Abstinence Funding

[bloodlusta]

Can someone tell how the American government pass a bill that will allow 50mil to be spend on abstance only sex education? This is the dumbest idea ever! Everyone knows that doesn't work. And what is this 50 mil going to be spent on? all you have to say is don't have sex. Thats it.

[Bahr]

Your from NZ. You couldent possibly understand how amazingly stupid the american gov is.
My guess is that there going to have blow job classes soon.

[bloodlusta]

But wasn't Obama agaist this, and doesn't his party have 60% of the American government?

I just can't understand it. A nation where you are not allowed to say Merry Christmas, is spending money on abstance as a way of preventing STDs (I could pregnacy as a SDT lol).

btw why is it so bad for the presedent to say Merry Christmas? why does he have to say happy holidays?

[Bahr]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

btw why is it so bad for the presedent to say Merry Christmas? why does he have to say happy holidays?

Its not illigal to say merry christmas. Its just a bunch of extremist assholes. They think that you might offend a non-christian if they hear you say merry christmas. I think its stupid at what people get offended by. If someone can up to me and said happy hannukah, I'd say to you too. So basically if the president says merry christmas. There will be be magazines and shit saying he hates all religens except for christianity. This countrys fucked up. I hate it. Im moving to paris, where my grandma came from.

[shetlan]

Bahr,

If you think Paris will be better - you're out of your mind. Don't get me wrong, I like Sarkozy, but France is one screwed up country.

Bloodlusta'

You've again overestimated Obama. He doesn't care whether or not they have an abstinence based sex-ed, nor does he actually care about gay rights or any of the other issues he claims to be an advocate of.

Personally, I don't mind the idea of them having a sex-education class that says "Stop being whores". On the other hand, a guy saying "don't be a whore" shouldn't cost $50,000,000.

On the other hand, Planned Parenthood spends $270,000,000 in tax dollars a year to perform abortions on women who just can't keep their pants on - maybe an abstenance class would be in order.

[bloodlusta]

rofl paris? The city than banned any religous garments from schools (burkias and crosses).

lol in nz our Prime Minister says merry xmas and hes an athiest

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Personally, I don't mind the idea of them having a sex-education class that says "Stop being whores". On the other hand, a guy saying "don't be a whore" shouldn't cost $50,000,000.

Wouldn't $50 million worth of free contraceptives be better? Or free vasectomies.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

rofl paris? The city than banned any religous garments from schools (burkias and crosses).

Wiki gives a little more detail. The french are pretty keen on the separation of church and state.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Wouldn't $50 million worth of free contraceptives be better? Or free vasectomies.

Contraceptives have a nasty habit of failing - and they do nothing to prevent the transmission of STDs. Also, nobody would sign up for a free vasectomy; many free clinics in the US already offer them.

[Steve_TPF]

Condoms are also contraceptives, and they do a lot to prevent the transmission of STD's. I wasn't aware of the free vasectomies though. Good idea.

[crazy white guy]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Condoms are also contraceptives, and they do a lot to prevent the transmission of STD's. I wasn't aware of the free vasectomies though. Good idea.

Giving vasectomies to kids is a bit immoral in some ways. A lot of our population is based on bastard children.

[Bahr]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

rofl paris? The city than banned any religous garments from schools (burkias and crosses).

Hey. I just know ive seen some fine, fine ass chicks that came from there.

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Contraceptives have a nasty habit of failing - and they do nothing to prevent the transmission of STDs. Also, nobody would sign up for a free vasectomy; many free clinics in the US already offer them.

But abstainse just doens't work because teenages have way to many hormons to think. Teaching kids about condoms is a much better idea. Its like in NZ christain schools often have high pregancy rates because they don't teach abstanese. saying don't have sex just doesn't work

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

But abstainse just doens't work because teenages have way to many hormons to think.

No offense lusta' but that's 100% grade A bull shit.

Teenagers have always been horny, but teenage pregnancy wasn't a problem in the US until the late 1960s and 70s - ever so shockingly this is the same time sex education was installed as a requirement of the curricullum.

Before this period, you learned about sex by asking your parents.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Teaching kids about condoms is a much better idea.

Kids knew about condoms in the 50s - they just had to ask someone to get them from behind the counter for them.

