Bush's Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Program Full of Baldface Lies.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-12-03 02:00pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
jcow79 wrote:Perhaps we should just stick with the kindergarten policy of sex education. Just tell each sex that the other has cooties. Kindergarten pregnancy rates are extremely low which means it's working!!
LOL!!!!~!!!1

Alright, who's got the sockpuppet? Darth Wong?

I assure you, Einhander. Jcow79 is not a sockpuppet.

Uther · Post by **Uther** » 2004-12-03 02:04pm

Again, you say a process which has been shown to be effective is not the answer, but you offer no hard facts to support your claim, nor do you offer alternatives which you believe may work.

I ask you to provide evidence that sex ed is not the best answer, and tell us what alternatives would work with facts backing up your claim.

Haha, alternatives? Well I really don't know. This may be a problem that is *gasp* unsolvable by the government. I know, I know take a minute.

Believe me, if I had a good solution I'd have Nobel Prize right now.

I also want to point out that sexual education is not just in schools. It is on TV, posters, the radio and also takes many other forms. Therefore, even if a kid is skipping school, he/she is still expoused to it. If it is truely well desinged and comprehensive, it will work, even in the "inner city."

Also, after school programs aren't just about sex ed. They also serve the very important purpose of giving kids something to do instead of having sex and doing drugs, etc.

Oh yes, oh yes. Those billboards advocating safe sex are really going to turn things around.
As to the point about after school programs- that might be true, although it's certainly not a unique function of after school SEX programs particularly. Moreover, won't it be the responsible kids who end up going to stuff like that anyway?

One other thing, poverty is no excuse for not having access to sex ed and condoms. Both can easily be acquired free. It is as easy as walking to a local clinic. Hell, I got some free in the mail just because world AIDS day just went by. But, without the education in place, no one will know about these facts. Yet another service education serves.

They know about condoms.

I really recommend reading this article from Arai. A great discussion of sex education and its limitations.

A number of good points are brought up, including the fact that although a lot of countries that are touted as models of pregnancy education have low birth rates, they also abort at much higher numbers. Moreover, nations like Ireland and Italy have relatively good "conception" rates, which the author defines as abortions added to pregnancies, despite rather ramshackle sex ed.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-03 05:38pm

Uther wrote:
Again, you say a process which has been shown to be effective is not the answer, but you offer no hard facts to support your claim, nor do you offer alternatives which you believe may work.

I ask you to provide evidence that sex ed is not the best answer, and tell us what alternatives would work with facts backing up your claim.
Haha, alternatives? Well I really don't know. This may be a problem that is *gasp* unsolvable by the government. I know, I know take a minute.

Believe me, if I had a good solution I'd have Nobel Prize right now.

A good solution? Why not... Dun dun dun... Promoting condom use? No, wait, that's logical, so your Right Wing Drone programming rejects it out of hand.

I also want to point out that sexual education is not just in schools. It is on TV, posters, the radio and also takes many other forms. Therefore, even if a kid is skipping school, he/she is still expoused to it. If it is truely well desinged and comprehensive, it will work, even in the "inner city."

Also, after school programs aren't just about sex ed. They also serve the very important purpose of giving kids something to do instead of having sex and doing drugs, etc.
Oh yes, oh yes. Those billboards advocating safe sex are really going to turn things around.
As to the point about after school programs- that might be true, although it's certainly not a unique function of after school SEX programs particularly. Moreover, won't it be the responsible kids who end up going to stuff like that anyway?

So instead lies should be spread. You must be a very special kind of massive retard.

One other thing, poverty is no excuse for not having access to sex ed and condoms. Both can easily be acquired free. It is as easy as walking to a local clinic. Hell, I got some free in the mail just because world AIDS day just went by. But, without the education in place, no one will know about these facts. Yet another service education serves.
They know about condoms.

I really recommend reading this article from Arai. A great discussion of sex education and its limitations.

A number of good points are brought up, including the fact that although a lot of countries that are touted as models of pregnancy education have low birth rates, they also abort at much higher numbers. Moreover, nations like Ireland and Italy have relatively good "conception" rates, which the author defines as abortions added to pregnancies, despite rather ramshackle sex ed.

So instead, diseases should be allowed to spread, teen pregnancies should be allowed to balloon back up, and the problems you mentioned(Poverty, 'class war', and cultures born of the first two) will merely be increased.

