Abstinence Only Education is working

[The]

Abstinence-Only States Have More Teen Pregnancy (http://www.newser.com/story/103447/abstinence-only-states-have-more-teen-pregnancy.html)


http://img2.newser.com/image/775037-6-20101021072512.image
(Newser) – While US teen pregnancy rates are falling overall, some states currently have dramatically higher rates than others, according to a new CDC study—and they just happen to be states emphasizing abstinence-only sex education. In New England, for example, 2008 birth rates stood at less than 25 per 1,000 teens ages 15 to 19. But in Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, rates run higher than 60 per 1,000 teens.
Planned Parenthood immediately issued a statement noting the “crystal clear” education correlation. The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/state-issues/125059-cdc-finds-stark-regional-disparities-in-teen-pregnancy-rates) also points to another recent report from a women’s reproductive health group, which found that all five states with the highest teen birth rates require abstinence be stressed in school, while the four with the lowest rates do not. The CDC considers teen pregnancy a public health issue, because babies born to teens are more likely to be born prematurely, and die as infants.

[Veritas]

Nice try, but I'm penalizing you 15 for bull****.

First, it's not 'abstinency only,' it's a requirement that abstinence be stressed. Major difference.

Secondly, the only point proven is that some states have much higher teen preggo rates than others. If you want to even have a chance at making a point about the type of education and its correlative effect, you need to be comparing the same sample before abstinence education and after abstinence education.

Thirdly, correlation does not imply causation.

Statistics are dangerous because people don't have the first ****ing clue how to interpret them.

[OklahomaTuba]

Ironic that this article is so worried about premature deaths and infants dying, while quoting the biggest baby murdering operation in the country.

[The]

You honestly think teenagers aren't going to sex?

[yermom]

heh. i hate agreeing with Tuba. :D

[OklahomaTuba]

You honestly think teenagers aren't going to sex?Of course they are, which is why abstinence should be stressed.

[The]

Of course they are, which is why abstinence should be stressed.


So, if I'm understanding you correctly (it's early and whatnot), you're saying that yes, teenagers are going to sex, but telling them not to going to... do what? Make them not sex?

[OklahomaTuba]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly (it's early and whatnot), you're saying that yes, teenagers are going to sex, but telling them not to going to... do what? Make them not sex?
the only thing that is 100% effective against pregnancy and the spread of STDs is abstinence.

That's a fact, and that should be taught.

[Veritas]

Tuba's right, and The's article is bull****. There's just nothing here to discuss.

[TUSooner]

But in Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, rates run higher than 60 per 1,000 teens.

I take that to mean only that kids in these states are dumb ****ers.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I don't see why teen pregnancy is higher here in the Bible Belt. I mean it's a known fact if you have sex before marriage you're going to hell and you could very well be killed by the wrath of God for rounding 2nd base. And even when you do get married you can only have sex with the lights off in the missionary position with no movement what so ever.

I just don't get it :confused:

[Veritas]

The other thing that's bull**** about that article is that all it quotes is teen pregnancy. There is no distinction made between kids that get married at 18/19 and then get pregnant. This is probably not a large percentage but it matters. The culture in the states with higher rates is to get married at young ages.

[The]

the only thing that is 100% effective against pregnancy and the spread of STDs is abstinence.

That's a fact, and that should be taught.

Well, it's only 99.999999~% effective if you believe in the Virgin Mary.:texan:

Sure kids should know how babby is formed, but shouldn't they also know how to not form babby and avoid herp and co. when they sex?

Surely, you don't believe that teenagers will stop sexing.

[3rdgensooner]

Why so much defensiveness?

[tator]

Why so much defensiveness?
i k, r?

discussion is not allowed under any circumstance.

[CobraKai]

I don't see why teen pregnancy is higher here in the Bible Belt. I mean it's a known fact if you have sex before marriage you're going to hell and you could very well be killed by the wrath of God for rounding 2nd base. And even when you do get married you can only have sex with the lights off in the missionary position with no movement what so ever.

I just don't get it :confused:

It's because all teens in non-Bible Belt states do freaky Sodom and Gomorrah stuff like dude on dude action. Less pregnancy that way.

;)

[PrideTrombone]

The other thing that's bull**** about that article is that all it quotes is teen pregnancy. There is no distinction made between kids that get married at 18/19 and then get pregnant. This is probably not a large percentage but it matters. The culture in the states with higher rates is to get married at young ages.

So maybe they should stop doing that stupid **** too. I'd be willing to bet the divorce rate is similarly high for the highest teen pregnancy states.

[Sooner5030]

change 'biblebelt vs sex ed' with 'rural vs. suburban' or 'agriculture vs. financial services' or 'keep running family business vs. going off to school' and the stats almost stay the same. Correlation is not causation. We should educate the mob on how to dig a little deeper into statistics.

[3rdgensooner]

I'd be willing to bet the divorce rate is similarly high for the highest teen pregnancy states.You are correct sir.


change 'biblebelt vs sex ed' with 'rural vs. suburban' or 'agriculture vs. financial services' or 'keep running family business vs. going off to school' and the stats almost stay the same. Correlation is not causation. We should educate the mob on how to dig a little deeper into statistics.
So educate me. I'm not following your point.

[CobraKai]

change 'biblebelt vs sex ed' with 'rural vs. suburban' or 'agriculture vs. financial services' or 'keep running family business vs. going off to school' and the stats almost stay the same. Correlation is not causation. We should educate the mob on how to dig a little deeper into statistics.

Good point. I guess using the author's logic you could say that states that do not teach abstinence have higher pollution, higher median home prices, and longer average commutes than states that do not teach abstinence.

[virginiasooner]

Back in the dark ages when I was in high school (1975-1978), we did have a sex-ed class. It was sex-segregated, and we were taught EVERYTHING -- methods of birth control and their effectiveness, sexually transmitted diseases, etc. And this class was an ELECTIVE and you had to have your parents' permission to take the class. I wish the kind of sex ed class I had was mandatory -- no opt-out for religious objections.

And teen pregnancy (and divorce) is higher in the Bible Belt for a variety of reasons -- unrealistic attitudes concerning birth control and immaturity of couples who are pressured to get married due to pregnancy among them.

I truly don't understand the logic of forbidding the teaching of proper use of birth control -- if teens properly use birth control, they won't get pregnant. Isn't that the point?

[tator]

Maybe someone should just ask the teens why they didn't use birth control

[Sooner5030]

So educate me. I'm not following your point.

rural areas have higher "teen" pregs than suburban
agricultural areas have higher "teen" pregs than financial services areas
folks that do a trade or run the family business have higher "teen" pregs than folks that invest 7 years to study music at Columbia

There are too many variables in the decision making process when DECIDING to have kids to simple assume there's a bunch of folks that don't compute f-ing = pregs.

got it?

[3rdgensooner]

rural areas have higher "teen" pregs than suburban
agricultural areas have higher "teen" pregs than financial services areas
folks that do a trade or run the family business have higher "teen" pregs than folks that invest 7 years to study music at Columbia

There are too many variables in the decision making process when DECIDING to have kids to simple assume there's a bunch of folks that don't compute f-ing = pregs.

got it?
I get that you're proposing data trends. I'm just not sure why.

[Ike]

You are correct sir.


So educate me. I'm not following your point.

First off, you aren't going to get far by looking at just one statistic, in this case, the teen pregnancy rate, at just one time. All thats going to tell you is how things are right now. The reasons for such may be anything. It could be abstinence-only sex ed, it could be aliens coming down and impregnating people in that state. The statistic has no idea.

So say you think it's because of the seckshual edumacation that some states are way higher than others. Well, in order to test that hypothesis, what you would need to do is find out information about what kinds of seckshual edumacation is going on in each state, and if that is consistent across whole states, or limited to certain pockets. That might get you some kind of correlation.

But correlation is not causation. The cause could always be some factor you are completely overlooking. So you might want to then find out when each state started their sex ed programs, and what came before.
Then comes the real work.

Say that state X had zero sex ed before 1980. in 1980 they switched to ____ sex ed. So look at what happens to the teen preg rate before that went into effect, and after that went into effect. Do that kind of thing for all 50 states. Some states might switch at some point between sex ed type A and sex ed type B, look for changes in the rate after that switch.

After you've done that, you may have even stronger correlation. Now you have to try to rule out other causes. Do you get similar correlations with poverty rates? What about population density? What about the number of UFO reports? Do this for every variable you can think of that might possibly contribute to teens getting pregnant.

It takes a lot of work to actually come to a conclusion about causation. It's not impossible, but there is absolutely no way to do it with just one statistic.

[3rdgensooner]

It takes a lot of work to actually come to a conclusion about causation. It's not impossible, but there is absolutely no way to do it with just one statistic.Thanks, I actually know a little bit about research. I don't recall seeing causation being assigned to sex-ed, only a trend, or relationship.

I'm not pleased that the state I live in and grew up in has high teen pregnancy rates. Since I don't have access to health-related data and am not in a position to research this I will at least consider the data that is available. Thus my question about the knee-jerk defensiveness occurring in this thread.

[tator]

Or you could just ask them :D

[Sooner5030]

I get that you're proposing data trends. I'm just not sure why.

There are areas of this country that are more conducive to having children at a younger age and maintaining financial stability. If you are taking over a 1600 acre farm and don’t need to invest 7 years into college you might opt to have children earlier. If your dreams are to take out $150k of student loans to attend Columbia and study music (with a emphasis in the Baroque period) you might not want to have kids until you are thirty. My point is that behavior is influenced more by economic reality rather than a specially funded education program sold to sheep to pay for pensions.

