[jillianleab]

We disagree, speech. You can explain and backpedal and cover up all you want, but it is still my opinion you took that questionnaire out of context and posted it here to make the program look worse than it is. That's my opinion, you say otherwise. I don't agree. Can we move on?

Jillian dear, please point out one instance where I've supported that curriculum.

I didn't say you did, I was using that as an example as to why it is "noble" to point out the medical inaccuracies of the program. Read the post again.

Therefore, either way your "heart attack" comment was unnecessary.

You've been able to take a joke or friendly ribbing before - obviously that has been lost today. I'll remember that and leave you out of any post I make unless I am replying to you.

History, as I have said before, would seem to indicate otherwise. There was a lot less teen sex, teen pregnancy and STD trouble before sex ed was put in place. How do you account for that? My point is that the model I ascribe to DID work on the large scale for the general population prior to the introduction of sex ed.

All of which was during a different time and different culture. Things change and adaptation must take place. If you think or have experienced that simply telling your kids not to have sex will work, by all means, go for it. I think and I have experienced otherwise.

We're going in circles here, all of us.

[ETWolverine]

All of which was during a different time and different culture. Things change and adaptation must take place.

But the only thing that has really changed is the adoption of sex-ed as part of the school curriculum. I think that sex-ed, which was supposed to be a solution, is itself part of the problem. The equation is simple: before sex-ed, there were fewer teen pregnancies, fewer STDs and fewer teens having sex. After sex-ed, the number of teen pregnancies skyrocketted, STDs became common, and more teens were having sex at younger and younger ages.

If you think or have experienced that simply telling your kids not to have sex will work, by all means, go for it. I think and I have experienced otherwise.

Your expereince is due to the mixed signals that I mentioned above... which you have agreed is part of the problem. Ergo, the solution is to change the message so that all parties are giving the same message. You have not had the experience of everybody being on the same page and everyone telling kids not to have sex without any caveats.

You cannot know if it works, because you haven't tried it. Your only experience has been with a "mixed-message" system. You have no experience with a real abstinance-only system. Those who have experienced it... those who grew up duing or were parents during the 50s, or those from religious Jewish or Muslim families... can attest to how well it works.

In any case, I think that, based on teen preganancy numbers, STD statistics, abortion rates, etc. we can both agree that what we are doing now just isn't working. Where we disagree is not with whether there is a problem. There clearly is. Where we disagree is with regard to the solution.

Elliot

[excon]

But the only thing that has really changed is the adoption of sex-ed as part of the school curriculum.

Hello Elliot:

Dude! How can you continue to ignore the 600 pound gorilla in the room called the BIRTH CONTROL PILL? Well, I'm not going to letcha.

excon

[speechlesstx]

We disagree, speech. You can explain and backpedal and cover up all you want, but it is still my opinion you took that questionnaire out of context and posted it here to make the program look worse than it is. That's my opinion, you say otherwise. I don't agree. Can we move on?

Jillian, it's hard to move on while you continue to publicly make false and insulting claims about me. Not only have I allegedly posted something out of context "to make the program look worse than it is," now I'm backpedaling and covering up. Insulting someone is an odd way to expect that someone to move on. It just escapes me how someone can be accused of taking virtually an entire webpage, with links, out of context - that's more than just a disagreement.

It's especially interesting when you consider the House report you cited itself provides less context than I furnished. It's even more telling that I agreed we should not teach our children such false information, while I continue to get pummeled over presenting the other side of things in full context with links. Is that how we move on, I shut up and allow your arguments and accusations to stand? Is that what I deserve for agreeing with you on abstinence education, presenting the other side in what I said may or may not be in some of our schools and calling for compromise? If so, I want no part of that world - I'm not going to give ground if the other side refuses to move also.

Jillian dear, please point out one instance where I've supported that curriculum.

I didn't say you did, I was using that as an example as to why it is "noble" to point out the medical inaccuracies of the program. Read the post again.