But hey. That's okay. You get to keep your rhetoric.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-12-03 05:39pm

Uther wrote:A number of good points are brought up, including the fact that although a lot of countries that are touted as models of pregnancy education have low birth rates, they also abort at much higher numbers. Moreover, nations like Ireland and Italy have relatively good "conception" rates, which the author defines as abortions added to pregnancies, despite rather ramshackle sex ed.

Obviously, the best solution is to promote abortion.

Uther · Post by **Uther** » 2004-12-03 05:52pm

A good solution? Why not... Dun dun dun... Promoting condom use? No, wait, that's logical, so your Right Wing Drone programming rejects it out of hand.

Hey, I mean, it's not bad to promote condom use, but to think that's really going to address the problem is a tad naive.

So instead lies should be spread. You must be a very special kind of massive retard.

Oh come on, I got bored with that silly little argument pages ago.

So instead, diseases should be allowed to spread, teen pregnancies should be allowed to balloon back up, and the problems you mentioned(Poverty, 'class war', and cultures born of the first two) will merely be increased.

But hey. That's okay. You get to keep your rhetoric.

No. Must we continue this dance? They know about condoms. They know they can get pregnant. They don't care. The solution doesn't lie in sex ed.

Obviously, the best solution is to promote abortion.

Hey well if that's you're thing, more power man.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-03 05:55pm

Uther wrote:
A good solution? Why not... Dun dun dun... Promoting condom use? No, wait, that's logical, so your Right Wing Drone programming rejects it out of hand.
Hey, I mean, it's not bad to promote condom use, but to think that's really going to address the problem is a tad naive.

Based on what, precisely, do you declare that it's going to be worse than pointless, considering that what we've got instead is telling people lies that definately will cause harm?

Oh right. You have nothing. You're just being a rhetoric-spewing retard.

So instead lies should be spread. You must be a very special kind of massive retard.
Oh come on, I got bored with that silly little argument pages ago.

Then don't make it, kiddo. Don't stand there and tell me the current bullshit should stand if you don't support the teaching of lies. Even accurate information that would, universally, ignored would be better than lying.

So instead, diseases should be allowed to spread, teen pregnancies should be allowed to balloon back up, and the problems you mentioned(Poverty, 'class war', and cultures born of the first two) will merely be increased.

But hey. That's okay. You get to keep your rhetoric.
No. Must we continue this dance? They know about condoms. They know they can get pregnant. They don't care. The solution doesn't lie in sex ed.

Why don't they care? They're being told they're useless. Perhaps this is all too logical for your pathetic sycophant mind, but the rest of us are getting it, little boy.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-03 07:10pm

Ok, Uther. I have been reading through your posts and must confess that I am at a bit of a loss.

You said

Did I say that pooper scooper? Did I say that sex ed doesn't have any effect at all? I specifically stated that a mixed approach is probably best. It might have some effect on pregnancy rates. It wouldn't hurt, and it's worth doing.

This agreeable (if somewhat confusing) statement is inexplicably followed by:

But it's not going to come close to solving the problem. There are bigger issues that need to be addressed here.

And later by:

I'm not advocating giving up, but I don't think this is the way to go about dealing with the problem.

See the discrepancy? You say that the mixed approach is "best" and "worth doing", yet it "not the way to go"?

Your other point - that poverty should be fought - has merit, and this may indeed be a crucial part of the war on AIDS and teen pregnancy. However, I can't see how that leads to the idea that better sex ed should be avoided (instead of being used as well) which is what the White House is doing and you seem to be defending half the time, particularly when you have also said it's "worth doing".

Then you say:

They [meaning the kids] know about condoms.

How can you say this with such confidence when the current approach is not only not to tell kids the truth but actively providing them with misinformation?

Uther · Post by **Uther** » 2004-12-03 08:09pm

Lord Zentei wrote:Ok, Uther. I have been reading through your posts and must confess that I am at a bit of a loss.

You said

Did I say that pooper scooper? Did I say that sex ed doesn't have any effect at all? I specifically stated that a mixed approach is probably best. It might have some effect on pregnancy rates. It wouldn't hurt, and it's worth doing.
This agreeable (if somewhat confusing) statement is inexplicably followed by:

But it's not going to come close to solving the problem. There are bigger issues that need to be addressed here.
And later by:

I'm not advocating giving up, but I don't think this is the way to go about dealing with the problem.
See the discrepancy? You say that the mixed approach is "best" and "worth doing", yet it "not the way to go"?

Your other point - that poverty should be fought - has merit, and this may indeed be a crucial part of the war on AIDS and teen pregnancy. However, I can't see how that leads to the idea that better sex ed should be avoided (instead of being used as well) which is what the White House is doing and you seem to be defending half the time, particularly when you have also said it's "worth doing".