[87sooner]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/education/03abstinence.html

A study of middle-school students that found for the first time that abstinence-only education helped to delay their sexual initiation is already beginning to shake up the longstanding debate over how best to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

“This is a rigorous study that means we can now say that it’s possible for an abstinence-only intervention to be effective,” Dr. John B. Jemmott III, the University of Pennsylvania professor who led the study, said Tuesday, hours after results of the study were released. “That’s important, because for some populations, abstinence is the only acceptable message.”

In Dr. Jemmott’s research, only about a third of the students who participated in a weekend abstinence-only class started having sex within the next 24 months, compared with about half who were randomly assigned instead to general health information classes, or classes teaching only safer sex. Among those assigned to comprehensive sex-education classes, covering both abstinence and safer sex, about 42 percent began having sex.

Dr. Jemmott’s research followed 662 African-American students at urban middle schools, who were paid $20 a session to attend the classes, plus follow-up and evaluation sessions. The abstinence-only classes covered HIV, abstinence and ways to resist the pressure to have sex.

“Because African-Americans tend to have a higher rate of early sexual initiation than others, we thought that within two years, a reasonable number would start having sex,” Dr. Jemmott said. “If we went younger, we couldn’t show that intervention works.”

The research, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, appears just as the Obama administration is eliminating federal financing for abstinence-only programs, and starting a pregnancy-prevention initiative that will finance programs that have been shown in scientific studies to be effective.

Recognizing the political sensitivity of the research, and how unexpected are its results, the journal ran an accompanying editorial cautioning that public policy should not be based on the results of a single study and that policy makers should not “selectively use scientific literature to formulate a policy that meets preconceived ideologies.”

“The results may be surprising to some in that the theory-based abstinence-only curriculum appeared to be as effective as a combined course and more effective than the safer-sex only curriculum in delaying sexual activity,” the editorial said. “None of the curricula had any effect on the prevalence of unprotected sexual intercourse or consistent condom use.”

The executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, Valerie Huber, said she hoped that the new study would lead to restored federal support for abstinence programs.

“The current recommendation before Congress in the 2011 budget zeroes out abstinence education, and puts all the money into broader comprehensive education,” Ms. Huber said. “I hope that either the White House amends their request or Congress acts upon this, reinstating abstinence education.”

Ms. Huber also said she found it especially interesting that African-Americans were the focus of Dr. Jemmott’s study since, she said, “our critics would contend that the abstinence message would be least effective with the most at-risk youth.”

Even longtime advocates of comprehensive sex education heralded the findings.

“This new study is game-changing,” said Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, in a statement. “For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex and reduce their recent sexual activity as well. Importantly, the study also shows that this particular abstinence-only program did not reduce condom use among the young teens who did have sex.”

Ms. Brown noted that the abstinence-only classes in the Jemmott study centered on people with an average age of 12 and that unlike the federally supported abstinence programs now in use, did not advocate abstinence until marriage.

The classes also did not portray sex negatively or suggest that condoms are ineffective, and contained only medically accurate information. Dr. Jemmott’s abstinence-only course was designed for the research, and is not in current use in schools.

[Leroy Lizard]

There is no abstinence-only education in this country.

[3rdgensooner]

“The results may be surprising to some in that the theory-based abstinence-only curriculum appeared to be as effective as a combined course and more effective than the safer-sex only curriculum in delaying sexual activity,” the editorial said. “None of the curricula had any effect on the prevalence of unprotected sexual intercourse or consistent condom use.”



“This new study is game-changing,” said Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, in a statement. “For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex and reduce their recent sexual activity as well. Importantly, the study also shows that this particular abstinence-only program did not reduce condom use among the young teens who did have sex.”

Ms. Brown noted that the abstinence-only classes in the Jemmott study centered on people with an average age of 12 and that unlike the federally supported abstinence programs now in use, did not advocate abstinence until marriage.

The classes also did not portray sex negatively or suggest that condoms are ineffective, and contained only medically accurate information. Dr. Jemmott’s abstinence-only course was designed for the research, and is not in current use in schools.

Very interesting research

[Leroy Lizard]

Interesting to look at the HIV rates per state:

http://www.avert.org/usa-states-cities.htm

So much for sex education = safe sex.

BTW, check out DC's HIV rate. Whoa!!!!

Now we will be told that there are other factors involved. Strange how such reasoning is never applied to the teen pregnancy argument.

[87sooner]

what's the point of any kind of sex ed?
you get pregnant...it's just a clump of cells that you can have "removed" for a few hundred $$$....no big deal...

[virginiasooner]

what's the point of any kind of sex ed?
you get pregnant...it's just a clump of cells that you can have "removed" for a few hundred $$$....no big deal...

The object of abstinence education is to NOT HAVE SEX. Let's leave abortion out of it, okay? Frankly, I'd prefer a teenage girl not get pregnant in the first place, by using some form of birth control.

[Leroy Lizard]

what's the point of any kind of sex ed?
you get pregnant...it's just a clump of cells that you can have "removed" for a few hundred $$$....no big deal...

You're just a clump of cells, too. So offing you wouldn't be a problem, would it?

[MR2-Sooner86]

There is no abstinence-only education in this country.

True Love Waits
Abstinence the Better Choice Inc
National Abstinence Clearinghouse
Abstinence Works!
R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

[StoopTroup]

Statistics are dangerous because people don't have the first ****ing clue how to interpret them.

I agree with that. My 4 years in Corp. Accting damn sure taught me a real life experience that my College Stat classes didn't.

[The]

I agree with that. My 4 years in Corp. Accting damn sure taught me a real life experience that my College Stat classes didn't.

You were an actor in the Marine Corp?

[87sooner]

You're just a clump of cells, too. So offing you wouldn't be a problem, would it?

it's only a matter of time....

[87sooner]

The object of abstinence education is to NOT HAVE SEX. Let's leave abortion out of it, okay? Frankly, I'd prefer a teenage girl not get pregnant in the first place, by using some form of birth control.

you can't leave abortion out of it....
it's all about creating a LIFE....
we don't need sex ed we need LIFE ed.....

[The]

you can't leave abortion out of it....
it's all about creating a LIFE....
we don't need sex ed we need LIFE ed.....

You seemed fixated on abortion today. If it'll make you feel better, I did pay for my undocumented gardener's live in girlfriend to get an abortion last week. I couldn't let him take the time off to raise a child.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Of course they are, which is why abstinence should be stressed.
Kids are going to ride motorcycles, but its dangerous so we should just tell them not to ride motorcycles. (and never say anything about a helmet)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

You seemed fixated on abortion today. If it'll make you feel better, I did pay for my undocumented gardener's live in girlfriend to get an abortion last week. I couldn't let him take the time off to raise a child.

Is he Canadian?

Those bastards are pouring over the border in DROVES.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=127

Wow look at that, low teen birth rates dominated by European countries. Is it because....we are poorer than them? No....is it because....they have ridiculous abortion rates?
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html
No.....WAIT I KNOW, Its because they have comprehensive sex education!

[StoopTroup]

You were an actor in the Marine Corp?

They have some great commercials huh? :pop:

XY-NHE6LO04

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

First off, you aren't going to get far by looking at just one statistic, in this case, the teen pregnancy rate, at just one time. All thats going to tell you is how things are right now. The reasons for such may be anything. It could be abstinence-only sex ed, it could be aliens coming down and impregnating people in that state. The statistic has no idea.

So say you think it's because of the seckshual edumacation that some states are way higher than others. Well, in order to test that hypothesis, what you would need to do is find out information about what kinds of seckshual edumacation is going on in each state, and if that is consistent across whole states, or limited to certain pockets. That might get you some kind of correlation.

But correlation is not causation. The cause could always be some factor you are completely overlooking. So you might want to then find out when each state started their sex ed programs, and what came before.
Then comes the real work.

Say that state X had zero sex ed before 1980. in 1980 they switched to ____ sex ed. So look at what happens to the teen preg rate before that went into effect, and after that went into effect. Do that kind of thing for all 50 states. Some states might switch at some point between sex ed type A and sex ed type B, look for changes in the rate after that switch.

After you've done that, you may have even stronger correlation. Now you have to try to rule out other causes. Do you get similar correlations with poverty rates? What about population density? What about the number of UFO reports? Do this for every variable you can think of that might possibly contribute to teens getting pregnant.

It takes a lot of work to actually come to a conclusion about causation. It's not impossible, but there is absolutely no way to do it with just one statistic.
Education on proper use of birth control is not causation to lower birth rates?

[StoopTroup]

If more folks would just PIITB none of this would matter.

Possibly NSFW :D

fbGkxcY7YFU

[MR2-Sooner86]

Abstinence, the "cool" excuse on why you're not really getting laid ;)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Not for me.

As soon as I learned how to use a rubber, I wanted to use one.

As soon as I learned how to shoot a gun, I wanted to use one.

As soon as I learned how to fish, I wanted to fish.

As soon as I learned how to clean my gun, it went off in my hand.

[StoopTroup]

Not for me.

As soon as I learned how to use a rubber, I wanted to use one.

As soon as I learned how to shoot a gun, I wanted to use one.

As soon as I learned how to fish, I wanted to fish.

As soon as I learned how to clean my gun, it went off in my hand.

What did you think about the two in the pinkel...one in the stinkle?

