"How are you going to keep yourself safe?" she asked the class. "Abstinence", they chorused.

"What do you also hear will keep you safe?" she asked. "Condoms", they answered.

"Do they keep you safe?" she asked.'No,' they chorused. (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1382117,00.html) "

*

Ah........the benfits of being Science-free!! :rolleyes:

AHAHAHAHAHA!! Ah, I think this is the funniest part:

"Koehler continued her lesson by listing the sexual activity that fell in the 'danger' category. 'Regular intercourse; anal intercourse; oral intercourse; skin-to-skin under clothes; genital contact; and there are some problems with deep passionate kissing - these are risky behaviours.'

Holding hands, hugging with clothes on and 'light kissing' were OK, the teens were told. Koehler then ran through the gamut of sexual diseases. 'How are you going to keep yourself safe?' she asked the class. 'Abstinence,' they chorused."

Oh man, no hugging in bathing suits? No "passionate kissing"? How can we hold hands? SKIN TOUCHING!! Lol, friend of mine went to a Christian school were boys and girls had to stay at least a foot away from each other at all times. Abstinance only, what a joke. Never did I think it was that bad anywhere other than private schools though...

Shaman, I'm a little confused. Is she wrong about abstinence being safer than condoms? (failure rate 3 - 12% depending on how carefully they are used and type of act)

If you are saying abstinence is unrealistic that's another matter, but you can't argue the "science" of what she said.

Totally agreed, Brooks...

Hopefully they can teach the hormones of teenagers to stop coursing through their veins.

yes, abstinence is the only fullproof way to ensure anything. but, the fact is that most people in the U.S. have sex before marriage, including many many teenagers. and sex will always be safer with condoms and other forms of protection. also, real comprehensive sex ed simply works. take a look at my school: its urban, poor, ridiculously underfunded and over crowded. there are about 2,500 kids in it, and i can think of about 10 pregnant girls whom i ve seen wlaking around in the halls since i started going there last fall. that is way way below the rate for texas given in the article, 59 in 1,000. despite most classes being mediocre at best, we have excelllent sex ed. plannes parenthood comes in to talk to everyone during gym class once a year, there are groups which hand out pamplets at lunch, and we're told everything we need to know in health class. teen pregnancy in the u.s. has dropped a great deal since access to brith control, condoms, and information has increased. idealogy can't stand up against facts and results.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
idealogy can't stand up against facts and results.

What are you talking about?

He is trying to say that most people agree that the ideal thing would be for kids to not have sex. But that it isn't realistic to think that we can "teach" or "scare" kids into ignoring their instincts and natural drives. It is unfortunate that these instincts and natural drives come upon us well before the age of reason and maturity. However, the best thing we can do for kids is to explain the dangers, and teach them how to protect themselves. And hopefully their upbringing will have taught them about morality and owning the consequences of their actions.

You can try to get them to ingnore their instincts but it will only work for so long, at some point those instincts are going to win. Sooner or later, at 15 or 22 the drive for sex will win out. And we want them to have the information they need to protect themselves when that happens.

Originally posted by Echo2
But that it isn't realistic to think that we can "teach" or "scare" kids into ignoring their instincts and natural drives.

Can't "teach" or "scare", but "rearing" or "raising" could have made a difference. If these instincts are so irresistable, why were pregnancy rates lower in prior decades.

Originally posted by Brooks
Can't "teach" or "scare", but "rearing" or "raising" could have made a difference. If these instincts are so irresistable, why were pregnancy rates lower in prior decades.
Societal stigma. Sex was never talked about a hundred years ago; now, it is ubiquitous.

The fact is, abstinence-only education does not work. Kids have will have sex even if you tell them not to. That's why you need to at least inform kids about condoms (and their failure rate...about 1% if used properly, to my recollection) and such. A hundred years ago, abstinence-only may have worked. Now, it simply does not.

#1 - I never advocated abstinence only education. I just said that abstinence was more reliable than condoms after Shaman called the teacher's comment unscientific.

#2 - I was disagreeing with Echo who, I felt, suggested that teens and early twenties lacked strength or self control.

My point, if it wasn't clear, is that if these "instincts" are impossible to overcome, then why is pre-marital pregnancy (and probably sex) on the rise. It can't be that the human sex-drive has changed in 50 years. Therefore, the increase is not just "instinct" driven.

(and if, as you say, "societal stigma" can have an affect, we probably agree that some things can be stronger than "instinct")

Originally posted by Brooks
#1 - I never advocated abstinence only education.

I applaud you for not advocating it.

Abstinence is ---quite simply-- anti-human.