Then you say:

They [meaning the kids] know about condoms.
How can you say this with such confidence when the current approach is not only not to tell kids the truth but actively providing them with misinformation?

I fail to see the contradiction. Yes, it's probably worth doing and yes, it might have some small effect. But it's not going to come close to solving the problem, and simply implementing a better sex ed program might actually be counter productive to the extent that policy makers believe they can pack up and go home having created such a program, falsely believing they have solved the problem.

Based on what, precisely, do you declare that it's going to be worse than pointless, considering that what we've got instead is telling people lies that definately will cause harm?

Oh right. You have nothing. You're just being a rhetoric-spewing retard.

Hey, um, that's pretty insulting to use retards as a general invective. Knock it off, the developmentally challenged don't appreciate it. It's not worse than pointless. Like I said, the whole "lie to kids about condoms! Lol!" thing was meant to be taken about as seriously as the OP's call for Bush to be brought up on impeachment charges.

Then don't make it, kiddo. Don't stand there and tell me the current bullshit should stand if you don't support the teaching of lies. Even accurate information that would, universally, ignored would be better than lying.

I agree, can't you tell?

Why don't they care? They're being told they're useless. Perhaps this is all too logical for your pathetic sycophant mind, but the rest of us are getting it, little boy.

They don't care because they live in an environment where having kids at 17, out of wedlock, with no father is pretty close to the norm. No duh.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-03 08:13pm

Uther wrote:
Based on what, precisely, do you declare that it's going to be worse than pointless, considering that what we've got instead is telling people lies that definately will cause harm?

Oh right. You have nothing. You're just being a rhetoric-spewing retard.
Hey, um, that's pretty insulting to use retards as a general invective. Knock it off, the developmentally challenged don't appreciate it.

Indeed. We dislike being lumped in with the genuinely idiotic like yourself, but it's an acceptable insult.

(Yes, I'm 'developmentally challenged'. You will find you don't need to stand up for those with brain damage. We have enough functional members to do that ourselves, assclown.)

It's not worse than pointless. Like I said, the whole "lie to kids about condoms! Lol!" thing was meant to be taken about as seriously as the OP's call for Bush to be brought up on impeachment charges.

Maybe you just are too stupid to get it. You are supporting zero change. Zero change is the continuation of these lies. Are you suffering some severe loss of grey tissue due to exposure to partisan propaganda?

Then don't make it, kiddo. Don't stand there and tell me the current bullshit should stand if you don't support the teaching of lies. Even accurate information that would, universally, ignored would be better than lying.
I agree, can't you tell?

Funny, that's not what you've been saying. You keep saying that we shouldn't change the programs to ones that will work.

Why don't they care? They're being told they're useless. Perhaps this is all too logical for your pathetic sycophant mind, but the rest of us are getting it, little boy.
They don't care because they live in an environment where having kids at 17, out of wedlock, with no father is pretty close to the norm. No duh.

'It's the norm! It's the norm! We mustn't disrupt the norm!' You make me sick.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-03 08:21pm

Uther wrote:I fail to see the contradiction. Yes, it's probably worth doing and yes, it might have some small effect. But it's not going to come close to solving the problem, and simply implementing a better sex ed program might actually be counter productive to the extent that policy makers believe they can pack up and go home having created such a program, falsely believing they have solved the problem.

That is in no way inevitable, and as such cannot be used to justify the absence of sex ed. If we are committed to fight AIDS and teen pregnancy, such a cop out will not occour, and we should not restrict our selection of tools. Besides, the fight against poverty and other social ills stands on it's own merits. But here is a point for you to consider: don't you think that you have placed the cart in front of the horse? Perhaps teen pregnancy and rampant AIDS in a community causes poverty rather than the reverse?

Uther · Post by **Uther** » 2004-12-03 08:29pm

Maybe you just are too stupid to get it. You are supporting zero change. Zero change is the continuation of these lies. Are you suffering some severe loss of grey tissue due to exposure to partisan propaganda?

Filthy lies. I think they should make sex ed better. But I don't think it'll help very much.

'It's the norm! It's the norm! We mustn't disrupt the norm!' You make me sick.

Um, no Mr. Retardo. I think that particular "culture" is terrible and ought to be changed. But that's the million dollar question, isn't it? How do you change it?