[StoopTroup]

Abstinence, the "cool" excuse on why you're not really getting laid ;)

To much chest hair can be a good excuse too.

http://btr.michaelkwan.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/apatow-40-year-old-virgin.jpg

[Tulsa_Fireman]

What did you think about the two in the pinkel...one in the stinkle?

I never found my pinkel.

:(

[The]

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/junior_anti_sex_league.gif

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Abistence education seems to only take hold once they are married

[TUSooner]

Abistence education seems to only take hold once they are married

Best post ever.

[virginiasooner]

you can't leave abortion out of it....
it's all about creating a LIFE....
we don't need sex ed we need LIFE ed.....

Oh boy, you are in need of some serious life EDUCATION. There is a lot that I would like to say to you, but I'll leave it to everyone else to imagine how clueless you are.

[87sooner]

Oh boy, you are in need of some serious life EDUCATION. There is a lot that I would like to say to you, but I'll leave it to everyone else to imagine how clueless you are.

put some thought into it....
i'm confident you can communicate your own thoughts if you try..
but try to control yourself....calling someone "clueless" is not an effective way to communicate...

[The]

put some thought into it....
i'm confident you can communicate your own thoughts if you try..
but try to control yourself....calling someone "clueless" is not an effective way to communicate...

http://maxfawcett.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/pot-kettle-black.jpg

[TUSooner]

Oh boy, you are in need of some serious life EDUCATION. There is a lot that I would like to say to you, but I'll leave it to everyone else to imagine how clueless you are.

Upon reflection, that post is slightly more thoughtful than calling someone a "silly poo-poo head," but not by much. :D

[soonerboy_odanorth]

I agree with that. My 4 years in Corp. Accting damn sure taught me a real life experience that my College Stat classes didn't.

They don't have a section on cooking the books and licking boss *** in college stats classes? :confused:

[Howzit]

In all fairness, those states have a bunch of messicans, too.

[Howzit]

Was that out loud?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I didn't hear anything

[virginiasooner]

put some thought into it....
i'm confident you can communicate your own thoughts if you try..
but try to control yourself....calling someone "clueless" is not an effective way to communicate...

Okay, here goes: you're a total moron if you think that teenagers aren't going to have sex. And while it is preferable that teenagers don't have sex, I want them prepared -- both physically and pschologicaly (sp), which means teaching them about methods of birth control (number one lesson to girls -- boys are liars who will do anything for a good lay so stay away from them; number one lesson to boys -- j@rk off).

It may be nice living in perfectworld, where everyone stays a virgin until their wedding night, but let's live in the reality-based world, okay? Both men and women wait until their 30s before getting married these days. Are you so incased in your bubble that you think that a 30-year old ADULT isn't going to have a serious relationship that DOESN'T involve sexual relations? Get real.

And everyone should be able to CHOOSE when they are ready. If one person is pressuring the other to consummate things, and the other person isn't ready, then it's time to break up. That's real sex ed, not that phony "keep your legs together until your wedding night" abstinence crap.

[TUSooner]

Okay, here goes: you're a total moron if you think that teenagers aren't going to have sex. And while it is preferable that teenagers don't have sex, I want them prepared -- both physically and pschologicaly (sp), which means teaching them about methods of birth control (number one lesson to girls -- boys are liars who will do anything for a good lay so stay away from them; number one lesson to boys -- j@rk off).

It may be nice living in perfectworld, where everyone stays a virgin until their wedding night, but let's live in the reality-based world, okay? Both men and women wait until their 30s before getting married these days. Are you so incased in your bubble that you think that a 30-year old ADULT isn't going to have a serious relationship that DOESN'T involve sexual relations? Get real.

And everyone should be able to CHOOSE when they are ready. If one person is pressuring the other to consummate things, and the other person isn't ready, then it's time to break up. That's real sex ed, not that phony "keep your legs together until your wedding night" abstinence crap.

There. At least you put a little work into it! :D

[87sooner]

Okay, here goes: you're a total moron

still having self control problems...




if you think that teenagers aren't going to have sex.

never said teenagers aren't going to have sex....




And while it is preferable that teenagers don't have sex, I want them prepared -- both physically and pschologicaly (sp), which means teaching them about methods of birth control (number one lesson to girls -- boys are liars who will do anything for a good lay so stay away from them; number one lesson to boys -- j@rk off).

It may be nice living in perfectworld, where everyone stays a virgin until their wedding night, but let's live in the reality-based world, okay? Both men and women wait until their 30s before getting married these days. Are you so incased in your bubble that you think that a 30-year old ADULT isn't going to have a serious relationship that DOESN'T involve sexual relations? Get real.

i know 30 year olds in serious relationships that don't have sex...that's reality...
you obviously believe it's impossible....
you have displayed self control issues...so it's not surprising..
just because you can't do it....don't assume no one can....




And everyone should be able to CHOOSE when they are ready. If one person is pressuring the other to consummate things, and the other person isn't ready, then it's time to break up. That's real sex ed, not that phony "keep your legs together until your wedding night" abstinence crap.

i don't think you understood my "life ed" comment at all...

[yankee]

abstinence rocks. :hot:

[soonerchk]

Take my job for a few weeks and go out and actually deal with some of the 16 year olds having baby #3 because "birth control is dangerous". Then you can come back and tell me that abstinence education is the best way to go.

[Howzit]

Are you in social work?

[tommieharris91]

They don't have a section on cooking the books and licking boss *** in college stats classes? :confused:

They have a separate class on cooking the books.

[soonerchk]

Are you in social work?

No, but I monitor WIC and other similar programs.

[The]

http://lynnrockets.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/bristol-palin-abstinence-do.jpg

[87sooner]

Take my job for a few weeks and go out and actually deal with some of the 16 year olds having baby #3 because "birth control is dangerous". Then you can come back and tell me that abstinence education is the best way to go.

what is your job?
do you know for a fact that these "16 year olds having baby #3" have only been taught abstinence?
are you suggesting that 16 year olds that have been taught "birth control" never get pregnant? never get "pregnant x3"?

i'm not suggesting abstinence teaching is fool proof...
not even close...
teenagers have to be armed with the truth to make the right decisions...
christians have incentive to not have premarital sex....assuming they have been taught the truth....
anyone else....i'm not sure what the incentive is....unless you teach them the value of life created...

[StoopTroup]

Take my job for a few weeks and go out and actually deal with some of the 16 year olds having baby #3 because "birth control is dangerous". Then you can come back and tell me that abstinence education is the best way to go.

I won't disagree but it is a good alternative for folks who take the time to raise their own children instead of the women who kick their daughter out of the house when they find out their kid has been screwing their live-in boy friend. :pop:

[StoopTroup]

http://lynnrockets.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/bristol-palin-abstinence-do.jpg

I think the Baptists might have been onto something as she's a pretty good dancer too.

http://www.jacktimes.com/media/files/2010/09/dancing-with-the-stars-bristol-palin-mark-ballas.bmp

[soonerchk]

what is your job?
do you know for a fact that these "16 year olds having baby #3" have only been taught abstinence?
are you suggesting that 16 year olds that have been taught "birth control" never get pregnant? never get "pregnant x3"?

i'm not suggesting abstinence teaching is fool proof...
not even close...
teenagers have to be armed with the truth to make the right decisions...
christians have incentive to not have premarital sex....assuming they have been taught the truth....
anyone else....i'm not sure what the incentive is....unless you teach them the value of life created...

I do know they haven't been taught anything about birth control and therefore don't believe in it. It's one thing for someone to have the information and decide they don't want to use it. It's a whole different situation to not ever provide the info to allow for informed choices.

[StoopTroup]

Seems like she's found her signature move too.

http://media.masslive.com/entertainment/photo/bristol-palin-dancing-with-the-stars-c321ba28804edd9e_large.jpg

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/09/22/alg_resize_dwts_bristol-palin_3.jpg

[Crucifax Autumn]

So now she only has one leg up?

[Penguin]

OK. So, here's the plan:

1) Let's play up the STD angle.
2) Let's play the "You don't want to be stuck with a baby at an early age" card.
3) Mention "A baby will destroy your future"
4) Say that the pregnant teen will bring shame to the family.


Let's avoid these truths:

1) Sex is ****ing awesome!!!!
2) Sex feels so damn good and is a ton of fun!!!!
3) Sex will blow your GD socks off when both partners have had plenty of experience with numerous partners!


We need to teach teens that two virgins getting married is the right thing to do. Boring and awkward, but right. Try to keep a straight face.

[Howzit]

I don't buy a car without taking for a spin first.

[soonerchk]

OK. So, here's the plan:

1) Let's play up the STD angle.
2) Let's play the "You don't want to be stuck with a baby at an early age" card.
3) Mention "A baby will destroy your future"
4) Say that the pregnant teen will bring shame to the family.


Let's avoid these truths:

1) Sex is ****ing awesome!!!!
2) Sex feels so damn good and is a ton of fun!!!!
3) Sex will blow your GD socks off when both partners have had plenty of experience with numerous partners!


We need to teach teens that two virgins getting married is the right thing to do. Boring and awkward, but right. Try to keep a straight face.
That's why my parents got married and it was good enough for them!!

until the lust wore off and they got divorced.

[StoopTroup]

Funny that it's been quite a few centuries and we haven't perfected a better chastity belt.

http://kafka-metamorphosis.wikispaces.com/file/view/Chastity_Belt.jpg/34851947/Chastity_Belt.jpg

[The]

What about the gays? Does abstinence education help lesbians in any way at all?

