[excon]

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

[Wondergirl]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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

[spitvenom]

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.

[N0help4u]

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.

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

His Brain, Her Brain: Scientific American

[ETWolverine]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[N0help4u]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[spitvenom]

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.

[ZoeMarie]

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.

[N0help4u]

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/...isherbrain.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

Teen Abstinence Oxytocin