Jillian, you're missing the point. In more than one post now you and several others have been arguing against a curriculum I never supported in the first place. I have only argued against contraception in schools and the type of "comprehensive" sex ed that Planned Parenthood and others endorse. I have called several times for compromise in these posts and yet you still responded with "a curriculum full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer," to which I responded "I don't recall having endorsed this abstinence only education." You then asked - inappropriately I might add - if I wanted "the kids across the street to be taught" they could catch HIV from my daughter's sweat or if they comfort her, to which I gave you another chance to get my point - I don't support the curriculum you're condemning.

You've been able to take a joke or friendly ribbing before - obviously that has been lost today. I'll remember that and leave you out of any post I make unless I am replying to you.

Jillian, when I see my name in bold in a post to someone else on a topic I'm passionate about following the line "a curriculum (which I don't support) full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer," after being told I "have a knack for taking things out of context!" that was "a low blow and it was pathetic" - don't be surprised if I pull the virtual verbal trigger - I'm not the one that made this personal. Nevertheless, my sincere apologies for the misunderstanding.

We're going in circles here, all of us.

Actually, I have agreed now several times that an inaccurate abstinence curriculum is unacceptable and 'excon the sex mon' and I reached a compromise, so we aren't all going in circles. I'm willing to compromise, are you?

Steve

[ETWolverine]

Hello Elliot:

Dude! How can you continue to ignore the 600 pound gorilla in the room called the BIRTH CONTROL PILL? Well, I'm not gonna letcha.

excon

Its all part and parcel of the same issue... giving the kids a "way out".

But I ignore birth control pills because until very recently, they were not available to kids without adult consent. NOW they are, but the problem of teen-pregnancy predates BC pills being available to teens. However, the timing jives perfectly with the introduction of sex-ed in schools. BC pills weren't a factor in creating this problem, they are merely a perpetuation of it. The problem itself, IMO, has its roots in the nature of sex ed and its mixed messages.

Elliot

[jillianleab]

Jillian, it's hard to move on while you continue to publicly make false and insulting claims about me. Not only have I allegedly posted something out of context "to make the program look worse than it is," now I'm backpedaling and covering up. Insulting someone is an odd way to expect that someone to move on. It just escapes me how someone can be accused of taking virtually an entire webpage, with links, out of context - that's more than just a disagreement.

It is my opinion you posted the list of questions to make it look like the program was asking kids to consider if they are gay. That is not the point of the questions. It is my opinion you intentionally left out key information from the lesson plan to make it look worse than it is. Posting the link, which requires clicking the link then another link to arrive at the actual lesson plan and intent, does not mean you have posted the information within context. That is my opinion. You have explained the reasons behind you actions and justified what you have done, but it is still my opinion your post was out of context.

It's especially interesting when you consider the House report you cited itself provides less context than I furnished. It's even more telling that I agreed we should not teach our children such false information, while I continue to get pummeled over presenting the other side of things in full context with links. Is that how we move on, I shut up and allow your arguments and accusations to stand? Is that what I deserve for agreeing with you on abstinence education, presenting the other side in what I said may or may not be in some of our schools and calling for compromise? If so, I want no part of that world - I'm not going to give ground if the other side refuses to move also.

The link I posted has footnotes. If I had access to (without having to pay for) the pamphlets used, I'd gladly check to see if they are in context or not. But, I don't, so I'm trusting that a document prepared for a Rep is correct. You are free to accept or reject that as you see fit. I will note this, the Why kNOW program site (referenced in my link) says "In terms of how condoms are typically used nationwide, 14-15% of couples using condoms still become pregnant" which fails to mention that's true only over the course of one year. Just a little lie. WhykNOw Abstinence Education: Teen Pregnancy Info

Jillian, you're missing the point. In more than one post now you and several others have been arguing against a curriculum I never supported in the first place. I have only argued against contraception in schools and the type of "comprehensive" sex ed that Planned Parenthood and others endorse. I have called several times for compromise in these posts and yet you still responded with "a curriculum full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer," to which I responded "I don't recall having endorsed this abstinence only education." You then asked - inappropriately I might add - if I wanted "the kids across the street to be taught" they could catch HIV from my daughter's sweat or if they comfort her, to which I gave you another chance to get my point - I don't support the curriculum you're condemning.