Condom use has been illustrated on the packaging nearly as long as condoms have existed. Incidentally, it took my dad one sentence to teach me how to use a condom "It's like putting on a rolled up sock." This was the same way his dad explained the use of condoms to him.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Its like in NZ christain schools often have high pregancy rates because they don't teach abstanese. saying don't have sex just doesn't work

I think you meant to say something slightly different there.
None the less, I'd love to see any kind of statistical backing to support that claim.

[ninefingers]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Teenagers have always been horny, but teenage pregnancy wasn't a problem in the US until the late 1960s and 70s - ever so shockingly this is the same time sex education was installed as a requirement of the curricullum.

Before this period, you learned about sex by asking your parents.
.

No, there has been teenage pregnancy problems since Day One.... And, I think, it wasn't considered such a big deal until the Victorian Age, when playing around under 18 was suddenly considered "shocking." Kids have learned about sex from their peers, etc, for centuries. They just weren't Supposed to. Phosphorus and other chemicals were tried to induce abotion at home without the "shame" of going to a Doctor for it.
EDIT: There is always more unwed mothers during depressions or "panics" as they were once called. People seem to need more "entertainment" during a recession to get their minds off of it--there were more movies produced each day in the 'thirties than ever, before or since, for an example.
But, up to about the 'sixties; it was kept quiet and in the family. Babies were more given to orphanages. During the '60's-'70's; rubbers were suddenly "uncool" with kids, as the boys would be often afraid the girl would see it and the tryst would lose "spontanaeity". The girl would think, they supposed, he was "expecting" some. The babies, if any, were more carried to term and kept by the mother--this had been unheard of.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by ninefingers

No, there has been teenage pregnancy problems since Day One.... And, I think, it wasn't considered such a big deal until the Victorian Age, when playing around under 18 was suddenly considered "shocking." Kids have learned about sex from their peers, etc, for centuries. They just weren't Supposed to. Phosphorus and other chemicals were tried to induce abotion at home without the "shame" of going to a Doctor for it.

In church ruled victorian England, abortions where on the same tier as murder. People didn't try home based methods because they didn't "want" to go to the doctor, they tried them becasue the doctors just wouldn't perform an abortion. This was pretty constant through the western world - only changing in America in 1973 as a result of Roe vs. Wade.

Additioanlly, you assume that it was still a problem back them - that doesn't mean it was.

Let us also note that one in a million teenage girls getting pregnant (as the situation was in Victorian England and the US for most of its life) doesn't constitute a problem. Keep in mind, it was a social taboo because it was unheard-of.

On the other hand, at any one time 7.6% of all women in the US are pregnant - and only 43% of them will actually deliver their baby. These are the current stats - the 70's and 80's numbers are significantly higher.

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by shetlan

No offense lusta' but that's 100% grade A bull shit.

Teenagers have always been horny, but teenage pregnancy wasn't a problem in the US until the late 1960s and 70s - ever so shockingly this is the same time sex education was installed as a requirement of the curricullum.
.

Come on you know this is a dumb statment, you don't think that maybe sex ed was introduced because teenage pregnancy was becoming a problem?

Originally Posted by shetlan

Kids knew about condoms in the 50s - they just had to ask someone to get them from behind the counter for them.
.

But they (condoms) would not be sold to minors

Also its not so much how to use them but the importance of using them, and the risks you take by not using them. Interesting that sex ed will teach about (nearly) all forms of prevention, including abstaenise. The idea is to show the kids the pros and cons of each option and let them make up their own minds

Originally Posted by shetlan

I'd love to see any kind of statistical backing to support that claim.

Fair enough, but I don't, its just the general perception around here. The local christain girls school will no longer allow their girls to go to the (public) boys high school ball because last year 4 got pregnant.

Another thing that you need to consider is alchole and drugs. Kids will get fucked off their faces and have sex, its going to happen. I know you are going to say if their so drunk they wouldn't remeber to use contraception. Thats not true, they do because it was ground into them at school. Also if the girl is on the pill then remebering is not important.

And one more point, why shouldn't teen have sex?

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Come on you know this is a dumb statment, you don't think that maybe sex ed was introduced because teenage pregnancy was becoming a problem?

So it became a problem for no reason at all - and it just got worse as sex education became more prevalent?

And mine was a dumb argument?