It is reprehensible for a society to be configured in such a way that it informs the very people most interested in and drawn to and desirous of sex that they **mustn't do it**.

There are FAR more humanistic and rational ways of dealing with young people's sexual desires (perfectly natural and healthy sexual desires, BTW) than to --like something from the goddamned Dark Ages-- instruct them....... [i]"Oh, just don't think about it. Don't touch another person. Don't participate in the chief pleasure of your species while you are in the prime physical condition to enjoy it. Don't do what every particle of your DNA is screaming for you to do. Just abstain."

It seems to me the very word *abstinence* would be repulsive to any rational, thinking individual.

You underestimate self-respect.

Excellent point, Brooks!

Originally posted by Brooks
#2 - I was disagreeing with Echo who, I felt, suggested that teens and early twenties lacked strength or self control.

My point, if it wasn't clear, is that if these "instincts" are impossible to overcome, then why is pre-marital pregnancy (and probably sex) on the rise. It can't be that the human sex-drive has changed in 50 years. Therefore, the increase is not just "instinct" driven.

(and if, as you say, "societal stigma" can have an affect, we probably agree that some things can be stronger than "instinct")

Sex is an instinct. It is a drive that is hard to ignore. And teens are just discovering it at a time when they have not yet learned to deal with these sorts of feelings. Teens also have not developed to a point of focusing on their future. They are still looking at life through the eyes of a idealist. Also, they are experiencing strong attraction and love for the first time. Teens can be overpowered by these feelings. But a big part of it is that teens do not make good decisions. If they did, we would allow them to drive, allow them to live on their own, allow them to drink and we would not give them curfews.

You say it is "on the rise". But it isn't "on the rise" as much as you would like to believe. Compared to the percent of population, unwed pregnancy has risen less than .2%. It feels like their are more for a couple of reasons. 1) there are more people, 2) it used to be when a teen got pregers she was sent off to an unwed mothers home and nobody saw her or heard about her for nine monthes (people were usually told she was visiting granny or whatever). The baby was put up for adoption and everyone kept their mouth shut about it. It was not a subject that was talked about in mixed company. Newspapers didn't report statistics on it and it wasn't discussed in public. People would shun girls that "got into trouble". A young girls only other option was to go to a back room butcher who would stick a dirty clothes hanger in her and kill the fetus and ussually her to.

Nowadays many teens have access to birth control, when a teen gets preggers many of them have safe abortions. The ones that do carry to term are allowed to stay in school, and are not shunned and treated like a pariah.

I remember those days. The only sex ed we were given was how menstration worked. Nothing about birth control or even what sex was. We were purposely kept ignorant because it was thought that that would keep us from trying it. IT DIDN'T.

Originally posted by Brooks
You underestimate self-respect.

Evidently, you are of the opinion that the notion of *self-respect* has something to do with homo sapiens' urge to have sex wih one another.

What you think *self-respect* has to do with it, and what you think the connection is, I cannot imagine.

*Self-respect* ---at least in terms of said "self-respect" being achieved thru abstinence form sex--- itself sounds like some superstitious, bullshit notion dreamed up by a repressed, santimonious prude like Jerry Falwell ......or maybe the Church Lady.

If a person has sex with another person, does that mean they are demonstrating a lack of "self-respect"........ ??!?!

.......how laughably priggish.

Originally posted by Echo2
Sex is an instinct. It is a drive that is hard to ignore. Also, they (teens) are experiencing strong attraction and love for the first time. Teens can be overpowered by these feelings.

The point that our insanely Puritanical society misses is that teens SHOULD be overpowered by those feelings.

They just want to get buck nekkid and bang like there's no tommorrow.

It's perfectly natural and perfectly human.

What is unnatural and inhuman is for irrational societal mores and taboos to prohibit them from doing so.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Evidently, you are of the opinion that the notion of *self-respect* has something to do with homo sapiens' urge to have sex wih one another.

What you think *self-respect* has to do with it, and what you think the connection is, I cannot imagine.

*Self-respect* ---at least in terms of said "self-respect" being achieved thru abstinence form sex--- itself sounds like some superstitious, bullshit notion dreamed up by a repressed, santimonious prude like Jerry Falwell ......or maybe the Church Lady.

If a person has sex with another person, does that mean they are demonstrating a lack of "self-respect"........ ??!?!