That is in no way inevitable, and as such cannot be used to justify the absence of sex ed. If we are committed to fight AIDS and teen pregnancy, such a cop out will not occour, and we should not restrict our selection of tools. Besides, the fight against poverty and other social ills stands on it's own merits. But here is a point for you to consider: don't you think that you have placed the cart in front of the horse? Perhaps teen pregnancy and rampant AIDS in a community causes poverty rather than the reverse?

Is a vicious cycle. They grow off each other. Stop being starry eyed. Not even social ill can be cured by happy faces and the friendly government teaching the poor, stupid people how silly they've been to get pregnant, and how much easy and better their lives would be if only they didn't

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-03 08:40pm

Uther wrote:
Maybe you just are too stupid to get it. You are supporting zero change. Zero change is the continuation of these lies. Are you suffering some severe loss of grey tissue due to exposure to partisan propaganda?
Filthy lies. I think they should make sex ed better. But I don't think it'll help very much.

You know, it's ironic you call me a liar when your argument has been 'Don't change it, it won't do anything'.

Again, I demand you substantiate your assumption.

'It's the norm! It's the norm! We mustn't disrupt the norm!' You make me sick.
Um, no Mr. Retardo. I think that particular "culture" is terrible and ought to be changed. But that's the million dollar question, isn't it? How do you change it?

Reduce the number of teen pregnancies by making it clear to people there's a way to prevent it. Duh.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-03 08:48pm

Is a vicious cycle. They grow off each other. Stop being starry eyed. Not even social ill can be cured by happy faces and the friendly government teaching the poor, stupid people how silly they've been to get pregnant, and how much easy and better their lives would be if only they didn't

Indeed it is a vicious cycle but not all vicious cycles are irreversible. Not trying will certainly not help. Are you saying that nothing should be attempted? If so, that's downright nihilistic.

And no, I did not claim that "happy faces" would work; what is called for is hard work through education and support.

As for the "friendly government teaching the poor, stupid people how silly they've been to get pregnant, and how much easy and better their lives would be if only they didn't" bit: the teaching helps those already pregnant from becoming it again, it also helps those not yet pregnant, and those not yet infected with AIDS. And yes, their lives would be improved; that is an implication of a "vicious cycle" as you call it being stopped.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-06 04:21am

The reason condom-education programs do not reduce pregnancy rates is that most teen pregnancies occur due to kids not caring enough about getting pregnant to take steps to prevent it. Try living in any community with a high teen pregnancy rate; you will find that the girls are not ashamed of it, and many of them even wanted to get pregnant. Obviously, teaching girls how to avoid getting pregnant won't do jack shit if they aren't sufficiently afraid of pregnancy to force their boyfriends to wear condoms. However, the conclusion drawn by opponents of sex education (that if it does not cause teenagers to fundamentally change their behaviour, then it's not worth it) is absolutely idiotic.

It is the kind of thinking borne out of a single-minded fundamentalist dipshit retard ideology where education for its own sake is worthless, education for enlightenment is worthless, education to help people make informed choices is worthless, and the only purpose of education is public indoctrination as part of a social engineering program to make people change their fundamental behaviour.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-12-06 12:33pm

Quote:
It is the kind of thinking borne out of a single-minded fundamentalist dipshit retard ideology where education for its own sake is worthless, education for enlightenment is worthless, education to help people make informed choices is worthless, and the only purpose of education is public indoctrination as part of a social engineering program to make people change their fundamental behaviour.

Exactly. Or to put it another way, the idiot running the States is more interested in educating young children according to his RELIGIOUS beliefs of morality. That is the only reason why abstinence-only is being pushed.

They aren't ignoring condoms, or worse, misrepresenting them because they seriously think they are ineffectual. No! They are doing this in SPITE of their proven track record because they don't WANT to prevent contraception. They don't WANT people using birth control. They don't WANT people to wear a rubber to prevent them from getting AIDS.

All they REALLY want is to get people to live by their Biblically inspired Christian mindset that says absolutely no one should be having sex of ANY kind until they marry an (opposite sex of course) partner.

That's the only thing they give a fiddlers fuck about and that's why the whole program being rammed down people's throats is an unconscionable travesty. I think the asshole should be burnt in effigy personally. I completely agree with Einy. Bush is just as responsible for people getting pregnant and contracting STD's as if he was actively promoting unsafe sex. It's his responsibility to decide on what health policies are being promoted and funded and if he is willingly choosing ones that are going to be neglectful in their teachings, then he is culpable.