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

But they (condoms) would not be sold to minors

There was no law preventing little Jimmy from buying condoms. Jimmy just had to look the clerk in the eye when he bought them - a clerk he probably went to church with, who's child probably went to school with Jimmy.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Also its not so much how to use them but the importance of using them, and the risks you take by not using them. Interesting that sex ed will teach about (nearly) all forms of prevention, including abstaenise. The idea is to show the kids the pros and cons of each option and let them make up their own minds

Good luck finding a sex ed class that actually does that.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Fair enough, but I don't, its just the general perception around here. The local christain girls school will no longer allow their girls to go to the (public) boys high school ball because last year 4 got pregnant.

Hmm, so you're saying that girls from a christian school went to a prom at a public school and got pregnant . . .hmm, I wonder how many of the girls from that public school where pregnant?

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Another thing that you need to consider is alchole and drugs. Kids will get fucked off their faces and have sex, its going to happen. I know you are going to say if their so drunk they wouldn't remeber to use contraception. Thats not true, they do because it was ground into them at school. Also if the girl is on the pill then remebering is not important.

So one lack of parenting (rampant drug abuse and underage drinking) should be covered by another? That's some seriously screwed up logic.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

And one more point, why shouldn't teen have sex?

Why should they?

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by shetlan

So it became a problem for no reason at all?

Of coase not. It was a massive time of change. Esspally in temrs of the way people started to veiw sex.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Good luck finding a sex ed class that actually does that.?

Everyone in the NZ public school system.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Hmm, so you're saying that girls from a christian school went to a prom at a public school and got pregnant . . .hmm, I wonder how many of the girls from that public school where pregnant.?

ummm I said it was a boys public school

Originally Posted by shetlan

So one lack of parenting (rampant drug abuse and underage drinking) should be covered by another? That's some seriously screwed up logic.

Thats not what im saying at all! Im saying you need to teach them about contraception to counter the affect of D&A. You know that.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Why should they?

Its their right, as humans. Its what we evolved for. And around those years they are just at the beigning of their sexual life. But no doubt you see sex as something unholy. There is nothing wrong with sex.

[shetlan]

First off, why do you insert question marks after all your quotes?
Second, why do you remove half of the quote before you respond to it?

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Of coase not. It was a massive time of change. Esspally in temrs of the way people started to veiw sex.

Now to the part of the argument you removed.

So it became a problem for no reason at all - and it just got worse as sex education became more prevalent?

And mine was a dumb argument?

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Everyone in the NZ public school system.

Really?
So you've reviewed the curriculum for every public school in NZ?
You've sat in on the classes to see if that's actually what the teachers are teaching?

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

ummm I said it was a boys public school

Ah, I missed that.
None the less, how many girls in the NZ public school system get pregnant every year? I guarantee, it's more than 4 (more than 4 at any one school).

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Thats not what im saying at all! Im saying you need to teach them about contraception to counter the affect of D&A. You know that.

SO TEACH THEM NOT TO DO DRUGS!
Seriously lusta' that was the worst argument I've seen on this site in a long time. Are we going to have "Proper Heroine Use" classes next?

Again, you're telling me that one field of bad parenting should be covered by another field of bad parenting.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Its their right, as humans. Its what we evolved for. And around those years they are just at the beigning of their sexual life. But no doubt you see sex as something unholy. There is nothing wrong with sex.

1: I don't think sex is "unholy", nor did I ever claim or even imply that.

2: Your implication that "unholiness" could be the only possible objection should serve as a measuring rod of your own ignorance as to what kind of effects early sexual activity has on people.

3: Their minors and it is their parent's right to stop them from having sex if they see fit. Their parents are the one's dealing with the babies they spawn, paying to treat the diseases they'll get, and the school system has no place countermanding them.

4: My problem with pre-marital promiscuity isn't a moral one, it's a social one.
Males who are sexually active in their mid teens almost invariably have serious problems with intimacy later in life - and often continue their promiscuous behavior well into their married lives.
Females who are sexually active early on are far less likely to find any lasting relationships than those who wait until they are more mature.

[ninefingers]

Originally Posted by shetlan

In church ruled victorian England, abortions where on the same tier as murder. People didn't try home based methods because they didn't "want" to go to the doctor, they tried them becasue the doctors just wouldn't perform an abortion. This was pretty constant through the western world - only changing in America in 1973 as a result of Roe vs. Wade.

Additioanlly, you assume that it was still a problem back them - that doesn't mean it was.

Let us also note that one in a million teenage girls getting pregnant (as the situation was in Victorian England and the US for most of its life) doesn't constitute a problem. Keep in mind, it was a social taboo because it was unheard-of.