.......how laughably priggish.
This is an insanely, short-sighted assessment, Freethinker. Dignity means a lot to children who are well brought up, and if you don't see that as a possible reality, then maybe you're the one being unrealistic. The problem is, kids are no longer being brought up well. On the other hand, I'm not disregarding what you've said, for I agree with some of it, however, a well raised, well taught, loved child will most likely wait until she finds someone with whom she really identifies with. It's a well known fact that girls who don't get daddy's approval or love are the ones taking it like Jenna Jameson.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
This is an insanely, short-sighted assessment, Freethinker. Dignity means a lot to children who are well brought up, and if you don't see that as a possible reality, then maybe you're the one being unrealistic.

You didn't invoke *dignity*.

You invoked *"self-respect"*.

Maybe they're the same, though.

I don't know.

They both seem the sort of bullshit notion that is dreamed up by religious type in order to control other people's desires.

Besides which, I fail to see how having sexual intercourse makes a person *undignified*.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
The problem is, kids are no longer being brought up well. On the other hand, I'm not disregarding what you've said, for I agree with some of it, however, a well raised, well taught, loved child will most likely wait until she finds someone with whom she really identifies with.

Your **well raised, well taught** child who waits until she [or he] is 21 to have sex for the first time is a child who has been brainwashed into accepting the taboos of a Puritanical, patriarchal, barbaric system of repression and control.

A sign ---IMO--- of a deep seated psychological imbalance and sexual psychosis within this American society.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
It's a well known fact that girls who don't get daddy's approval or love are the ones taking it like Jenna Jameson.

So??

Every female who is **taking it like Jenna Jameson** is having far more pleasure and gratification out of life than virgins those who "saved" it till adulthood so that that perfect knight in shining armor would be the first to enter the "holy portal" of her womanhood.

(sorry to go all medieval on you there at the last with that *holy portal of womanhood* remark, but from hearing them natter on about it, it seems to me that that's the way that these santimonious prudes from the Religious Right think of intercourse)

Originally posted by Freethinker
You didn't invoke *dignity*.

You invoked *"self-respect"*.

Maybe they're the same, though.

I don't know.

They both seem the sort of bullshit notion that is dreamed up by religious type in order to control other people's desires.



Free, I don't expect you to write your answer, because I don't care. But just think this over.

Did you ever say "no" to a girl you were REALLY attracted to because you maybe had a girlfriend or it just didn't seem right? A little too much "self respect, maybe? My point is, despite what you say, no human is utterly incapable of control. You demean teenagers and yourself with this opinion.

If this has happened to you, you make my point. If you've never said no, I feel bad for you.

Originally posted by Freethinker
They both seem the sort of bullshit notion that is dreamed up by religious type in order to control other people's desires.

Besides which, I fail to see how having sexual intercourse makes a person *undignified*.

I think the psychologist of any random 15 year-old who has sex on a regular basis might disagree with you, but that's just a hunch...

Originally posted by Freethinker
Your child who waits until she [or he] is 21 to have sex for the first time is a child who has been brainwashed into accepting the taboos of a Puritanical, patriarchal, barbaric system of repression and control.
Either that, or they've just been well raised, and I'm pretty sure about 95% of the planet would back me up on that one.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Every female who is **taking it like Jenna Jameson** is having far more pleasure and gratification out of life than virgins those who "saved" it till adulthood so that that perfect knight in shining armor would be the first to enter the "holy portal" of her womanhood.

(sorry to go all medieval on you there at the last with that *holy portal of womanhood* remark, but from hearing them natter on about it, it seems to me that that's the way that these santimonious prudes from the Religious Right think of intercourse)
So, you're a totally, unabated hedonist, with no moral remorse for doing something in which could potentially result in pregnancy, the spread of disease, and or, ultimately, death. And all while at the ripe old age of 15 or 16...

Classic.

Originally posted by Freethinker=
"Your child who waits until she [or he] is 21 to have sex for the first time is a child who has been brainwashed into accepting the taboos of a Puritanical, patriarchal, barbaric system of repression and control."

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Either that, or they've just been well raised....

We disagree on what makes a child --"well raised".

The fact that many would "back you" on your version of well raised children only highlights the fact that superstition and sexual repression is rampant among humans living in large groups in our contemporary American society.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
So, you're a totally, unabated hedonist, ....

Yes, pretty much.

""And thou harm no one, do as thou will"" -- seems to me to be the very best axiom ever imparted to humankind.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
...with no moral remorse for doing something in which could potentially result in pregnancy, the spread of disease, and or, ultimately, death.

?!?!?

My "morality"is supposed to supercede my natural urge to have intercourse?!?

Insanity.

Just because it ""might"" end in pregnancy is a preposterous reason to abstain from sex.