I'm not missing the point, I never said you supported the abstinence only program. You agreed it is bad to lie to teens about sex; you've agreed about that on other threads. You have missed the point about my comment about the kids across the street. I was using that as an example to why it is noble to point out the inaccuracies in the program; not to "prove" to you it's noble, but as an example of why it IS noble; because the spread of such information is bad for society. Don't you agree? That was my point; giving an example of something we both agree is bad information and is damaging to have spread. I'm sorry if you felt this comment was inappropriate, but since you have several times posted about your daughter's health and the circumstances surrounding it, I didn't think it was off-limits. I didn't mean to offend you or make you uncomfortable. If I did, I'm really sorry, please know that was not my intent.

Jillian, when I see my name in bold in a post to someone else on a topic I'm passionate about following the line "a curriculum (which I don't support) full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer," after being told I "have a knack for taking things out of context!" that was "a low blow and it was pathetic" - don't be surprised if I pull the virtual verbal trigger - I'm not the one that made this personal. Nevertheless, my sincere apologies for the misunderstanding.

When I posted "a curriculum full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer" (post #35) I was not addressing you, nor was I referring to you. I began a reference to you at the start of the following sentence, where your name appears. It, by the way, appears in bold because I put ALL names in bold. It's a habit left over from another site I belong to. And I didn't post "low blow and pathetic" until post #50. Thank you for your apology; misunderstandings happen, no big deal. :)

Actually, I have agreed now several times that an inaccurate abstinence curriculum is unacceptable and 'excon the sex mon' and I reached a compromise, so we aren't all going in circles. I'm willing to compromise, are you?

Steve

As far as I'm concerned the only thing we are feuding about is the in context/out of context thing. We disagree about what the content of sex ed should be, and that's OK. We agree it should be medically accurate, so at least that's something to build on - dare I say... a COMPROMISE?? :D

Are we friends again? :)

[jillianleab]

In any case, I think that, based on teen preganancy numbers, STD statistics, abortion rates, etc., we can both agree that what we are doing now just isn't working. Where we disagree is not with whether or not there is a problem. There clearly is. Where we disagree is with regard to the solution.

Elliot

I agree. The current system has loads of room for improvement. We just disagree on how to go about doing that.

I seem to remember we came to the same conclusion on another issue in another thread... :)

[Dark_crow]

Elliot

Hoc is the fallacy committed when one jumps to a conclusion about causation based on a correlation between two events, or types of event, which occur simultaneously. In order to avoid this fallacy, one needs to rule out other possible explanations for the correlation: A third event—or type of event—is the cause of the correlation.

Suppose that statistics show a positive correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, namely, the higher number of guns owned, the higher the rate of violent crime. It would be tempting to jump to the conclusion that gun ownership causes violent crime.

[ETWolverine]

Suppose that statistics show a positive correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, namely, the higher number of guns owned, the higher the rate of violent crime. It would be tempting to jump to the conclusion that gun ownership causes violent crime.

Yes, especially since the statistics show the exact opposite. :)

But I don't think I made this error in this case. As I mentioned above to excon, the only thing that has changed is the mixed message kids are receiving... from sex-ed, from the media... which leads one to conclude that there is no other cause.

Excon tried to state that the invention of birth control pills is a causal factor, but I discussed that as well... birth control was not available to children when this problem took hold. The availability of birth control to kids is a subsequent event. Ergo, I go back to the conclusion that the primary causal factor is the mixed message, and that the mixed message began with sex-ed in schools and continued with the sexualization of mass media.

Can you name any other possible causal factors besides the "mixed-message" that correlate with the increase in teen preganancies, rise in STDs, and teen abortion rates in the 60s? I've been trying very hard to some up with some other cause, but I can't find one.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

It is my opinion you posted the list of questions to make it look like the program was asking kids to consider if they are gay...

