As crazy as it may sound the teen chooses who that 3rd party will be , we cannot choose for them who they will listen to and understand better it may be a school counselor, dr. neighbor, family friend, parent whoever can get through to them could be third party.

I agree that we should have the ads to stop teen pregnancy that is a good idea and maybe you should tell that piece to someone who could make it happen, it only takes one voice to start a song you know. Although not to debate that the other ads haven't helped, but who is saying that teens have slowed down thamount of drugs they are doing who is reporting these statistics? The teens themselves admitting to it , or the drug dealers selling it to them or what I mean how many teens are going to honestly admit to doing drugs? And how many dope dealers are going to admit to selling to a teen?? That will be the ONLY place you will get TRUE statistics from!

I think the 1st priority would need to be to stop them from having sex but also have the information available to those teens who are not willing to be completely abstinent.. I do not think that sex ED should stop or be removed or is a bad it is very good for them to have more than one option of people who they feel comforatable going to. Some teens don't even have parents or if it is a young girl with only a father or a young boy with only a mother its hard to listen to one of the opposite sex I mean there is so many reasons that they don't talk to their parents just like you probably have certain people you won't talk to about certain things they are humans too... I have my ex-boyfriends little sister who talks to me about sex (virgin @ 16) and she know she can have full trust and confidence and I would never lead her in the wrong direction and I am not her parents, or school staff but I am just that 3rd party... do you get where I am going with the 3rd party business...

And just Kasey is fine lol

The state often tells businesses things it can't sell, since when do they have the power to tell a business what they MUST sell? Do they force doctors to perform abortions? There's nothing medically necessary that I'm aware of that would require FORCING a pharmacy to sell Plan B any more than there would be a medically necessary reason to FORCE a doctor to prescribe it. The "needs" of the citizens in this case can be met in other ways or by other willing providers so there is no necessity to enact such a requirement.

WOW subject changed I am lost!!

Sex ed that doesn't tell kids that sex results in pregnancy? What sex ed is this??????



When I was in school they emphasized that *you can make a baby , even if its your first time and it only takes one time*

Ex ;if I open a liquor store I can pick which brands of booze I sell . If I choose not to stock beer that may very well hurt my business . But I have the right to do so. The law in question would have me direct a patron to a store that sells beer which is absurd itself .

By not stocking the product I am not denying a person from obtaining the product ;just that they would not be able to purchase it from me.

Like I said ;this has broader implications than the whole religious issue .

WOW subject changed I am lost!!!

We never seem to stay on track. But the point of my OP remains, pregnancies DOUBLED under this UK plan to curb teen pregnancy and the alleged success of the NY program it was modeled after hasn't been replicated anywhere else.

OK ex, you wondered who was advocating for kids to have sex, the UK's NHS does.


NHS chiefs have been slammed after telling school children: “An orgasm a day keeps the doctor away (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2531173/NHS-tells-kids-Sex-each-day-is-healthy.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News).”

A controversial leaflet — titled Pleasure — has been handed out to parents, teachers and youth workers in a bid to modernise sex education.

It highlights the health benefits of frequent action between the sheets and suggests teens have a “right” to a sex life.

The leaflet says: “Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes’ physical activity three times a week.

“What about sex or masturbation twice a week?”

The pamphlet was drawn up by NHS Sheffield. Steve Slack, director of its HIV and sexual health clinic, said properly informed teens had as much right to physical relationships as adults.

But teachers branded the leaflet “deplorable”.

Deplorable indeed. No wonder they get twice the pregnancies while trying to reduce them.

It is specifically aimed at professionals and parents. It gives ideas for how to talk about the pleasure aspect of sex in a sex-ed situation.

It's the National Health Service in the sense that it is produced by a small regional HIV and sexual health center that comes under the NHS umbrella.

But since that is not the curriculum in the US then it's a red herring.

Like I said before, back in the 30s-60s there were fewer kids having sex, fewer teen pregnancies and fewer cases of STD transmission.

Not true. Teens had sex, they just didn't talk about it. Pregnancise occurred and the couple were either forced to marry right away or the girl was sent away to give birth and then give the child up for adoption. Heck, a lot of my friends born in the 60's are adopted, born to teen moms. There goes that theory.


I remember being a teen. I also remember being a virgin on my wedding night. So was my wife.

Congratulations. You're not the norm, you should be proud. My parents, both raised with morals, church going, no sex ed, they had sex before marriage. I had sex before marriage. Where's that scarlet letter? ;)


As the years passed, more kids were getting pregnant, more teens were having sex, and more kids were getting STDs. Sex ed may not have been CAUSING the problem, but it most assuredly wasn't preventing it either, despite the promisses that it would. And so, pro-sex-ed people decided that they needed to take Drastic Action to prevent more teen pregnancies. They were going to hand out condoms to kids.

Sex ed isn't the problem, it's the kids. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Just because you teach abstinence doesn't mean they'll abstain. Just because you teach safe sex doesn't mean they'll actually use the condom you put in their hand.