I ""might"" get hit by a meteorite if I venture outside tommorrow, but i am still going outside and taking the chance.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
And all while at the ripe old age of 15 or 16.....Classic.

If a homo sapien of 15 or 16 were not of a **ripe** age they would not have the urge to have intercourse. Nature knows its own time.

The repressive Religious Right faction in America ----those self-appointed arbiters of what constitutes "right and wrong" when it comes to sex, who I find so abominable that they make my vomit rise in my throat until it chokes me---- like to think it is some sort of demonstration of "morality" to subvert our natural urges and to deny our human sexuality.

They are anti-human. A detestable stain on the progress chart of humankind.

Originally posted by Freethinker

Just because it ""might"" end in pregnancy is a preposterous reason to abstain from sex.


You're much smarter than that. Ya know, this discussion is fun, but if we're gonna speak as invented personas it's not so much fun.

And I didn't want a response to my prior post, but I hope you considered the question.

we can hope that our kids won't be rushing to have sex, but that's not going to keep them safe if they do have sex. i think that preaching abstinence- harping on "saving yourself"- instead of teaching children properly (by this i mean addressing ALL aspects of having sex: physical consequences, emotional issues, etc) does not help our kids.

I agree, but I'm not ready to throw my hands in the air and join the "it's-biology-it-cannot-be-resisted" crowd.

nah, brooks; i'm not saying that in the least.

i think that we owe it to our children to teach them morality as well as prevention. i've already had "the talk" with my oldest son (he's 11). i know that might seem young, but i don't want to take any chances. i explained EVERYTHING to him. i plan to answer any and all of his questions truthfully; i will not be a parent that tries to scare my child straight. i also know that i have to keep talking to him. most of us (who managed to get any kind of talk at all from our parents) had 1 conversation with our parents about sex; that conversation consisted mostly of "don't have sex or else...". i will continue to encourage my children to wait to have sex; not necessarily for marriage, but definitely for the right time/person. but i will also educate them on the consequences/results of having sex, as well as how to be safe if they do have sex. i think they will make better choices this way.

Originally posted by jennygadling
we can hope that our kids won't be rushing to have sex, but that's not going to keep them safe if they do have sex. i think that preaching abstinence- harping on "saving yourself"- instead of teaching children properly (by this i mean addressing ALL aspects of having sex: physical consequences, emotional issues, etc) does not help our kids.

Originally posted by Brooks
I agree, but I'm not ready to throw my hands in the air and join the "it's-biology-it-cannot-be-resisted" crowd.

I agree with her too, but i AM one of the --"it's-biology-and-it-should-not-be-resisted" crowd.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I agree with her too, but i AM one of the --"it's-biology-and-it-should-not-be-resisted" crowd.

well aint that a bias opinion then.....

Originally posted by Freethinker
I agree with her too, but i AM one of the --"it's-biology-and-it-should-not-be-resisted" crowd.

Fortunately, most humans are stronger and less selfish than that.

Originally posted by Brooks
Fortunately, most humans are stronger and less selfish than that.

And more practical. Religion aside, ending up with an accidental baby at 17 years old would be quite a drag.

Can't "teach" or "scare", but "rearing" or "raising" could have made a difference. If these instincts are so irresistable, why were pregnancy rates lower in prior decades.

Society changes over time. 90% of the stuff you see on TV these days would be banned back then. America has changed and we can't put the genie back into the bottle.

Teaching abstinence, in this day and age, is wishful thinking.

Originally posted by Brooks
Fortunately, most humans are stronger and less selfish than that.

I find it sad --and disturbing-- that you equate having sex to weakness and selfishness.

All part of the repressive, Puritanical mindset each American child is brainwashed to have, I guess.

Once again, I find myself agreeing with neither side of the argument.

For one thing, I am a teenager and I know this first hand. Telling kids not to have sex will not stop them. The school I went to before I moved to Costa Rica used abstinence-only sex ed. It also had the highest teen birth rate in the state. The kids were having sex and not using condoms, even though you can get them FOR FREE at the health center, which is right down the hall from the Boys And Girls Club Teen Center.

I also don't agree entirely with the other side. Someone who waits until they are 21 to have sex (which is not that old!) has not necessarily been "brainwashed"! Maybe they just didn't feel like it was the right time yet. I'm not planning on waiting until I'm married, or even for "the right person" or "my soul mate", but if I'm still a virgin when I'm 20 I'm not going to go out and fuck some random guy.

I agree somewhat with the concept of "self respect" in this debate. If you are a self respecting individual, you will most likely not go out and have unprotected sex with a bunch of random people who you barely know. However, I do believe that sexual urges should not be entirely ignored. That would be going against nature.