Jillian, and I'm telling you the point of my posting the questionnaire - regardless of the lesson's point - is it's inappropriate for public schools. Why do we need that kind of "in your face" sex ed in public schools? Why do we need to intentionally make middle and high school students uncomfortable without regard to the student's and his or her family's values? Why should we have sexual orientation role playing games for students to expose and defeat the "heterosexist bias in our culture?" I thought the purpose of sex ed - repeated over and over and over - was "medically accurate, age appropriate sex education," not diversity, tolerance and ethics from a biased point of view. Isn't that the complaint about the current abstinence education? Why should it be any different for the other side?

The link I posted has footnotes.

OK, here's the footnote:

* Created by Martin Rochlin, Ph.D. January 1977, and adapted for use here.

Now you can't say it's "out of context," LOL.

I'm not missing the point, I never said you supported the abstinence only program. You agreed it is bad to lie to teens about sex; you've agreed about that on other threads. You have missed the point about my comment about the kids across the street. I was using that as an example to why it is noble to point out the inaccuracies in the program; not to "prove" to you it's noble, but as an example of why it IS noble; because the spread of such information is bad for society. Don't you agree?

Yes, I have and do agree that bad information is bad for society - we just don't seem to agree on all that is bad for society.

I didn't mean to offend you or make you uncomfortable. If I did, I'm really sorry, please know that was not my intent.

No sweat :)

When I posted "a curriculum full of lies and scare tactics is not the answer" (post #35) I was not addressing you, nor was I referring to you. I began a reference to you at the start of the following sentence, where your name appears. It, by the way, appears in bold because I put ALL names in bold. It's a habit left over from another site I belong to. And I didn't post "low blow and pathetic" until post #50. Thank you for your apology; misunderstandings happen, no big deal.

Well, I had just read post #50, the latest post at the time, hence the noticeable amount of steam coming out of my ears before reading post #35. :)

As far as I'm concerned the only thing we are feuding about is the in context/out of context thing. We disagree about what the content of sex ed should be, and that's OK. We agree it should be medically accurate, so at least that's something to build on - dare I say... a COMPROMISE??

Jillian, don't mistake persistence and passion for "feuding." We can certainly disagree over what sex ed should be and that's fine, but I do go to great lengths to not only avoid posting controversial material out of context - I go to great lengths to find the context that's missing in other posts. I can compromise over the issues, I'll admit when I'm wrong, but I won't compromise in admitting to what I didn't do.

Are we friends again? :)

You mean we weren't before? :D

[nicespringgirl]

That's what I have been taught when I was back in my country. YOU should have done that earlier!

NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE! You get kicked out if you were a pregnant, and the one who made you pregnant gets kicked out too! (I know you Americans think it is curel!)

P.S. It has nothing to do with GOD, it's basic moral! VERY BASIC!!

I truly hope the Americans can focus more on providing more leadership experience, gaining higher academic achievement and developing healthier interpersonal/social skills at school.

[jillianleab]

Jillian, and I'm telling you the point of my posting the questionnaire - regardless of the lesson's point - is it's inappropriate for public schools. Why do we need that kind of "in your face" sex ed in public schools? Why do we need to intentionally make middle and high school students uncomfortable without regard to the student's and his or her family's values? Why should we have sexual orientation role playing games for students to expose and defeat the "heterosexist bias in our culture?" I thought the purpose of sex ed - repeated over and over and over - was "medically accurate, age appropriate sex education," not diversity, tolerance and ethics from a biased point of view. Isn't that the complaint about the current abstinence education? Why should it be any different for the other side?

It's there because it's part of a comprehensive plan, which I pointed out in another post. Comprehensive sex education isn't supposed to be just about sex, medical info, pregnancy and STDs; it is supposed to incorporate the entire culture surrounding sex; that there are different people and just because they are different doesn't make them wrong. From the Advocates for Youth site:

Comprehensive sex ed stresses abstinence and includes age-appropriate, medically accurate information about contraception. Comprehensive sex ed is also developmentally appropriate, introducing information on relationships, decision-making, assertiveness, and skill building to resist social/peer pressure, depending on grade-level.