[Howzit]

There is no correlation on their teenage pregnancy rates whatsoever.

[soonerchk]

Funny that it's been quite a few centuries and we haven't perfected a better chastity belt.

http://kafka-metamorphosis.wikispaces.com/file/view/Chastity_Belt.jpg/34851947/Chastity_Belt.jpg

Why does a horse need a chastity belt?

[soonerboy_odanorth]

Funny that it's been quite a few centuries and we haven't perfected a better chastity belt.

http://kafka-metamorphosis.wikispaces.com/file/view/Chastity_Belt.jpg/34851947/Chastity_Belt.jpg


Look! If you wear that, you can make heart-shaped poopies!

That gives me a heck of an idea!

What if we made one of those in the shape of the whorn logo. We could make little shorthorn poopies all over the place for kiddies to step in so that they can understand why they picked burnt orange as a school color!

[soonerboy_odanorth]

(number one lesson to girls -- boys are liars who will do anything for a good lay so stay away from them; number one lesson to boys -- j@rk off).


Ok. Just so we're clear. We shouldn't teach abstinence only, but abstinence should be lesson number one.

Have I got it now?

[StoopTroup]

Why does a horse need a chastity belt?

That's about the only one I could find that wouldn't get me banned.

[soonerchk]

That's about the only one I could find that wouldn't get me banned.

Okay, but I just don't think that the person who could wear it would actually need it.

[The]

Ok. Just so we're clear. We shouldn't teach abstinence only, but abstinence should be lesson number one.

Have I got it now?


No, THIS should be lesson #1: GUTS by Chuck Palahniuk (http://chuckpalahniuk.net/features/shorts/guts) (VERY NOT MIND SAFE)

[Leroy Lizard]

True Love Waits
Abstinence the Better Choice Inc
National Abstinence Clearinghouse
Abstinence Works!
R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

Yeah, what about them?

[Leroy Lizard]

Kids are going to ride motorcycles, but its dangerous so we should just tell them not to ride motorcycles. (and never say anything about a helmet)

If riding motorcycles is dangerous, don't let your kids do it. But don't hand them a helmet and tell them not to do it, because by handing them the helmet you are in essence suggesting that it's okay.

That's how young kids view things. You can't ride the fence on this issue by acting in one way and talking in another.

[Leroy Lizard]

Okay, here goes: you're a total moron if you think that teenagers aren't going to have sex.

Some will; some won't. It's completely wrong to think that all will.

And whether they will or not depends on a lot of factors: ugliness and upbringing are two important ones.

So you try to raise your kids right. You teach them virtues. Some learn the lessons; some don't.

However, if you don't even try, they almost certainly won't.

[Eielson]

No, THIS should be lesson #1: GUTS by Chuck Palahniuk (http://chuckpalahniuk.net/features/shorts/guts) (VERY NOT MIND SAFE)



I'm never masturbating again.

[picasso]

Hand out condoms and tell 'em to pump each other like rabbits. See how that works for ya.

[Penguin]

Hand out condoms and tell 'em to pump each other like rabbits. See how that works for ya.


Dude! That would be the best summer ever!

[sooner59]

No, THIS should be lesson #1: GUTS by Chuck Palahniuk (http://chuckpalahniuk.net/features/shorts/guts) (VERY NOT MIND SAFE)



Dude. I am ****ing speechless. :eek:

[Theskipster]

I'm just glad that as a teenager I got an actual sex education so I could make educated decisions instead of being ignorant but well versed in other people's morality that I didn't agree with and wasn't going to follow.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

I'm just glad that as a teenager I got an actual sex education so I could make educated decisions instead of being ignorant but well versed in other people's morality that I didn't agree with and wasn't going to follow.
Whats wrong with advice on [sex] something by someone [Jesus] who has never experienced it?:confused: :confused:

[the_ouskull]

My quick $0.02, even though it may have already appeared in the thread.

Abstinance-only sex education is going to continue to fail to be effective. Imagine the success/fail ratio of an endeavor to teach 100% alcohol-free partying to teenagers and young adults. Now imagine how much MORE that plan would fail if teenage hormones were involved. NOW you know why abstinance-only sex education will never work... or you're playing dumb still.

the_ouskull

[the_ouskull]

i know 30 year olds in serious relationships that don't have sex...that's reality...

Yeah, but they're married, so that doesn't count.

the_ouskull

[Leroy Lizard]

My quick $0.02, even though it may have already appeared in the thread.

Abstinance-only sex education is going to continue to fail to be effective. Imagine the success/fail ratio of an endeavor to teach 100% alcohol-free partying to teenagers and young adults. Now imagine how much MORE that plan would fail if teenage hormones were involved. NOW you know why abstinance-only sex education will never work... or you're playing dumb still.

the_ouskull

The problem is more cultural than anything else. Look at the HIV rate in non-Bible-belt states.

If society does not take abstinence seriously, then it becomes that much harder to teach. In essence, we are the problem. The same goes for drug use. Many posters in here brag about it, then wonder why drug programs fail.

As long as society says, "Oh, you're going to do it anyway" then what chance does an abstinence program have?

[yankee]

Some will; some won't. It's completely wrong to think that all will.

And whether they will or not depends on a lot of factors: ugliness and upbringing are two important ones.

So you try to raise your kids right. You teach them virtues. Some learn the lessons; some don't.

However, if you don't even try, they almost certainly won't.

exactly.

[The]

The problem is more cultural than anything else. Look at the HIV rate in non-Bible-belt states.

If society does not take abstinence seriously, then it becomes that much harder to teach. In essence, we are the problem. The same goes for drug use. Many posters in here brag about it, then wonder why drug programs fail.

As long as society says, "Oh, you're going to do it anyway" then what chance does an abstinence program have?

WHY WON'T YOU ACT LIKE I WANT YOU TOO??? WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN????

[87sooner]

The problem is more cultural than anything else. Look at the HIV rate in non-Bible-belt states.

If society does not take abstinence seriously, then it becomes that much harder to teach. In essence, we are the problem. The same goes for drug use. Many posters in here brag about it, then wonder why drug programs fail.

As long as society says, "Oh, you're going to do it anyway" then what chance does an abstinence program have?

good points...
kids want to be adults.....and do what adults are doing...
society and the media celebrate/promote teen/premarital sex.....
25 years ago when i was in high school.....the belief was that there was something wrong with you if you WEREN'T having sex...
young celebrities who speak about abstinence today are ridiculed...

[Leroy Lizard]

WHY WON'T YOU ACT LIKE I WANT YOU TOO??? WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN????

:confused:

[Leroy Lizard]

good points...
kids want to be adults.....and do what adults are doing...
society and the media celebrate/promote teen/premarital sex.....
25 years ago when i was in high school.....the belief was that there was something wrong with you if you WEREN'T having sex...
young celebrities who speak about abstinence today are ridiculed...

When I was in high school we had the concept of the slut. This was a girl that slept around with multiple guys. The other girls typically hated her and the guys had no respect for her (although they took advantage of what she had to offer).

[3rdgensooner]

The issue of youthful behaviors have been discussed for time immemorial.


"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond
words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and
respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise
[disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" (Hesiod, 8th century BC).



"The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of
today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for
parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as
if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is
foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest
and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress." (Peter the Hermit A.D. 1274)

[87sooner]

The issue of youthful behaviors have been discussed for time immemorial.

parents have no clue how to teach self control/respect to their children...
or maybe they don't even realize it's their responsibility to do it...
or maybe they don't even realize they NEED to do it...

[Leroy Lizard]

parents have no clue how to teach self control/respect to their children...
or maybe they don't even realize it's their responsibility to do it...
or maybe they don't even realize they NEED to do it...

The problem is that parents focus on preventing their kids from facing consequences. Don't teach them that stealing is wrong; teach them how to make sure they don't get caught. Because if you don't get caught, it's all good.

[Veritas]

So here's how I handled the situation with my nephew when he came to me asking questions.

You should really talk to your Dad about this, but I know you're looking for real advice so...
a) Dude, the only real way to avoid knocking someone up or getting some sort of dick rot is to not have sex. Honestly, that's the wisest course of action here. Nobody tells you this, but sex can really scramble your brain.
b) If you absolutely feel like you got to get physical, you've got a couple of pregnancy-safe routes: bj's and backdoor. Trust me, you'll spend your life pursuing these two things far more than you will regular sex.
c) Make sure she's on birth control and don't bust a nut in the girl.
d) Spend the money on lambskin rubbers, but put them in the outside trash ASAP. Them things stink.

I don't think you could get away with teaching that in schools. :D

[Leroy Lizard]

So here's how I handled the situation with my nephew when he came to me asking questions.

You should really talk to your Dad about this, but I know you're looking for real advice so...
a) Dude, the only real way to avoid knocking someone up or getting some sort of dick rot is to not have sex. Honestly, that's the wisest course of action here. Nobody tells you this, but sex can really scramble your brain.
b) If you absolutely feel like you got to get physical, you've got a couple of pregnancy-safe routes: bj's and backdoor. Trust me, you'll spend your life pursuing these two things far more than you will regular sex.
c) Make sure she's on birth control and don't bust a nut in the girl.
d) Spend the money on lambskin rubbers, but put them in the outside trash ASAP. Them things stink.

I don't think you could get away with teaching that in schools. :D

Rule 1: Don't parent kids who are not your own.
Rule 2: Well, there is no Rule 2. Just don't do it.