On the other hand, at any one time 7.6% of all women in the US are pregnant - and only 43% of them will actually deliver their baby. These are the current stats - the 70's and 80's numbers are significantly higher.

You weren't talking about England-- you said the U.S. Otherwise, I would have mention the Puritan taboos. But, this was before America was a country.

The stats aren't one in one million--it did probably drop during the Victorian Age, but I don't believe it was like this in "the US for most of its life", Even if you show statistics, remember, it is only what society Choosed to report--how much was never reported or suppressed?

No I don't assume--it was a problem. Just because the numbers weren't as readily available then as later (Perhaps, again, suppressed?) doesn't mean there was a sudden "problem" in the '60's and '70's. It simply came more to Public Light--girls keeping their love children, etc.

How do you know they didn't want to take it to a doctor, who would probably have blabbed it around town? Were you There?

You mentioned 60's/70's; not the 80's.

You weren't around in the sixties and seventies; anyway; I held back saying this--but: I was there. You can't trust everything in Wikipedia, you know. I have seen B/S in it since it can be edited by anyone, you know.

I do agree that the beginnings of school Sex Ed was oddly paralleled by the surge of Public Information on the statistics of teenage pregnancies. However, many a whorehouse was a clean way to get a boy his start without spreading as many STD's around. Too bad most are suppressed, except in rural counties of Nevada, due to "morality". Possibly this had something to due with the "upsurge", too?

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

But they (condoms) would not be sold to minors

Good point; I forgot to make it. Rubbers weren't legally sold to kids, until some time in the 'sixties--Shetlan seems to forget this. See "Summer of '42" for an amusing incident about this.
This seemed to be an oxymoron started by Churches: i.e; since we don't want kids to have sex they shouldn't be able to buy protection; and such Stupid Rot as that.

It is like outlawing Fuse, nowadays--it is only encouraging making unsafe, unreliable home made fuse that will only cause More accidents (of an "explosive" nature in this case.)


Did you know in Japan, they are "individually tested"?

Originally Posted by shetlan

Contraceptives have a nasty habit of failing - and they do nothing to prevent the transmission of STDs.

Yes, they do help prevent some STD's. Not nearly 100% safe, though--from STD's OR pregnancy, unfortunately.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by ninefingers

You weren't talking about England-- you said the U.S. Otherwise, I would have mention the Puritan taboos. But, this was before America was a country.

You're the one who brought up victorian england - in some misguided attempt to claim that teen pregnancy was an issue for them.

If you can't keep track of your own arguments, don't bother posting.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

The stats aren't one in one million--it did probably drop during the Victorian Age, but I don't believe it was like this in "the US for most of its life", Even if you show statistics, remember, it is only what society Choosed to report--how much was never reported or suppressed?

Thank you for proving my point.
1: If it was widespread, you wouldn't be able to surpress it.
2: If it was widespread, it wouldn't be a social taboo.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

No I don't assume--it was a problem. Just because the numbers weren't as readily available then as later (Perhaps, again, suppressed?) doesn't mean there was a sudden "problem" in the '60's and '70's. It simply came more to Public Light--girls keeping their love children, etc.

Again with the conspiracies

Originally Posted by ninefingers

How do you know they didn't want to take it to a doctor, who would probably have blabbed it around town? Were you There?

As that was already explained: abortions where no different than murder in that era - no doctor would perform one.

Incidentally, that's a historical fact (which was cited in Roe v. Wade). Someone claiming to be of that era would have known that.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

You mentioned 60's/70's; not the 80's.

You weren't around in the sixties and seventies; anyway; I held back saying this--but: I was there. You can't trust everything in Wikipedia, you know. I have seen B/S in it since it can be edited by anyone, you know.

This coming from the guy who considered blogs valid evidence
None the less fingers, nobody believes that you're 50 - for the love of God drop the BS.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

I do agree that the beginnings of school Sex Ed was oddly paralleled by the surge of Public Information on the statistics of teenage pregnancies.

How nice, you agree with statistical facts.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

However, many a whorehouse was a clean way to get a boy his start without spreading as many STD's around. Too bad most are suppressed, except in rural counties of Nevada, due to "morality". Possibly this had something to due with the "upsurge", too?

Whorehouses where outlawed in almost every state between 1910 and 1930 (largely due to the efforts of the WCTU) in an attempt to help enforce prohibition and recent narcotics legislation.