I think that sort of "in your face" sex ed belongs in public schools because at middle and high school ages we still have the opportunity to inform kids and prevent racism, intolerance and hatred. Posing those questions to a heterosexual person forces them to think about how they can possibly answer them - it puts them in the position of homosexual kids and allows them to empathazise with them. Yes, it might go against family values, which is why, as always, parents can opt their kids out. SOMETHING in ANY program is going to go against SOMEONE'S values - there is no perfect lesson plan. I just happen to like this one more than the current ones. I suppose the only bias is if you think homosexuality is something that can be controlled (I have no idea your opinion on this) instead of something that occurs in people naturally. Likewise, if you are Catholic and oppose birth control, any teaching of birth control as a moral method for preventing pregnancy goes against your values. My complaint with the current abstinence program is that it doesn't educate - so if you prevent teens from having sex, they become uneducated adults having sex. I don't count that as a "win". My complaint with the other current programs is they appear to be inconsistent, and from what I remember about sex ed when I was in school, it was far too short and way under-informed. It also came 'round too late for many students (you know, like the pregnant girls in my class... ).

Well, I had just read post #50, the latest post at the time, hence the noticeable amount of steam coming out of my ears before reading post #35. :)

I get it, no problem. :)

Jillian, don't mistake persistence and passion for "feuding." We can certainly disagree over what sex ed should be and that's fine, but I do go to great lengths to not only avoid posting controversial material out of context - I go to great lengths to find the context that's missing in other posts. I can compromise over the issues, I'll admit when I'm wrong, but I won't compromise in admitting to what I didn't do.

I used "feuding" because I've been around my grandmother a little too much lately (don't be shocked if I say "yonder" at some point); I didn't think this was anything other than typical debate. I know you go to great lengths to cite your sources and provide links, but that particular post had the appearance (in my opinion) of being taken out of context given there were no qualifiers and given the subject matter. You say your intent was otherwise, so that's fine; no need to admit to something you didn't do. Maybe it wasn't your intent, but (to me) it was the result. I guess other readers of this thread can decide for themselves based upon that post and the subsequent posts (of our "feud").

[Dark_crow]

Elliot
Well yes…….. once parents of bastard children were considered sinners and often faced harsh punishment for their transgressions. It’s partly in the language and Categories…how often do we hear the word “Bastard” or “Sinner” today? Later, after the “Sinner” aspect the focus went to the economic burden imposed by bastardy; and Bastard went out of popularity and was replaced by “fatherless”.

The legalization of abortion added to the problem- pregnancy did not necessarily result in a birth. All of this combined led to the “postmodern” families; that is, those without their biological mother and father. If we are going to narrow the problem down to one factor, I would select “Post modernistic Philosophy. Or perhaps the legalization of abortion might be considered the “one” factor. But I’m inclined to believe it is due to a number of factors and not just one.

[speechlesstx]

[QUOTE=jillianleab]

I think that sort of "in your face" sex ed belongs in public schools because at middle and high school ages we still have the opportunity to inform kids and prevent racism, intolerance and hatred. Posing those questions to a heterosexual person forces them to think about how they can possibly answer them - it puts them in the position of homosexual kids and allows them to empathazise with them. Yes, it might go against family values, which is why, as always, parents can opt their kids out.

Jillian, what it all boils down to is this, the crusaders against abstinence only education object more than anything to the bias. Well, I object to their bias. The only solution that could possibly make sense is neutrality, but they won't budge. Their core belief is that we are sexual beings from birth to death and everyone, including 12-year olds, has the right to sexual expression, access to contraceptives - including prescription EC - and abortion, preferably with (they say), but if not - without parental consent.

It's the same double standard in other areas of liberal/progressive thought. We must have tolerance for everyone - unless you disagree with us. We must defend free speech at all cost - as long as you adhere to our speech code. We must champion diversity - unless you're a white, male conservative. We have to share the wealth - as long as it isn't mine. And on and on and on. If they are going to demand sex education free from bias they need to remove it from their own curriculum. It's as simple as that Jillian. I don't trust Planned Parenthood or Advocates for Youth in our schools any more than they would trust James Dobson in them.