Good advice for teachers too.

[Veritas]

Rule 1: Don't parent kids who are not your own.
Rule 2: Well, there is no Rule 2. Just don't do it.

Good advice for teachers too.
That would work perfectly in a society where parents talked to their kids reasonably about sexual identity and communicated about the cause and effect of sexual relationships.

Unfortunately here in the Bible belt lots of us grow up in families where sex is either never addressed by parents or if it is, it's presented as the Unforgivable Sin. Some families a kid isn't free to ask his folks about sex because if he asks he's going to get nailed to the wail for even thinking about such a heinous thing.

If the parents aren't parenting, the kids are going to people they trust for advice. Will the advice be good? Maybe, maybe not, but the parents created the situation by not parenting.

[soonerchk]

That would work perfectly in a society where parents talked to their kids reasonably about sexual identity and communicated about the cause and effect of sexual relationships.

Unfortunately here in the Bible belt lots of us grow up in families where sex is either never addressed by parents or if it is, it's presented as the Unforgivable Sin. Some families a kid isn't free to ask his folks about sex because if he asks he's going to get nailed to the wail for even thinking about such a heinous thing.

If the parents aren't parenting, the kids are going to people they trust for advice. Will the advice be good? Maybe, maybe not, but the parents created the situation by not parenting.

Truth. I had to have a little chat with several members of a squad I coached after one of them got pregnant because her mother told her that french kissing caused it.

[Leroy Lizard]

That would work perfectly in a society where parents talked to their kids reasonably about sexual identity and communicated about the cause and effect of sexual relationships.

You failed to learn the lesson: Don't parent kids that are not your own.

It is arrogant to assume that you know what's best for other people's kids.

You wouldn't like it if others did it to you, no matter what excuses they gave.

[Leroy Lizard]

Truth. I had to have a little chat with several members of a squad I coached after one of them got pregnant because her mother told her that french kissing caused it.

If her mother wants to raise her kid that way, that's her right. If you think that a parent's decision-making is harmful to her kids, then call social services. Don't just assume her parenting duties.

[The]

If her mother wants to raise her kid that way, that's her right. If you think that a parent's decision-making is harmful to her kids, then call social services. Don't just assume her parenting duties.

Call Social Services because a kid's an ignorant dip****?

If a niece or nephew of mine wanted to listen to the Insane Clown Posse, I would do some immediate substitute parenting on the spot. Being a parent does not preclude you from being an infallible ****-up.

[3rdgensooner]

I think it's a good thing that we have social services to offer people in need. I don't think calling social services everytime a young person asks for advice--and won't go to their parents--is the best use of the programs.

[Leroy Lizard]

Call Social Services because a kid's an ignorant dip****?

If Social Services doesn't want to touch it, you probably shouldn't either.


If a niece or nephew of mine wanted to listen to the Insane Clown Posse, I would do some immediate substitute parenting on the spot. Being a parent does not preclude you from being an infallible ****-up.

You call the parents and ask them if they find it acceptable to listen to Insane Clown Posse. If they do, then that's their choice.

If it's inside your own home, you can refuse to let them listen to it, but you cannot teach them that they shouldn't. That's the parent's job.

Pretty soon, people are teaching other people's kids who to vote for, which religion to believe in, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I'm a Christian. There are things I would love to profess to my relatives' kids, but I don't unless their parents want it. If the parents want them growing up Atheist, I cannot intervene.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think it's a good thing that we have social services to offer people in need. I don't think calling social services everytime a young person asks for advice--and won't go to their parents--is the best use of the programs.

Right, because doing so would be asking Social Services to play the role of the Buttinsky. You shouldn't either.

A lot of parents want their kids to learn that premarital sex is an unforgivable sin. That is what they value. You step in there and undercut their message and you have no one to blame if they lay a pipe wrench between your eyes.

And I mean that seriously.

[The]

I


You call the parents and ask them if they find it acceptable to listen to Insane Clown Posse. If they do, they should be beaten and hauled off.

ficksed.

We cannot stand idly by.

[3rdgensooner]

Right, because doing so would be asking Social Services to play the role of the Buttinsky. You shouldn't either.

A lot of parents want their kids to learn that premarital sex is an unforgivable sin. That is what they value. You step in there and undercut their message and you have no one to blame if they lay a pipe wrench between your eyes.

And I mean that seriously.
So the only choices are: 1) undercut their message or 2) butt out?

[soonerbrat]

Kids are going to ride motorcycles, but its dangerous so we should just tell them not to ride motorcycles. (and never say anything about a helmet)

exactly.

[Theskipster]

So Leroy believes that people shouldn't raise other people's kids, but it is OK for the government to teach those same kids their morals

[soonerchk]

If her mother wants to raise her kid that way, that's her right. If you think that a parent's decision-making is harmful to her kids, then call social services. Don't just assume her parenting duties.

How did I assume her parenting duties? The kid was already knocked up, I just told her how it happened.

[The]

How did I assume her parenting duties? The kid was already knocked up, I just told her how it happened.

You're a bad aunt.

[yermom]

Right, because doing so would be asking Social Services to play the role of the Buttinsky. You shouldn't either.

A lot of parents want their kids to learn that premarital sex is an unforgivable sin. That is what they value. You step in there and undercut their message and you have no one to blame if they lay a pipe wrench between your eyes.

And I mean that seriously.

i guess schools shouldn't tell kids to wash their hands or require vaccinations or anything either?

[soonerchk]

You're a bad aunt.

So far so good on that one. I'm taking all of the credit now, and none of the blame later.

[Leroy Lizard]

So Leroy believes that people shouldn't raise other people's kids, but it is OK for the government to teach those same kids their morals

:confused:

[Leroy Lizard]

ficksed.

We cannot stand idly by.

Right. When a kid professes belief in the wrong religion, we need to step in.

Oh, wait.

[The]

Right. When a kid professes belief in the wrong religion, we need to step in.

Oh, wait.


Who said anything about religion? I'm talking about people being idiots.

[Leroy Lizard]

i guess schools shouldn't tell kids to wash their hands or require vaccinations or anything either?

Schools can prevent kids from bringing firearms to school too. That isn't parenting. The school has a right to control its own environment.

For example, I once had a kid in my high school class that was a neo-Nazi. He made a lot of statements in my class that prompted me to call his parents in. They had no problem with his political beliefs. Fine. But IN MY CLASS I can control his behavior. He doesn't have to like everyone. In fact, he is perfectly free to hate whomever he wishes. But in my class he cannot act on his beliefs if they disrupt my teaching mission.

So I control my environment. Once he leaves my classroom, he is still bound by school rules and I can enforce them. But once he leaves school he is free to say whatever he wants.

Just like I can control the environment in my house. If my nephew is staying over, there are certain things I won't allow him to do. However, I am not going to teach him a standard of ethics and morals that violate his parents'. It's just wrong and arrogant.

[Leroy Lizard]

Who said anything about religion? I'm talking about people being idiots.

It's the same problem. Once we decide that our ethics/morals are superior to the parents' it opens up a ton of abuses.

It's about butting out of other people's family matters.

[Theskipster]

It's the same problem. Once we decide that our ethics/morals are superior to the parents' it opens up a ton of abuses.

It's about butting out of other people's family matters.

So then why do you want to impose your ethics/morals in place of the parent's ethics/morals?

Why can't the schools just give the kids all the best information they can and not push an agenda?

[The]

So then why do you want to impose your ethics/morals in place of the parent's ethics/morals?

Why can't the schools just give the kids all the best information they can and not push an agenda?


Damn it.... you beat me to where I was leading him :mad:

[Leroy Lizard]

So then why do you want to impose your ethics/morals in place of the parent's ethics/morals?

What exactly are you referencing?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Buttsecks.

[Leroy Lizard]

Buttsecks.

You were either inspired by my avator or The's. Either way, you will get a lot of complaints from others in here.

I'm still waiting to hear from The and TheSkipster about my supposed indoctrination of children with my moral beliefs.

[Penguin]

At no time in my entire have I ever pursued butt sex. Not that I think it's sinful, but have you seen what comes out of a butt?

[Leroy Lizard]

At no time in my entire have I ever pursued butt sex. Not that I think it's sinful, but have you seen what comes out of a butt?

You need to carry this message to our public school system.

[yermom]

Schools can prevent kids from bringing firearms to school too. That isn't parenting. The school has a right to control its own environment.

For example, I once had a kid in my high school class that was a neo-Nazi. He made a lot of statements in my class that prompted me to call his parents in. They had no problem with his political beliefs. Fine. But IN MY CLASS I can control his behavior. He doesn't have to like everyone. In fact, he is perfectly free to hate whomever he wishes. But in my class he cannot act on his beliefs if they disrupt my teaching mission.

So I control my environment. Once he leaves my classroom, he is still bound by school rules and I can enforce them. But once he leaves school he is free to say whatever he wants.

Just like I can control the environment in my house. If my nephew is staying over, there are certain things I won't allow him to do. However, I am not going to teach him a standard of ethics and morals that violate his parents'. It's just wrong and arrogant.

it's in society's best interest to not have girls get pregnant before they get out of high school, or be spreading syphilis

if parents aren't going to adequately prepare kids for having operational sex organs, then the government should

[Leroy Lizard]

it's in society's best interest to not have girls get pregnant before they get out of high school, or be spreading syphilis

I think handgun safety is important too, but I don't expect schools to teach it and I certainly would not teach it to my nephew if his parents didn't want him near guns.