[Steve_TPF]

I think it's optimistic (not to mention slack) for parents to assume that a school program can push the "abstinence only" approach better than they can. Why would kids believe that teachers have any moral authority?

Sure, abstinence is the best way to avoid problems, but teaching abstinence-only is losing favour in some states.

Originally Posted by Statesman.com

As federal funding for promoting teen abstinence dries up, a shift is taking place in sex education in some Texas schools — often driven in part by concern over teen pregnancies.

More government money has been spent on the cause of sexual abstinence in Texas than any other state, but it still has the third-highest teen birth rate in the country and the highest percentage of teen mothers giving birth more than once.

The rate of student pregnancies in Austin high schools has increased 57 percent since the 2005-06 school year, and rates of sexually transmitted diseases are rising among Travis County teens.

Now some school districts — including Austin — are moving from so-called abstinence-only instruction to a more comprehensive sex education curriculum, also called "abstinence-plus," which has been taught in few Texas schools.

"We mainly did it because of our pregnancy rate," said Whitney Self, lead teacher for health and physical education at the Hays Consolidated Independent School District. "We don't think abstinence-only is working."...

Both approaches to sex education teach that refraining from sexual activity is the safest choice for teens...But abstinence-only gives limited information about contraceptives and condoms and tends to downplay their effectiveness, while abstinence-plus stresses the importance of using such protection if teens are sexually active...The revised Austin district program relies on a new curriculum created by Dr. Janet Realini, a San Antonio physician and public health expert who has long worked on teen pregnancy prevention....In 2004, Realini testified before the State Board of Education against the health textbooks now used in Texas schools, citing what she says is faulty information on condoms, contraceptives and sexually transmitted diseases. Only one of the four texts acknowledges that condoms can substantially reduce the risk of pregnancy, HIV and some STDs. The others do not discuss risk reduction except for avoiding all sexual activity.

So if "abstinence" kids don't abstain, they don't know about safe sex. Again, this is something their parents should teach.

Originally Posted by Guardian

Teenage pregnancies and syphilis have risen sharply among a generation of American school girls who were urged to avoid sex before marriage under George Bush's evangelically-driven education policy, according to a new report by the US's major public health body.

In a report that will surprise few of Bush's critics on the issue, the Centres for Disease Control says years of falling rates of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease infections under previous administrations were reversed or stalled in the Bush years. According to the CDC, birth rates among teenagers aged 15 or older had been in decline since 1991 but are up sharply in more than half of American states since 2005. The study also revealed that the number of teenage females with syphilis has risen by nearly half after a significant decrease while a two-decade fall in the gonorrhea infection rate is being reversed. The number of Aids cases in adolescent boys has nearly doubled.

I'm not saying that kids should have sex, but they need to be informed. Telling them "just say no" isn't going to work unless they have a good reason to listen.

[ninefingers]

Originally Posted by shetlan

You're the one who brought up victorian england - in some misguided attempt to claim that teen pregnancy was an issue for them.

I said "Victorian Era"--1837 to 1901; NOT "England". You are so good at quoting, so, quote exactly what I said. The Era affected most of the civilized world's mores, not just England. Again, I don' t believe you went to Berkeley if you don't seem to know this.

Again with the conspiracies

No, You should talk--on and on about JF, and the Barack Obama nonsense--admit it.

[quote]s that was already explained: abortions where no different than murder in that era - no doctor would perform one. ['QUOTE]

Some would. Enough Money $$. Were You there?

This coming from the guy who considered blogs valid evidence
None the less fingers, nobody believes that you're 50 - for the love of God drop the BS.

I never said this--show my the post. It isn't there. YOU drop it---junk about a post not even there. Don't call me "fingers";Daniel Shetlan.

For the Love of GOD?--From an admitted atheist?

Yes, Lots of people believe me--no one believes you were in the Service or graduated Berzerkely--you sent No proof, many agree the time line cannot be.

Roe Vs. Wade--rings a bell. Of course I was only a teenager, then, I didn't pay attention to a lot of politics. I remember protests for and against Abortion; they still go on. Drive through Halstead, KS--there are "Abortion is Murder"; and "Adopt, don't abort" signs everywhere. Much of the state is still very Bible-Beltish, no matter what the Fed's. ruled. There is still local controversy and restictions. Just no law against it in Big cities, like, obviously, Wichita.

Whorehouses where outlawed in almost every state between 1910 and 1930 (largely due to the efforts of the WCTU) in an attempt to help enforce prohibition and recent narcotics legislation.