My complaint with the current abstinence program is that it doesn't educate - so if you prevent teens from having sex, they become uneducated adults having sex. I don't count that as a "win".

You know, I think it was Elliot that pointed out the rise in teen pregnancy, STD's and such has gotten worse since we offered sex education in our schools. How on earth did we ever get by without it? Like I said many times before it's the culture that's the problem, and the "comprehensive" brand perpetuates the culture. If people expect to be taken seriously about wanting to prevent teen pregnancy, STD's and abortion they need to have the guts to stand up and say you need to wait instead of encouraging and enabling the behavior. Comprehensive sex ed in its desired form is about like laying a pork chop down in front of Cujo and telling him he might choke on a bone if he eats it.

My complaint with the other current programs is they appear to be inconsistent, and from what I remember about sex ed when I was in school, it was far too short and way under-informed. It also came 'round too late for many students (you know, like the pregnant girls in my class... ).

Well, as nicespringgirl pointed out, there are a lot of things in our schools that could use some work. And by the way, I am a Texan and "yonder" is a part of our every day vocabulary, right up there with "fixin' to" and "y'all" :)

[jillianleab]

Jillian, what it all boils down to is this, the crusaders against abstinence only education object more than anything to the bias. Well, I object to their bias. The only solution that could possibly make sense is neutrality, but they won't budge. Their core belief is that we are sexual beings from birth to death and everyone, including 12-year olds, has the right to sexual expression, access to contraceptives - including prescription EC - and abortion, preferably with (they say), but if not - without parental consent.

I'm glad I'm not a crusader, just some schmuck on the intertubes! :) You're right though, there is a double standard - from both sides. But how do you get to neutrality? Seriously - how do you do that? There will always be people who think if you talk about sex at all it's advocating it. As I said before, you can't mention birth control, that's offensive to Catholics. I remember in 3rd grade two girls from my class were opted out of our "sex ed" which consisted of telling about the female menstral cycle (nothing about boys, just periods, pads and tampons); what's offensive about that?? Say you stick to nothing but biological facts; well, can't do that because biologically life doesn't begin at conception, a "fetus" isn't a "baby". So really, there's no way to make both sides happy, because NEITHER side wants to budge.

I don't agree with infringing on parental rights (providing the pill without parental consent) but there's comes a point where the child has rights of his/her own. I referenced this in another thread, about informed medical consent age (never did call my brother... ). If a 16-year-old can refuse medical treatment for a disease, why does she not have the right to decide (with her doctor) if she should be on the pill, or have an abortion? If she does have that right, and you object to it, why take it up with the facilitators, why not take it up with the lawmakers? If you change the law, the facilitators have to change. If they don't, THEN you go after them. This is, of course, all assuming the consent age is 16...

You know, I think it was Elliot that pointed out the rise in teen pregnancy, STD's and such has gotten worse since we offered sex education in our schools. How on earth did we ever get by without it? Like I said many times before it's the culture that's the problem, and the "comprehensive" brand perpetuates the culture. If people expect to be taken seriously about wanting to prevent teen pregnancy, STD's and abortion they need to have the guts to stand up and say you need to wait instead of encouraging and enabling the behavior. Comprehensive sex ed in its desired form is about like laying a pork chop down in front of Cujo and telling him he might choke on a bone if he eats it.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. The world is a different place now than it was in the 50s, no? Is the ONLY difference the introduction of sex ed? Of course not. I don't think one can pin the blame solely on sex ed. According to the CDC, sex ed DOES delay teen sex: Sex Ed Does Delay Teen Sex: CDC - MSN Health & Fitness - Mental Health. Now, you might read the article and scoff that it only delays it past 15, but it's a start, right? It shows there's room for improvement (none of us are disputing that), but it also shows SOMETHING is better than NOTHING. And according to this article: Birds, Bees and Lab Coats - Page 1 - MSN Health & Fitness - Birth Control either program (abstinence only or comprehensive) BOTH work. Apparently the key is a well-designed program. Gee... who's a thunk THAT?