Invoking "for the good of society" to justify butting into someone else's parent/child relationship is dangerous as Hell. At what point does it stop? After all, I could justify preaching to someone else's kids the "evils of homosexuality" using your argument. But if the kids' parents didn't want that taught to their kid, it would be arrogant of me to do so.

We all think indoctrinating kids to our own beliefs is great until our own ox gets gored.

[soonerbrat]

Schools can prevent kids from bringing firearms to school too. That isn't parenting. The school has a right to control its own environment.

For example, I once had a kid in my high school class that was a neo-Nazi. He made a lot of statements in my class that prompted me to call his parents in. They had no problem with his political beliefs. Fine. But IN MY CLASS I can control his behavior. He doesn't have to like everyone. In fact, he is perfectly free to hate whomever he wishes. But in my class he cannot act on his beliefs if they disrupt my teaching mission.

So I control my environment. Once he leaves my classroom, he is still bound by school rules and I can enforce them. But once he leaves school he is free to say whatever he wants.

Just like I can control the environment in my house. If my nephew is staying over, there are certain things I won't allow him to do. However, I am not going to teach him a standard of ethics and morals that violate his parents'. It's just wrong and arrogant.


you're a teacher? OMG.

[Theskipster]

You were either inspired by my avator or The's. Either way, you will get a lot of complaints from others in here.

I'm still waiting to hear from The and TheSkipster about my supposed indoctrination of children with my moral beliefs.

You want abstinence as the big push in sex education. Pushing people to choose abstinence as there life style is pushing people towards a moral/ethical belief.

[OklahomaTuba]

So why it is ok to push people to stop smoking or pushing people to stop eating certain things or other risky behaviors??

Abstinence is the only thing that is 100% effective against the spread of STDs and Pregnancy. THE ONLY THING.

[The]

Abstinence is the only thing that is 100% effective against the spread of STDs and Pregnancy. THE ONLY THING.


Suicide is pretty effective, too.

[Veritas]

you're a teacher? OMG.
Yeah. This thread is a really strong argument for home schooling.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

.

[The]

.


I concur.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I am really impressed with how your post count is increasing..makes me tingle

[The]

I am really impressed with how your post count is increasing..makes me tingle

Wanna come to a scat party?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

That would be lovely..I've got one that I have been saving up

[The]

Peanut butter added to the mix gives that nice, sticky consistency that is important in scat play.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I try and stick with the chunky peter pan..it provides the sticky, girth, and nice texture

[Leroy Lizard]

you're a teacher? OMG.

Gee, what an insightful comment.

[Leroy Lizard]

You want abstinence as the big push in sex education.

I never said that. I said that abstinence education does not work if the society doesn't support it.

BTW, I have no problem with a school teaching safe sex or abstinence IF (and only if) parents are free to opt their kids out of the lessons.

Now, strictly biological education is fine. Teach them what causes pregnancy and how adults prevent it from occurring. Start handing out condoms or stating that it is perfectly normal for teens to engage in premarital sex, however, and you have crossed the line from education to parenting.

[The]

I never said that. I said that abstinence education does not work if the society doesn't support it.

BTW, I have no problem with a school teaching safe sex or abstinence IF (and only if) parents are free to opt their kids out of the lessons.

Now, strictly biological education is fine. Teach them what causes pregnancy and how adults prevent it from occurring. Start handing out condoms or stating that it is perfectly normal for teens to engage in premarital sex, however, and you have crossed the line from education to parenting.

So, you're perfectly OK with paying for these Teenage Pregnancies which could have easily been prevented by a $.75 condom? On ethical grounds, I'm assuming from your post.

[3rdgensooner]

So, you're perfectly OK with paying for these Teenage Pregnancies which could have easily been prevented by a $.75 condom? On ethical grounds, I'm assuming from your post.
How do you know how much a condom costs?

[The]

How do you know how much a condom costs?


I've been in bar bathrooms.

[Leroy Lizard]

So, you're perfectly OK with paying for these Teenage Pregnancies which could have easily been prevented by a $.75 condom? On ethical grounds, I'm assuming from your post.

Let the parents purchase the condoms, if that is what they want for their kids. After all, if all they cost is 75 cents...

Actuallly, I imagine a cost of a condom is probably closer to ten cents when bought in bulk. If the school wants to sell parents the condoms so that they can give them to their kids, I would find that less objectionable.

Using the "cost of abortions" for your argument is problematic: Schools should choose a curriculum for its educational effectiveness, not whether it saves tax money.

As soon as a school hands a kid a condom, they are placing their stamp of approval on premarital sex, regardless of their verbal/written stance. Actions speak louder than words.

[The]

Asking again, you have no problem using tax money to pay for teenage pregnancies and the more often than not ensuing lifetime of poverty and welfare? Even though a lot of those pregnancies could have been prevented by just being a little less squeamish about biological processes?

Premarital sex? That sounds like a religious position. Can I assume YOU don't/didn't have premarital sex?

[picasso]

Asking again, you have no problem using tax money to pay for teenage pregnancies and the more often than not ensuing lifetime of poverty and welfare? Even though a lot of those pregnancies could have been prevented by just being a little less squeamish about biological processes?

Premarital sex? That sounds like a religious position. Can I assume YOU don't/didn't have premarital sex?

No guarantee anyone uses a free condom and it's not 100% it would prevent getting pregnant.
It was a big deal back when I was in 7th grade in '82 to kiss a girl.
Now it's common to have sex.

Do you see a correlation here Jerry?

[The]

No guarantee anyone uses a free condom and it's not 100% it would prevent getting pregnant.
It was a big deal back when I was in 7th grade in '82 to kiss a girl.
Now it's common to have sex.

Do you see a correlation here Jerry?

You're old?

[picasso]

You're old?

You're obviously young. And stupid.

[3rdgensooner]

It was a big deal back when I was in 7th grade in '82 to kiss a girl.Do you have access to some research on this? Most 7th graders I know are pretty much the same as when I was in 7th grade.

[The]

You're obviously young. And stupid.

You seem to have some sort of idolized Norman Rockwell-type recollection of the "Good Ole Days".

Sorry you got no action.

[picasso]

You seem to have some sort of idolized Norman Rockwell-type recollection of the "Good Ole Days".

Sorry you got no action.

Heh. I've gotten more action than you'll ever dream of Junior.

And you've yet to argue my point other than bring age into the discussion. I'm 41, big flippin deal.

What are you 12?
And nice avvie there of one sentence Sally. You're also quite imaginative.

The kids I hung with weren't going all the way in 7th grade. And I went to an f'ud up bat **** crazy school.

[Leroy Lizard]

Asking again, you have no problem using tax money to pay for teenage pregnancies and the more often than not ensuing lifetime of poverty and welfare?

That's a loaded question. It's like asking, "You don't have any problem with Mary using a coat hanger and killing herself?"

C'mon, we can do better than that.

Now, if you don't see why your question is loaded, I will explain. Just let me know.


Even though a lot of those pregnancies could have been prevented by just being a little less squeamish about biological processes?

Now we resort to emotionally-loaded language ("squeamish") and euphemisms ("biological processes").

Besides, even more of these pregnancies could have been avoided if teenagers didn't engage in sexual intercourse. So I knock the ball back into your court.


Premarital sex? That sounds like a religious position.

Let's use your logic: Studies show that sex out of wedlock correlates closely to poverty. Therefore, premarital sex is the real problem that needs to be corrected.

But to answer your question, I use the term premarital sex and underage sex interchangeably.


Can I assume YOU don't/didn't have premarital sex?

Now we employ the ad hominem.

Same tactics as always.

[The]

Heh. I've gotten more action than you'll ever dream of Junior.

And you've yet to argue my point other than bring age into the discussion. I'm 41, big flippin deal.

What are you 12?
And nice avvie there of one sentence Sally. You're also quite imaginative.

The kids I hung with weren't going all the way in 7th grade. And I went to an f'ud up bat **** crazy school.

You sound angry.

[The]

That's a loaded question. It's like asking, "You don't have any problem with Mary using a coat hanger and killing herself?"

C'mon, we can do better than that.

Now, if you don't see why your question is loaded, I will explain. Just let me know.



Now we resort to emotionally-loaded language ("squeamish") and euphemisms ("biological processes").

Besides, even more of these pregnancies could have been avoided if teenagers didn't engage in sexual intercourse. So I knock the ball back into your court.



Let's use your logic: Studies show that sex out of wedlock correlates closely to poverty. Therefore, premarital sex is the real problem that needs to be corrected.

But to answer your question, I use the term premarital sex and underage sex interchangeably.



Now we employ the ad hominem.

Same tactics as always.


So, what you're saying is that people should act like you want them to, not how they really do?

And using logical fallacies to argue logical fallacies is delicious fun.

[picasso]

You sound angry.

I'm doing great actually. You sound like a dip****.

Maybe too much condom burn on the epidermis of your palm?

[picasso]

So, what you're saying is that people should act like you want them to, not how they really do?

And using logical fallacies to argue logical fallacies is delicious fun.

Maybe you need to go back and read how people come to find things acceptable in society and how they learn to act.

Does it do any good to tell folks not to drink and drive? People still do it but what if we handed out free breath mints and told everyone to go for it?

[yermom]

I never said that. I said that abstinence education does not work if the society doesn't support it.