I didn't saw it Wasn't --read the posts, don't just "skim" them--are you in training for a Moderator, or something?

"Whorehouses where"--? A misspelling?

I read your flaming to Bloodlusta--you know exactly what he meant. He had valid points. To try to discredit him, personally, by more of your "have you sat in on every single one?"; or "how many girls? give me statistics " nonsense is not addressing his points. Again, it is obvious you can't let yourself be proven wrong.

Just to keep On Topic, unlike You; here is a link to the ETR and their efforts to provide information to help prevent unwanted births/STD's: ETR Associates .

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by shetlan

So it became a problem for no reason at all - and it just got worse as sex education became more prevalent?

And mine was a dumb argument?

There were many differant reasons for people thinking differantly to the past generation, lack of father hood figures, people sick of government and their wars ect ect. Also reported pregancys.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Really?
So you've reviewed the curriculum for every public school in NZ?
You've sat in on the classes to see if that's actually what the teachers are teaching?

Nope but I got my nefew here who goes to an NZ public school and he says thats what they do. (i don't know why hes not at school now though lol)

Originally Posted by shetlan

Ah, I missed that.
None the less, how many girls in the NZ public school system get pregnant every year? I guarantee, it's more than 4 (more than 4 at any one school).

Yea ofcoase but not over one night. Im using it as an example of what happens when you have people who don't learn contraception put into a situation like that.

Originally Posted by shetlan

SO TEACH THEM NOT TO DO DRUGS!

We do, but you are missing one key factor. Teens are stupid.

Originally Posted by shetlan

3: Their minors and it is their parent's right to stop them from having sex if they see fit. Their parents are the one's dealing with the babies they spawn, paying to treat the diseases they'll get, and the school system has no place countermanding them.

And how is teaching them about contraception countermanding them?

Originally Posted by shetlan

4: My problem with pre-marital promiscuity isn't a moral one, it's a social one.
Males who are sexually active in their mid teens almost invariably have serious problems with intimacy later in life - and often continue their promiscuous behavior well into their married lives.
Females who are sexually active early on are far less likely to find any lasting relationships than those who wait until they are more mature.

Thats just so untrue. I have been sexually active since the age of around 14-15. And I have to intimacy issues with my current partner. You have to establish the differance between promiscuous behavior and having sex.

Do you have any supporting evidence to back this up?

[archleone]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Personally, I don't mind the idea of them having a sex-education class that says "Stop being whores". On the other hand, a guy saying "don't be a whore" shouldn't cost $50,000,000.

On the other hand, Planned Parenthood spends $270,000,000 in tax dollars a year to perform abortions on women who just can't keep their pants on - maybe an abstenance class would be in order.

That is really sexist calling women whores like that and saying it is completely their fault, like it isn't the at least partly the guy's fault for not controlling himself and using a contraceptive. Why shouldn't they spend that money on abortions, would you rather the women's lives be ruined and the children grow up in poverty. No wait you're right lets have the women get kicked out of their houses and possibly beaten.

Originally Posted by shetlan

Teenagers have always been horny, but teenage pregnancy wasn't a problem in the US until the late 1960s and 70s - ever so shockingly this is the same time sex education was installed as a requirement of the curricullum.

No, teen pregnancy wasn't an issue because as soon as a girl got pregnant the guy who got her pregnant would marry her even if they were fifteen. It has only been a problem since marriage at such a young age has been scorned.

Oh, and teen pregnancy in victorian england - Teenage pregnancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by shetlan

SO TEACH THEM NOT TO DO DRUGS!
Are we going to have "Proper Heroine Use" classes next?

Thats like the DARE program and abstinence only sex ed it doesn't work. Actually that is kind of what Switzerland has and it works, but that is an argument for another thread. Why shouldn't I do drugs(besides the legality issue).

Originally Posted by shetlan

3: Their minors and it is their parent's right to stop them from having sex if they see fit. Their parents are the one's dealing with the babies they spawn, paying to treat the diseases they'll get, and the school system has no place countermanding them.

But isn't that what abstinence only sex ed is doing against what I think would probably be the majority of parents, or least a large portion, who accept that their children are going to have sex and would rather try and educate their children than to deny what is going on. You say they are minors, but they won't always be and when they are adults are they still supposed to practice abstinence only?