I disagree that comprehensive sex ed encourages sex, or makes it seem OK (this is even without the above article). I think informing kids about sex, pregnancy, STDs and prevention methods educates them, it doesn't give them the green light. But, I suppose that depends on how the wording is given; if the instructor says, "Don't have sex, but if you do, use a condom" that's confusing the intended message. Saying "Don't have sex" and later saying "When you are an adult in an adult relationship and you decide to engage in sexual activity, use a condom" is very different. Will some kids make the leap? Sure they will, but with the diversity in home environments, personal values, etc, you aren't going to get 100% results (which is why the Orthodox Jew community is a good example on a small scale, but I question it's effectiveness on a large scale).

I also don't think providing condoms gives the green light to have sex. Teens can get condoms anywhere (I know ETW thinks they should be age restricted), and for those teens who DO fall through the cracks I think they SHOULD be able to have safe sex. Handing out condoms each day in class? That's a bad idea. But making them available through the scholl nurse, where if someone comes in for one she (the nurse) can talk to them about their decision? Not such a bad idea. Of course I realize kids are much less likely to go to the nurse for condoms if they have to talk to her, but some will, and maybe some will change their minds. Beyond that, if you make it so kids have to go face-to-face with SOMEONE (in a store or at school) to get condoms maybe it will discourage them to have sex because they are embarrassed. This, of course, only applies if they fully comprehend the dangers of having sex without one.

And by the way, I am a Texan and "yonder" is a part of our every day vocabulary, right up there with "fixin' to" and "y'all" :)

I was on vacation last week and heard a girl on the beach say, "Hey y'all! I'm fixin' ta go over yonder and get mahself a bottla water!" I had to look and make sure it wasn't Britney Spears... :rolleyes:

[speechlesstx]

But how do you get to neutrality? Seriously - how do you do that?

I thought ex's plan was a good start. :)

I don't agree with infringing on parental rights (providing the pill without parental consent) but there's comes a point where the child has rights of his/her own.

Understood and agreed, just not the way the activists I mention envision things.

Apparently the key is a well-designed program. Gee... who's a thunk THAT?

OK, fine, sure. Which takes us back to square one, lol.

I disagree that comprehensive sex ed encourages sex, or makes it seem OK (this is even without the above article).

And again we can disagree, but I have read the agenda, which is exactly as I said - which again takes us back to square one :)

I also don't think providing condoms gives the green light to have sex. Teens can get condoms anywhere (I know ETW thinks they should be age restricted), and for those teens who DO fall through the cracks I think they SHOULD be able to have safe sex.

I go back to my Cujo analogy...

Beyond that, if you make it so kids have to go face-to-face with SOMEONE (in a store or at school) to get condoms maybe it will discourage them to have sex

Not just face to face with SOMEONE, though. Parents should never be out of the loop unless they choose to be, or are themselves too irresponsible or incapable of exercising good parental judgment. That's the thing, we have to stop sidestepping the parents.

I was on vacation last week and heard a girl on the beach say, "Hey y'all! I'm fixin' ta go over yonder and get mahself a bottla water!" I had to look and make sure it wasn't Britney Spears...

Had to be an Okie :D

[jillianleab]

Not just face to face with SOMEONE, though. Parents should never be out of the loop unless they choose to be, or are themselves too irresponsible or incapable of exercising good parental judgment. That's the thing, we have to stop sidestepping the parents.

Should I take that to imply you think condoms should be age restricted?

Had to be an Okie :D

Actually I think they were there for some college basketball thing hosted by our hotel; could have been from Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee... I'm guessing Louisiana!

[speechlesstx]

Should I take that to imply you think condoms should be age restricted?

Actually I hadn't given it much thought. I'm generally against restricting things that have been available over the counter for so long, (maybe you should be sitting for this), and I would rather kids use them than not because I concede there will be those that have sex regardless of what we do.