BTW, I have no problem with a school teaching safe sex or abstinence IF (and only if) parents are free to opt their kids out of the lessons.

Now, strictly biological education is fine. Teach them what causes pregnancy and how adults prevent it from occurring. Start handing out condoms or stating that it is perfectly normal for teens to engage in premarital sex, however, and you have crossed the line from education to parenting.

who said anything about handing out condoms?

not that i disagree with it, but you basically stated the same position i did, so far.

however, i do think condoms should be easily available because if kids are embarrassed to buy them, i don't really see that being a good deterrent from them fooling around, they'll just do it without them seeing that we are all invincible at that age anyway

[yermom]

I think handgun safety is important too, but I don't expect schools to teach it and I certainly would not teach it to my nephew if his parents didn't want him near guns.

Invoking "for the good of society" to justify butting into someone else's parent/child relationship is dangerous as Hell. At what point does it stop? After all, I could justify preaching to someone else's kids the "evils of homosexuality" using your argument. But if the kids' parents didn't want that taught to their kid, it would be arrogant of me to do so.

We all think indoctrinating kids to our own beliefs is great until our own ox gets gored.

the government also restricts handguns and has laws about children and access to them in a lot of places.

there isn't much they can do about junior's gun becoming loaded when he sprouts pubes

[Leroy Lizard]

So, what you're saying is that people should act like you want them to, not how they really do?

In other words, I see teens doing stupid things and I wish they didn't do those things. Yeah. I think that's true for everyone in here.

We all want people to act in certain ways. For example, a lot of teens steal. I want them to quit stealing. (Now, I could advocate giving them burglary tools so they are less likely to get caught and have to pay the consequences for their actions. That way, I cannot be seen as inflicting my opinions on how they should act on them.)

[yermom]

what kind of Puritanical background equates sex and burglary?

it's not like every human is born with some innate need to burgle

ok, maybe 10%, but that's a whole other thread...

[Leroy Lizard]

who said anything about handing out condoms?

not that i disagree with it, but you basically stated the same position i did, so far.

however, i do think condoms should be easily available because if kids are embarrassed to buy them, i don't really see that being a good deterrent from them fooling around, they'll just do it without them seeing that we are all invincible at that age anyway

Condoms came out earlier in the conversation.

As for making condoms more freely available... I don't have much trouble with it as long as our school system isn't involved. Or, if condoms could be handed out only to those kids whose parents have given permission, then fine. (But only through the school nurse, not teachers.)

[picasso]

what kind of Puritanical background equates sex and burglary?

it's not like every human is born with some innate need to burgle

ok, maybe 10%, but that's a whole other thread...

:D

[Leroy Lizard]

what kind of Puritanical background equates sex and burglary?

You're the one that implied the overly general statement that we shouldn't be asking kids to (gasp!) change their behaviors.

BTW, stealing is innate. We actually have to learn that stealing is not acceptable. And despite all our efforts, stealing is still a huge problem. (Sounds familiar.)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

what kind of Puritanical background equates sex and burglary?

it's not like every human is born with some innate need to burgle

ok, maybe 10%, but that's a whole other thread...

Maybe he's talking about personal experience with dirt burglaring.

[The]

I'm doing great actually. You sound like a dip****.

Maybe too much condom burn on the epidermis of your palm?

I think you're doing great! Arguing abstinence and attacking sexual virility at the same time is superb!

[The]

In other words, I see teens doing stupid things and I wish they didn't do those things. Yeah. I think that's true for everyone in here.

We all want people to act in certain ways. For example, a lot of teens steal. I want them to quit stealing. (Now, I could advocate giving them burglary tools so they are less likely to get caught and have to pay the consequences for their actions. That way, I cannot be seen as inflicting my opinions on how they should act on them.)

But it's best to make them face totally unnecessary consequences due to ignorance?

(And BTW, False Equivalence is still false)

[yermom]

You're the one that implied the overly general statement that we shouldn't be asking kids to (gasp!) change their behaviors.

BTW, stealing is innate. We actually have to learn that stealing is not acceptable. And despite all our efforts, stealing is still a huge problem. (Sounds familiar.)

i never said you should tell them it's fine to whore it up all over the school, you can discourage irresponsible behavior. it's not like birth control and condoms are 100% safe, they should know the whole story.

and yeah, you have to be taught not to steal, but you are talking about a crime with a victim, not two willing participants

[Leroy Lizard]

But it's best to make them face totally unnecessary consequences due to ignorance?

(And BTW, False Equivalence is still false)

Another loaded question, but I'll bite.

1. I am not stating that sex education shouldn't be taught; rather, I have stated that schools should refrain from engaging in practices that can be seen as encouragement for engaging in underage sex.
2. If kids know that engaging in sex can get one pregnant or infected, then their consequences are not due to ignorance.
3. There is no such thing as an unnecessary consequence, only unnecessary acts that carry consequences.

[Leroy Lizard]

i never said you should tell them it's fine to whore it up all over the school, you can discourage irresponsible behavior. it's not like birth control and condoms are 100% safe, they should know the whole story.

and yeah, you have to be taught not to steal, but you are talking about a crime with a victim, not two willing participants

Teaching them that condoms can prevent pregnancy is one thing; giving them condoms is quite another.

The former is education; the latter is advocacy. (Again, actions speak louder than words.)


and yeah, you have to be taught not to steal, but you are talking about a crime with a victim, not two willing participants

Isn't underage sex a crime in many states?

[Veritas]

Teaching them that condoms can prevent pregnancy is one thing; giving them condoms is quite another.

The former is education; the latter is advocacy. (Again, actions speak louder than words.)
On this we agree.

[The]

Another loaded question, but I'll bite.

1. I am not stating that sex education shouldn't be taught; rather, I have stated that parents should be able to opt their kids out of the sex education if they wish.
2. If kids know that engaging in sex can get one pregnant or infected, then their consequences are not due to ignorance.
3. There is no such thing as an unnecessary consequence, only unnecessary acts that carry consequences.

1. I'm not saying they should be forced either. Children of involved parents typically need less in this manner. The masses however, are a different color.
2. Every been to Yahoo! Answers? Kids are awash in disinformation and ignorance. Why is teaching them a bad thing?
3. Like ignoring reality by imposing spiritual beliefs based on an ostensibly well meaning morality, but which is little more than an imposition of a religious world view on a secular environment?

[Leroy Lizard]

2. Every been to Yahoo! Answers? Kids are awash in disinformation and ignorance. Why is teaching them a bad thing?

Never said it was. But sex education has to be careful to avoid advocating underage sex. Abstinence is obviously the most effective method and needs to be taught in a serious manner. (It is not.)

Attitudes like "We know you're going to screw anyway" should never appear in any sex education curriculum or instruction. Handing out condoms shouldn't either. Both are subtle means of encouraging certain behaviors that may violate a parent's ideals.


3. Like ignoring reality by imposing spiritual beliefs based on an ostensibly well meaning morality, but which is little more than an imposition of a religious world view on a secular environment?

The same could be said about handing out condoms: an act designed to encourage behavior that aligns to the teacher's views on underage sex.

Whether you push kids one way or the other, you are inflicting your own ideals on them.

[picasso]

I think you're doing great! Arguing abstinence and attacking sexual virility at the same time is superb!

Arguing? Who's arguing? I'm still laughing at the fact that you think you can pull more wool than anyone around here.

You troll in here from Hale's board or God knows where and stir **** up. Keep up the good work. Apparently it pays well.

[The]

Arguing? Who's arguing? I'm still laughing at the fact that you think you can pull more wool than anyone around here.

You troll in here from Hale's board or God knows where and stir **** up. Keep up the good work. Apparently it pays well.


You still sound angry. Is everything OK?

[The]

Never said it was. But sex education has to be careful to avoid advocating underage sex. Abstinence is obviously the most effective method and needs to be taught in a serious manner. (It is not.)

Attitudes like "We know you're going to screw anyway" should never appear in any sex education curriculum or instruction. Handing out condoms shouldn't either. Both are subtle means of encouraging certain behaviors that may violate a parent's ideals.



The same could be said about handing out condoms: an act designed to encourage behavior that aligns to the teacher's views on underage sex.

Whether you push kids one way or the other, you are inflicting your own ideals on them.


"Advocating" and "preparing for" are different things. And my main point is that kid's don't need encouragement or approval to sex. They'll do it anyway. No matter what the prevailing adult attitude is. Hell, they'll even do it under threat of death in Iran. Endorsing the safest level of behavior is best. ALL levels should be covered, from "Here's why you shouldn't get naked in the backseat" to "But if you do, here's the best way to protect yourself."

[Theskipster]

I never said that. I said that abstinence education does not work if the society doesn't support it.

BTW, I have no problem with a school teaching safe sex or abstinence IF (and only if) parents are free to opt their kids out of the lessons.

Now, strictly biological education is fine. Teach them what causes pregnancy and how adults prevent it from occurring. Start handing out condoms or stating that it is perfectly normal for teens to engage in premarital sex, however, and you have crossed the line from education to parenting.

Then I completely misunderstood what you were saying. And I can't believe I just agreed with Leroy.

[Leroy Lizard]

"Advocating" and "preparing for" are different things. And my main point is that kid's don't need encouragement or approval to sex. They'll do it anyway. No matter what the prevailing adult attitude is. Hell, they'll even do it under threat of death in Iran. Endorsing the safest level of behavior is best. ALL levels should be covered, from "Here's why you shouldn't get naked in the backseat" to "But if you do, here's the best way to protect yourself."