Originally Posted by shetlan

4: My problem with pre-marital promiscuity isn't a moral one, it's a social one.
Males who are sexually active in their mid teens almost invariably have serious problems with intimacy later in life - and often continue their promiscuous behavior well into their married lives.
Females who are sexually active early on are far less likely to find any lasting relationships than those who wait until they are more mature.

Support? What does having sex when your a teenager have to with cheating?

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Nope but I got my nefew here who goes to an NZ public school and he says thats what they do. (i don't know why hes not at school now though lol)

Thats a great source of info.

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by archleone

Thats a great source of info.

Is that sarcasm?

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

There were many differant reasons for people thinking differantly to the past generation, lack of father hood figures, people sick of government and their wars ect ect. Also reported pregancys.

Your point?

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Nope but I got my nefew here who goes to an NZ public school and he says thats what they do. (i don't know why hes not at school now though lol)

As archleone said "That's a great source of info."

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Yea ofcoase but not over one night. Im using it as an example of what happens when you have people who don't learn contraception put into a situation like that.

So you're trying to use a single incident as the evidence to establish a society changing "rule"?
For that matter, I guarantee you that more than 4 public school girls in that same city got pregnant on prom night - it just didn't get any press.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

We do, but you are missing one key factor. Teens are stupid.

Let's get this straight. . .
You're claiming that teens are smart enough to use contraception while drunk or high or whatever because their school indoctrinates them enough.
However, they're too stupid to remember their parents teaching them not to do drugs or have sex until their adults (at minimum).

You need to work on your arguments lusta.

Teens have always been stupid - and yet parents who actually try to raise their kids well, succeed pretty often.

All of this comes back to a massive delusion that the government can stand in for a lack of parental oversight.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

And how is teaching them about contraception countermanding them?

The parents tell their kids not to have sex until they're adults - the school tells them it's fine to have sex (in fact it's "their right" ) as long as they wear a condom.

In what way aren't they contradicting the parents?

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Thats just so untrue. I have been sexually active since the age of around 14-15. And I have to intimacy issues with my current partner. You have to establish the differance between promiscuous behavior and having sex.

Do you have any supporting evidence to back this up?

1: Since it's not true in "your case" it's not true at all? You seriously need to work on your arguments lusta.
2: I have a degree in sociology, this is the kind of crap we spend time studying.
3: The fact that promiscuity in teens and young adults causes relationship problems later in life is a basic facet of sociological study. Joanne B. Parrotta wrote an entire book on the effects of teen and young adult promiscuity on an woman's ability to find a stable relationship in the future.
The Promiscuous Woman: Modern Attitudes about Love and Sex

Originally Posted by archleone

That is really sexist calling women whores like that and saying it is completely their fault, like it isn't the at least partly the guy's fault for not controlling himself and using a contraceptive.

It's not sexist in the least.

Oversaturation of media, inattentive parenting, and the wonderfully helpful sex education classes have turned a huge chunk of the last 25 years of young women into dime a dozen sluts. They've been brainwashed and objectified to the point that they not only think that they're sex objects - they want nothing more than to be sex objects.

Guys will be pigs for the rest of time, but women have seriously trashed their self-respect in the last 25 years or so.

Originally Posted by archleone

Why shouldn't they spend that money on abortions, would you rather the women's lives be ruined and the children grow up in poverty. No wait you're right lets have the women get kicked out of their houses and possibly beaten.

Where the hell do you get this stuff?

Why should tax dollars go to pay for abortions?
Translation: Why are the taxes I pay going to subsadize some girl's lack of self control, her parent's lack of attentive parenting, etc? This shit isn't my problem - adda little self control, and it wouldn't be their problem either.

If you can't do the time. . .

Originally Posted by archleone

No, teen pregnancy wasn't an issue because as soon as a girl got pregnant the guy who got her pregnant would marry her even if they were fifteen. It has only been a problem since marriage at such a young age has been scorned.

Shotgun weddings (what you're describing) are still quite prevalent. I consider that one of the more legitimate solutions to the problem of teen pregnancy.

1: You have sex at a young age, and get pregnant.
2: Your parents discuss it and sign permission letters so you can get married.
3: You move in with one of the sets of parents (most often the girl's family).
4: Your parents help you raise the kid for the first 3-4 years, so you get some on the job training.
5: Your parents also make sure the husband is well enough employed to take care of the girl and his child.

In this model, you get free daycare, free housing and food, a supportive environment in which to raise the child - I really don't see the downside.