My point was in regard to the whole sex ed/school clinic/Planned Parenthood thing. The push is to take parents out of the loop and give children the power to make whatever decisions they want. In spite of any rhetoric that PP uses - and PP is who drives the agenda - regarding parental involvement, they make clear they believe the wishes and "needs" of the child outweigh parental involvement. Same with Advocates for Youth. I already posted the lesson plan that tells kids how to get prescription EC online from virtual doctors. I posted in the discussion forum that PP is fighting states with parental consent laws to be able to designate aunts, uncles, siblings, grandparents or clergy to fill in for the parent. That is the crux of my objections, the continuing erosion of parental rights.

I've also granted that some parents can't be counted on. As PP says not every family is an ideal family, I understand that, but most kids that I've been around are not mature enough to handle such decisions. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them when it comes to being honest when getting themselves in a predicament. That's just how kids are Jillian, and groups like PP are all too eager to take their side over the parents. And I hesitate to use the slippery slope argument but the situation does warrant considerable caution.

Actually I think they were there for some college basketball thing hosted by our hotel; could have been from Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee... I'm guessing Louisiana!

I didn't know anyone from Tennessee knew where the beach was :D

[jillianleab]

Actually I hadn't given it much thought. I'm generally against restricting things that have been available over the counter for so long, (maybe you should be sitting for this), and I would rather kids use them than not because I concede there will be those that have sex regardless of what we do.

That doesn't surprise me, actually. I think it's quite rational - you're never going to reach 100% of the teens, but if you reach 99%, the 1% who CAN'T get condoms are worse off. Look! Another thing we agree on! :)

My point was in regard to the whole sex ed/school clinic/Planned Parenthood thing. The push is to take parents out of the loop and give children the power to make whatever decisions they want. In spite of any rhetoric that PP uses - and PP is who drives the agenda - regarding parental involvement, they make clear they believe the wishes and "needs" of the child outweigh parental involvement. Same with Advocates for Youth. I already posted the lesson plan that tells kids how to get prescription EC online from virtual doctors. I posted in the discussion forum that PP is fighting states with parental consent laws to be able to designate aunts, uncles, siblings, grandparents or clergy to fill in for the parent. That is the crux of my objections, the continuing erosion of parental rights.

I've also granted that some parents can't be counted on. As PP says not every family is an ideal family, I understand that, but most kids that I've been around are not mature enough to handle such decisions. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them when it comes to being honest when getting themselves in a predicament. That's just how kids are Jillian, and groups like PP are all too eager to take their side over the parents. And I hesitate to use the slippery slope argument but the situation does warrant considerable caution.

Overall I agree with the idea of PP, but I think they sometimes fail in execution. In the situation where a young girl is pregnant it IS important to focus on the needs on the girl; it's her body, her life; her decisions outweigh her parents. This is not to say the parents shouldn't be involved, but as you said, some parents can't be counted on. Some parents won't understand (though many teens will THINK they won't understand when they in fact would), which is why I agree with the aunt/uncle thing. It depends on how that plays out in the real world, however; so I should say I agree with the idea, but again, it might end up failing in execution. At the very least, though, if an Aunt/Uncle is present and helping the teen making decisions, there is an adult who (you would think) knows the values of the parents and can help guide the teen in the right direction. The adult can also prompt the teen to later confide in her parents, or be someone to confide in if things get tough. It's better to have someone than no one, and where the parent is BEST, an Aunt/Uncle, to me, is an acceptable substitute (I remember you mentioning at some point "best friend's parents", which I don't agree with except in EXTREME situations). I'm probably a little biased on that though; my cousin got pregnant very young and confided in my mom, who helped her make her decisions.

I also agree that most kids are not mature enough to handle the decisions they are making (especially those of abortion) on their own, which is why I think PP needs no spend considerable time counseling the girls who come in (alone, with a parent, or with a relative). Council those asking for the pill or condoms too, especially if they are very young (a 17 year old asking for condoms is different in my mind than a 12 year old asking for condoms). We'll never have the same opinion on PP, and maybe it's just a case of me being optimistic of naïve, but I'd rather they be there for girls and women to access than not.

I didn't know anyone from Tennessee knew where the beach was :D

It's college, silly, they are there to learn!

[speechlesstx]

That doesn't surprise me, actually. I think it's quite rational

My goodness, there are some here that would be shocked to think I can be rational :D