Personally I don't even think I agree with the idea that we should do our best to stop kids from having sex. Why? It's selfish bullshit morality that usually stems from religious beliefs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex. If you're able and you are willing, it's natural and healthy to express it. What's NOT healthy is doing so without knowing the facts to prevent yourself from some of the dangers associated with sexual activity. That's the only thing they should be focusing on.

FUCK the moral majority that says, "kids shouldn't have sex". It's easy for them to say. They are older and get it whenever they want. It's easy to deny other people something when it doesn't affect THEM.

Now I do believe young kids should stick with sex between each other. I strongly support laws prohibiting, or at least severely restricting anyone over the age of 18 dabbling with younger teenagers. But this is a side issue really.

Nobody likes the idea of their own children having sex at 16. They still seem like a child to you. But you forget how you were at that age. You don't FEEL like a child anymore. Once puberty hits you for a few years, your body tells you different. You are hornier than 2 adults put together. Obviously this is the biological time that you are meant to be very sexual. How do you expect them to deal with it? Do as I say not as I do?

Is it any wonder kids don't listen?

Kids aren't stupid. But they CAN be uneducated and misinformed. If you really want to reach them and make a difference globally, you have to teach them with respect and not patronization.

Stop shoving "morals" down their throat and just teach them the goddamn facts.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-12-09 12:45am

Here's a few interesting sites:

Catholic Forum
Ignore the abstinence-only rhetoric and examine the numbers. After one year, the condom-based education group had a lower incidence of sexual relations than an abstinence-only education group. Thus, Bush's abstinence-only education is increasing the rate of teen sex and, by default, the amount of unprotected sex among teens, as they are not educated about protective methods.

Planned Parenthood
Multiple studies, from 1998 to 2003, have all shown that comprehensive sex education has zero effect on sex rates, but increases the use of protection, thus lowering teen pregnancy and STD rates. By Law of Negation, eliminating such programs will increase rates of teen pregnancy and STD infection. The AMA and NIH have both condemned abstinence-only education as ineffective; the NIH went so far as to say it is a conflict between policy and science.

Advocates for YouthA very useful chart about sex education. Read and weep, abstinence-only advocates.

I personally don't object to abstinence-plus programs (promote abstinence, but teach the students how to protect themselves if they do choose to be sexually active), but abstinence-only programs are a major health risk in this age of the AIDS epidemic.

Cyborg Stan · Post by **Cyborg Stan** » 2004-12-09 02:25am

Hmmmm...... well, it may be redunant of me but I felt like responding to this anyway...

Catholic Forum wrote:Why did abstinence work for only a short time?
<snip>

I'm so confused... when abstinence-only programs show an increase of almost eight percent in a year compared to the little/no change of the control or the condom-use groups... his response is to blame the kids' self-control? Abstinece is pure self-control and condoms are the opposite, so this explains the increase how? (I also like how he claims AO works better for the first three months... despite showing no figures for when the programs started. Does he not grasp how rates work, that you need a before and an after? Or did the four-percent difference at the three month mark probably wasn't due to the condom group shagging themselves silly for those three months and suddenly stopping?)

I also like the rant on comparing it to educational methods...

When nutrition is taught, teachers still focus their attention on the four basic food groups. They do not let the fact that kids like and eat junk food dissuade them from teaching the importance of a balanced diet.

You would also bet that a teacher worth his/her salt would address junk food. As a matter of fact, they would say to use it in moderation, or even some alternative snack foods to use and such. No teacher in their right mind would dare tell kids to stay away from junk food forever, if at the very least for self-preservation. (So why do the same with sex-ed?)

Kids are still taught how to read, even though many rarely do at home. Teachers do not give up on reading and teach the kids how to turn on a television set or introduce them to books on tape.

I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to do with anything... except that teachers also use videos, slideshows, movies, computers, projects, and homework in addition to assigning reading. In other words, the best method is actually to use multiple methods.

In algebra, kids are still taught the most effective way to solve equations. We do not teach them shortcuts that work on some problems, but not on all.

Funny, when I was in algebra (or any other higher math class) we got taught multiple methods to solve problems, for precisely this reason - some methods work on some problems, but not on all. For algebra (In this case, solving for second degree polynominals), I can remember Completing the Square, the Quadratic Formula, Factoring, and even simply Guess-and-Check all being taught. Just what was the highest math this guy had taken anyway? (It can't be all that high, after all he seems blissfully unaware that 20 is higher than 16.5)

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-12-09 11:51am

Quote:
When nutrition is taught, teachers still focus their attention on the four basic food groups. They do not let the fact that kids like and eat junk food dissuade them from teaching the importance of a balanced diet.