Originally Posted by archleone

Oh, and teen pregnancy in victorian england - Teenage pregnancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You apparently don't know when the "victorian era" was - since nothing in that article has anything to do with the victorian era.

When Queen Victoria became queen, she pledged to (in her words) ". . . be good." This evolved into a massive revolution of social, moral, industrial, and scientific advancement throughout the empire.

Originally Posted by archleone

Thats like the DARE program and abstinence only sex ed it doesn't work.

You're right, the government program known as DARE doesn't work - what makes you think a government program about safe sex would have any more success?

Again, it all comes back to the parents not raising their kids - and expecting the government to do it for them.

Originally Posted by archleone

Actually that is kind of what Switzerland has and it works, but that is an argument for another thread. Why shouldn't I do drugs(besides the legality issue).

Oh god, more of this "why shouldn't I do things that are bad for me" crap

Originally Posted by archleone

But isn't that what abstinence only sex ed is doing against what I think would probably be the majority of parents, or least a large portion, who accept that their children are going to have sex and would rather try and educate their children than to deny what is going on.

Wow. . . have you ever even spoken to a parent?

If parents want to explain sex to their children, then they should . . . Oh I don't know - EXPLAIN SEX TO THEIR CHILDREN!

Originally Posted by archleone

You say they are minors, but they won't always be and when they are adults are they still supposed to practice abstinence only?

They'll be adults later, so we should tell them to start having sex now?
My god, that is the stupidest thing I've heard all week.

Originally Posted by archleone

Support? What does having sex when your a teenager have to with cheating?

Answered in responces to lusta.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Let's get this straight. . .
You're claiming that teens are smart enough to use contraception while drunk or high or whatever because their school indoctrinates them enough.
However, they're too stupid to remember their parents teaching them not to do drugs or have sex until their adults (at minimum).

I take it you've never been a teenager?

[ninefingers]

Originally Posted by headcase

I take it you've never been a teenager?

He still is.

Shetlan, WHAT "statistics" about 6's-70's. How can I "argue" statistics if we don't see them? I never insinuated I Had--you did. See next paragraph:

My whole point was, and you know it: Teenage sex and unwanted pregnancy have Always been a problem; not just in the "'sixties and 'seventies." They just came to public light then; they became big news to the media. Before that, it was suppressed. So, data before 1960 may be invalid as it could have been fudged or repressed--much was. See Wikipedia on "Condoms"--more were sold in the '30's than ever. That might be better statistics--Rubbers vs. dates.

[bloodlusta]

Originally Posted by shetlan

Your point?

Thats whole point! It wasn't sex ed, it was the culture change! The point of reported is that before that they wern't reported, so the stats arn't that helpful.

I fail to see how its not a good source?

Originally Posted by shetlan

So you're trying to use a single incident as the evidence to establish a society changing "rule"?
For that matter, I guarantee you that more than 4 public school girls in that same city got pregnant on prom night - it just didn't get any press.

No public schools had any pregancys after the ball (local area)

Originally Posted by shetlan

Let's get this straight. . .
You're claiming that teens are smart enough to use contraception while drunk or high or whatever because their school indoctrinates them enough.
However, they're too stupid to remember their parents teaching them not to do drugs or have sex until their adults (at minimum)..

Your missing the point. Teens are going to have sex and there is no force powerful enough to stop them. And when they are drunk that urge is even stronger, but they can still remeber to slap a rubber on.

Originally Posted by shetlan

The parents tell their kids not to have sex until they're adults - the school tells them it's fine to have sex (in fact it's "their right" ) as long as they wear a condom.
.

The school doesn't tell them to have sex, it says if they do then they need to wear a dom.

Originally Posted by shetlan

1: Since it's not true in "your case" it's not true at all? You seriously need to work on your arguments lusta.
2: I have a degree in sociology, this is the kind of crap we spend time studying.
3: The fact that promiscuity in teens and young adults causes relationship problems later in life is a basic facet of sociological study. Joanne B. Parrotta wrote an entire book on the effects of teen and young adult promiscuity on an woman's ability to find a stable relationship in the future.
The Promiscuous Woman: Modern Attitudes about Love and Sex
.

I don't know anyone who hasn't been sexually active as a teen. And most of them are instable long term relationships. Infact something I have noticed is that people who were more sexually active seem to have better realtionships, because they have more exsperance.

I think shet you need to learn to tell the differance between sleeping around and just having sex with your partner