Again, read the teen forums on this site. If I had a penny for every 16 something that came on this site and said "I had unprotected sex, could I be pregnant" I would be rich.

Obviously that kids school didn't teach safe sex and pass out condoms, either that, or, like every teen out there, she thinks she's invincible and it won't happen to her.

Teaching is not the problem, it's the students that are the problem and the parents that want to pretend that we're still living in the 30's.

Keep your kids out of the loop. Scare the crap out of them, make them think sex is evil, bad and shouldn't be enjoyed. Either that or hope that by not talking about sex they'll abstain, wait until they're married.

Leave your rosecolored glasses on. Tell me how that works for you when your daughter tells you she's on the pill and having sex with her boyfriend at the age of 15. Because it's not likely that your kids will follow in your footsteps, unless you live on a mountain in the middle of no where.

So what's your answer Elliot? What about the kids who's parents aren't like you?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/sex-education-works-373258-12.html#post1851313

It is specifically aimed at professionals and parents. It gives ideas for how to talk about the pleasure aspect of sex in a sex-ed situation.

It's the National Health Service in the sense that it is produced by a small regional HIV and sexual health center that comes under the NHS umbrella.

But since that is not the curriculum in the US then it's a red herring.

LOL, nothing is relevant to you NK. But since the OP is based on a story out of the UK (and I should know, it was my thread) it's entirely relevant. Why don't you become relevant for a change?

Not true. Teens had sex, they just didn't talk about it. Pregnancise occured and the couple were either forced to marry right away or the girl was sent away to give birth and then give the child up for adoption. Heck, alot of my friends born in the 60's are adopted, born to teen moms. There goes that theory.Count the numbers! For goodness sakes you are suppose to be an expert and don't have a clue. Teen pregnancy has been on the rise since the NEA and Government got involved. No one ever claimed that kids never had sex in the 30,40,50. But the incident of teen pregnancy sure was a lot less back then. STD's was almost unheard of except in prostitutes.



Congratulations. You're not the norm, you should be proud. My parents, both raised with morals, church going, no sex ed, they had sex before marriage. I had sex before marriage. Where's that scarlet letter? ;)



Sex ed isn't the problem, it's the kids. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Just because you teach abstinence doesn't mean they'll abstain. Just because you teach safe sex doesn't mean they'll actually use the condom you put in their hand. That's the whole point, Sex Education IS the problem. Back in the old (my) day sex was learned a lot of different ways. Did not matter though we seemed to be able to repopulate the earth every generation without much trouble

Again, read the teen forums on this site. If I had a penny for every 16 something that came on this site and said "I had unprotected sex, could I be pregnant" I would be rich.Since the sex education as taught by schools does not work, maybe it is time to teach abstinence for a change and see how that works out

Obviously that kids school didn't teach safe sex and pass out condoms, either that, or, like every teen out there, she thinks she's invincible and it won't happen to her.Exactly. Teens today are a lost society. Look at the suicide rates among teens. Peer pressure is pushing them to doing things and experimenting far younger than in my day. Couple that with a society that is addicted to sex and you have an epomedic on your hands.

Teaching is not the problem, it's the students that are the problem and the parents that want to pretend that we're still living in the 30's.Your right almost. It is the lack of proper teaching. But why is it the governments place to teach children as young as 8 about sex?

Go ahead and keep your kids out of the loop. Scare the crap out of them, make them think sex is evil, bad and shouldn't be enjoyed. Either that or hope that by not talking about sex they'll abstain, wait until they're married. Like I have advocated before if parents are not involved in their childrens education they are failing as parents. If I had school age children today, I would be reviewing the curriculum in every class they attended and would not let them attend thise I found not relivent or improper or against my religious beliefs. Every parent should be also.

Leave your rosecolored glasses on. Tell me how that works for you when your daughter tells you she's on the pill and having sex with her boyfriend at the age of 15. Because it's not likely that your kids will follow in your footsteps, unless you live on a mountain in the middle of no where.
If parents teach their children moral values and to take responsibility for their actions you would probably see a dramatic fall in teen pregnancy and STD's. When you have parents that are drugged out or too busy getting drunk or trying to screw every neighbor, how can children do anything different?

If parents teach their children moral values and to take responsibility for their actions you would probably see a dramatic fall in teen pregnancy and STD's. When you have parents that are drugged out or too busy getting drunk or trying to screw every neighbor, how can children do anything different?

They cant... SO, someone else needs to teach them these things.. Seems logical to me that it is their teacher.

You make a good point. One that seems lost on Elliot. Just because his kids grow up learning these things from him in his strict Orthodox Jewish household, doesn't mean all kids do. What about them? Just let God take care of it?

No, someone needs to show some guidance to these kids.

Since the sex education as taught by schools does not work, maybe it is time to teach abstinence for a change and see how that works out



Just wanted to point out here, my school taught abstinence only... didnt do a bit of good... the numbers were still the same