Again, schools should educate; parents should encourage or discourage.

Teachers should know their roles and the roles of parents. If a teacher wants to take over my parental responsibilities by telling my kids whether it is okay to engage in underage sex, then they can house, clothe, and feed my kids too.

And yes, handing kids condoms or telling them "You will do this anyway" IS a form of approval, especially in the eyes of a teenager.

So don't do it. Let us, the parents, do it. That's our job.

[The]

Again, schools should educate; parents should encourage or discourage.

Teachers should know their roles and the roles of parents. If a teacher wants to take over my parental responsibilities by telling my kids whether it is okay to engage in underage sex, then they can house, clothe, and feed my kids too.

And yes, handing kids condoms or telling them "You will do this anyway" IS a form of approval, especially in the eyes of a teenager.

So don't do it. Let us, the parents, do it. That's our job.

Like I said, if every parent did that, we wouldn't have a problem, now would we? The majority of kids don't have that. Sucks, but that's the way it is. That's why we have to have sex ed in school, because otherwise, 4chan might be the only place they get their information.

If you are a good parent, you should be a good enough parent to instill your values, and let them make their own decisions, regardless of what the implications of sex ed are.

[Cornfed]

I have kids in this state (yes one of the one's featured in the article). I looked over the state mandated material and I beleive the article has no idea what is being taught.

[Leroy Lizard]

Like I said, if every parent did that, we wouldn't have a problem, now would we? The majority of kids don't have that. Sucks, but that's the way it is. That's why we have to have sex ed in school, because otherwise, 4chan might be the only place they get their information.

If you are a good parent, you should be a good enough parent to instill your values, and let them make their own decisions, regardless of what the implications of sex ed are.

Parents have a hard enough time raising their kids without others butting in and undercutting them. "I have to parent them because their parents are not doing the job." Don't you realize how dangerous that is?

Yes, not all kids have parents who teach them adequately, but you cannot use that as an excuse to insert your own ethics and ideals, which is nothing more than vigilante parenting. (Vigilantes use the exact same excuse as yours.)

Besides, who are you to judge whether a parent is doing their job? If a parent says that sex is an unforgivable sin and I forbid you from engaging in it, who's to say that is bad parenting for that particular family?

Sex Ed is about facts. Stick to the facts. If you want to give condoms to the parents so that they can give them to the kids, be my guest. If you want to hold classes to teach parents what they should tell their kids regarding sexual behavior, go for it. Let the parents do the parenting even if it doesn't hold up to YOUR standards.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Teaching them that condoms can prevent pregnancy is one thing; giving them condoms is quite another.

The former is education; the latter is advocacy. (Again, actions speak louder than words.)



I don't think anywhere in the sex programs condoms are passed out to every student, but they are made available. There is a difference.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't think anywhere in the sex programs condoms are passed out to every student, but they are made available. There is a difference.

That was only part of the argument. The other was statements made to the effect that underage sex is normal and that "you will probably do this anyway."

Again, sex ed should stick to the facts and refrain from making such judgment calls.

[Cornfed]

That was only part of the argument. The other was statements made to the effect that underage sex is normal and that "you will probably do this anyway."

Again, sex ed should stick to the facts and refrain from making such judgment calls.


But how can you inject your opinion if you present facts?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

That was only part of the argument. The other was statements made to the effect that underage sex is normal and that "you will probably do this anyway."

Again, sex ed should stick to the facts and refrain from making such judgment calls.
Then don't teach it until sophomore year when people are turning 16.

Its a fact that safe sex reduce pregnancy and STD rates. In every high school there is going to be a crowd that isn't going to have sex no matter what, so it doesn't really matter what you teach them cause they are going to wait til marriage. Preaching abstinence is like preaching to the choir. The other group of people who want to be sexually active deserve a secular sexual education. Sure, tell them that "abstinence is the only 100% way of avoiding an STD or pregnancy" as if that isn't obvious or common sense to everyone already.

[Leroy Lizard]

Then don't teach it until sophomore year when people are turning 16.

Until they are 18 they are still under the guidance of their parents.


Its a fact that safe sex reduce pregnancy and STD rates.

So does abstinence. But we move on.


In every high school there is going to be a crowd that isn't going to have sex no matter what, so it doesn't really matter what you teach them cause they are going to wait til marriage. Preaching abstinence is like preaching to the choir. The other group of people who want to be sexually active deserve a secular sexual education. Sure, tell them that "abstinence is the only 100% way of avoiding an STD or pregnancy" as if that isn't obvious or common sense to everyone already.

I have no objections to what you say as long as you don't mind informing the parents what you are going to teach them beforehand and getting their permission. No signee, no teachee.

Sounds good enough to me.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Until they are 18 they are still under the guidance of their parents.



So does abstinence. But we move on.



I have no objections to what you say as long as you don't mind informing the parents what you are going to teach them beforehand and getting their permission. No signee, no teachee.

Sounds good enough to me.
16 when they are legally allowed to be sexually active. You missed my point there. With the kids who aren't going to be sexually active, "teaching" abstinence is preaching to the choir.

You must be a parent then. This is the kind of bull**** that waters down American education all around. You shouldn't have to sign a waiver to learn about anything. If the student doesn't want to hear it then fine, but that should be student's decision since they would be the one choosing to be sexually or not sexually active, not their parents.

[Leroy Lizard]

16 when they are legally allowed to be sexually active. You missed my point there. With the kids who aren't going to be sexually active, "teaching" abstinence is preaching to the choir.

We live in different states. In Arizona you must be 18 to legally consent for sex.


You must be a parent then. This is the kind of bull**** that waters down American education all around. You shouldn't have to sign a waiver to learn about anything. If the student doesn't want to hear it then fine, but that should be student's decision since they would be the one choosing to be sexually or not sexually active, not their parents.

Until they are 18 they are under the guidance of their parents and are not considered legally adults. Not here at least. What is the law in South Carolina?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

We live in different states. In Arizona you must be 18 to legally consent for sex.



Until they are 18 they are under the guidance of their parents and are not considered legally adults. Not here at least. What is the law in South Carolina?
Wow alright, 18 in Arizona then, you always have to be different don't you :P

As far as I know its the same thing here, its very unfortunate that you interpret that law to allow parents to control what their children learn in school. Especially FACTS. If you want to have so much control over what your children learn, send them to a private school. Otherwise they should be allowed to learn as they please in the public system. Again, in South Carolina and in many other states, if they are allowed to be sexually active it 16 they should be taught how to protect themselves at 16.

[Leroy Lizard]

Wow alright, 18 in Arizona then, you always have to be different don't you :P

It was the same in California when I lived there. I think having an age of consent set at 16 is lunacy.


As far as I know its the same thing here, its very unfortunate that you interpret that law to allow parents to control what their children learn in school. Especially FACTS. If you want to have so much control over what your children learn, send them to a private school. Otherwise they should be allowed to learn as they please in the public system.

They call that "college." Until they go to college, they are to receive an education deemed acceptable by the community (mostly parents). Naturally we disagree on what that should constitute.


Again, in South Carolina and in many other states, if they are allowed to be sexually active it 16 they should be taught how to protect themselves at 16.

For the umpteenth time, I am not against a factual-based sex ed program.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

It was the same in California when I lived there. I think having an age of consent set at 16 is lunacy.



They call that "college." Until they go to college, they are to receive an education deemed acceptable by the community (mostly parents). Naturally we disagree on what that should constitute.



For the umpteenth time, I am not against a factual-based sex ed program.
I'd agree 16 is too young. 17, old enough to drive, old enough to be held responsible for your actions legally as an adult, old enough to have sex.

Okay, so by that statement its okay to send kids to college who have been taught creationism/ID if the community deems it "acceptable?" Theres a lot of idiot school districts out there.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'd agree 16 is too young. 17, old enough to drive, old enough to be held responsible for your actions legally as an adult, old enough to have sex.

Okay, so by that statement its okay to send kids to college who have been taught creationism/ID if the community deems it "acceptable?" Theres a lot of idiot school districts out there.

Not sure I understand your point. Students who have been taught creationism have a right to a college education as much as anyone else as long as they understand evolution. They don't have to believe in it.

BTW, I am not a creationist. And your statement seems pretty far off-topic, since the teaching of creationism is a Constitutional question.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Not sure I understand your point. Students who have been taught creationism have a right to a college education as much as anyone else as long as they understand evolution. They don't have to believe in it.

BTW, I am not a creationist. And your statement seems pretty far off-topic, since the teaching of creationism is a Constitutional question.
Its sending students to college with very unequal biological/sexual/whatever education

[Leroy Lizard]

Its sending students to college with very unequal biological/sexual/whatever education

What are the college's requirements? Do they pass the requirements?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

What are the college's requirements? Do they pass the requirements?
I didn't say they did. I just said that education on those fronts is very unequal across the nation and should be fixed.

[Leroy Lizard]

Again, I'm not opposed to fact-based sex education. Teachers should stay away from taking over as surrogate parents, however.

[The Remnant]

There is also that group that no matter how hard you try to drill it into their thick little skulls, they will never put the helmet on the soldier. I constantly get boys as young as 14 who are incarcerated and are already fathers.

[Leroy Lizard]

There is also that group that no matter how hard you try to drill it into their thick little skulls, they will never put the helmet on the soldier. I constantly get boys as young as 14 who are incarcerated and are already fathers.

There are probably no consequences for this group.