You would also bet that a teacher worth his/her salt would address junk food. As a matter of fact, they would say to use it in moderation, or even some alternative snack foods to use and such. No teacher in their right mind would dare tell kids to stay away from junk food forever, if at the very least for self-preservation. (So why do the same with sex-ed?)

It's also a false analogy. That would be the equivalent of telling people not to eat food until they are eating it in a proper "relationship" such as being served in a restaurant by a chef that you agreed to patronize for the rest of your life.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-12-09 03:42pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
Quote:
When nutrition is taught, teachers still focus their attention on the four basic food groups. They do not let the fact that kids like and eat junk food dissuade them from teaching the importance of a balanced diet.

You would also bet that a teacher worth his/her salt would address junk food. As a matter of fact, they would say to use it in moderation, or even some alternative snack foods to use and such. No teacher in their right mind would dare tell kids to stay away from junk food forever, if at the very least for self-preservation. (So why do the same with sex-ed?)
It's also a false analogy. That would be the equivalent of telling people not to eat food until they are eating it in a proper "relationship" such as being served in a restaurant by a chef that you agreed to patronize for the rest of your life.

Not to mention there's no religion-derived severely braindamaged collective mindset about food like there is about sex. Well there is (EAT, EAT, EAT, LIL PIGGY, TIL THERE'S NO MORE!), minus the religion part, but it doesn't cause the same effects on health. It just kills us a different way.

<Off Topic Rant>Plus, didn't I hear that the Old Testament shouldn't ever be enforced after the first Resurrection, oh, about two thousand years ago, or the enforcers of the OT would cease to be doing God's work and instead be doing great evil? It would be funny if God did exist, came back, saw the Hell we've created here on Earth, found the untouched people (ie, non-Fundycrats) and the people who actually do 'get it' (Love Thy Neighbor, Love Thyself, Love God. Everything Else is Commentary), then nukes every last Fundy off this planet with his Imperial Star Destroyers and Stormtrooper garrisons...</OTR>

lazerus · Post by **lazerus** » 2004-12-09 04:14pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:The way I feel about sex ed can be summed up rather quickly: give kids all the accurate facts and then let them make their own decision. If the kids want to have sex, they will know all the facts and can use them to make informed, rational decisions. All the crap about sex being evil and whatnot is just that: crap. Even if sex ed doesn't reach everyone, it is still worth doing and worth doing right because it does make a difference. Once people have the facts and chose to have sex or not or use a condom or not, it is their choice. But giving them false information takes away their right to chose. And in a country based of freedom, shouldn't everyone have the right to chose, especially on a subject that doesn't hurt anyone?(as long as both partners are informed and willing of course, I hate rapists with a passion partly because they infinged someones else right to chose, not much unlike bad education...)

<rant>
I think you making a flawed assumption there, kids being capable of grasping that concept.

For example, I can say "40 million russians died in WWII", it's somthing I know, but I can't mentally grasp the idea of 40 million bodies. So to me it's just a number (abit, an important number).

You can drill kids on STD's and the nessicsity of protection all you want, if they don't get the fact that if they arn't cautios they'll suffer for it, their actions won't change because of it. Unfortunitly, it seems that many teenagers don't have the maturity to get it.
</rant>

........we could put anti-apthrodesaics in the water.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-12-09 04:36pm

I think you making a flawed assumption there, kids being capable of grasping that concept.

For example, I can say "40 million russians died in WWII", it's somthing I know, but I can't mentally grasp the idea of 40 million bodies. So to me it's just a number (abit, an important number).

You can drill kids on STD's and the nessicsity of protection all you want, if they don't get the fact that if they arn't cautios they'll suffer for it, their actions won't change because of it. Unfortunitly, it seems that many teenagers don't have the maturity to get it.

They are capable. People underestimate kids far more than they should.

I'm not saying they will LISTEN, but they are capable.

The problem still centers around the age-old "I'm invincible" mentality they possess. It's just a new facet of it. Unfortunately, it can be a serious one when AIDS enters the picture.

However, if they drill it in kids heads how SIMPLE it is to protect yourself, (and others), and it's also understood that this is the norm for all people in society that are not in long term monogamous relationships, (or at least ones where they are not touched by disease), then they will be more likely to heed the warnings.

It's the only sensible way to deal with it. Lying about methods of protection, or trying to hold them to an extremely hypocritical and damn-near unattainable level of chaste perfection, is ludicrous.

lazerus · Post by **lazerus** » 2004-12-09 09:08pm

Point conceded.