Originally posted by DarkFantasy96
However, I do believe that sexual urges should not be entirely ignored. That would be going against nature.
I completely concur. Invest in a pocket rocket, and call it a day.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I find it sad --and disturbing-- that you equate having sex to weakness and selfishness.

All part of the repressive, Puritanical mindset each American child is brainwashed to have, I guess.

In a prior post you alluded to the fact that fear of pregnancy is a preposterous reason not to have sex. Well genius, what does the 15 year old HS freshman do with a baby? Society's problem? Grandma and Grandpa's? That's where the selfishness comes in.

You're either dumb or just posing to be shocking, and I know you're not dumb.

Originally posted by fluffernutter
Society changes over time. 90% of the stuff you see on TV these days would be banned back then. America has changed and we can't put the genie back into the bottle.

Teaching abstinence, in this day and age, is wishful thinking.

I agree, but the shame is what's the chicken and the egg with TV & movies and the moral slide.

Originally posted by Echo2

You say it is "on the rise". But it isn't "on the rise" as much as you would like to believe. Compared to the percent of population, unwed pregnancy has risen less than .2%. It feels like their are more for a couple of reasons.

Do those stats take into account the 1.5 mil per year that went from fetus to choice?

Originally posted by Brooks
In a prior post you alluded to the fact that fear of pregnancy is a preposterous reason not to have sex. Well genius, what does the 15 year old HS freshman do with a baby? Society's problem?

My saying that fear of pregnancy is no reason to abstain from having sex does NOT equate to a statment that the person should simply accept pregnancy as a penalty.

I would propose that the 15year old have a tubal ligation before engaging in sex....or else something along the lines of Norplant.

I would like to see those procedures funded by the government for anyone who wants them. It would be money well spent, as it would greatly reduce the numbers of those unintended babies that you ---understandably-- are concerned that society will be burdened with.

Originally posted by DarkFantasy96
Someone who waits until they are 21 to have sex (which is not that old!) has not necessarily been "brainwashed"! Maybe they just didn't feel like it was the right time yet.

I am not making light of what you're saying, but those two statements are so contradictory as to be hilarious.

I was a teenager once, and when the hormones begin to kick in around the age of puberty, every day your body and your mind is telling you that it is exactly the "right time" to have sex.

Any teenage homo sapien past the age of puberty who convinces themself that --"well gosh, I really don't want to have sex yet 'cause the time's not "right"....maybe when i'm 21 or when i get married" ----has been very much influenced and indoctrinated --*brainwashed* if you will-- by societal pressures and mores.

Originally posted by Freethinker
maybe when i'm 21 or when i get married" ----has been very much influenced and indoctrinated --*brainwashed* if you will-- by societal pressures and mores.

Freethinker wrote: "I would propose that the 15year old have a tubal ligation before engaging in sex....or else something along the lines of Norplant."

Thank God for you Freethinker. You don't want teenagers under the yoke of brainwashing of indoctrination. You just want to tie their tubes.

Freethinker wrote: "those two statements are so contradictory as to be hilarious."

I don't think you're in a position to judge.

just for the record, but most doctors will not perform a sterilization procedure (like a tubal ligation) on a woman under the age of 23 or that has not had children. i seriously doubt that any credible doctor would do so on a 15 year old child. and norplant was removed from the american market 2 or 3 years ago.
how about this...it's a joint decision to have sex, right? maybe the guys need to step up and think about what THEY want. if they don't want to learn to change diapers, wear a condom; take some responsibility. but that's where the problem lies. how many teenagers do you know that actually think that far ahead? they live for the moment. which is why i say that kids need to be better educated. they need to hear about all aspects and ramifications. they need to be reminded of the benefits of waiting, but they need to be taught how to be responsible just in case they choose not to wait.

This reminding will have to counteract the influence of MTV, television, and movies where people are portrayed as the weirdos if they choose to wait.

Society says you aren't grown until you reach 18 or 21.

Nature says you are grown at 13 or 14.

Originally posted by Brooks

Thank God for you Freethinker.

And thank the mighty albatross-god Glapdishnook, who laid an egg and thus created the universe and everything in it, for you.

Originally posted by Brooks
You don't want teenagers under the yoke of brainwashing of indoctrination.

True.

Originally posted by Brooks
You just want to tie their tubes.

I don't want their tubes tied. I just think it would be in their best interest if before they begin having sex they take measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Originally posted by Brooks
I don't think you're in a position to judge.

I am however in a position to say what it was like for me as a teenager, and for virtually everyone i ever knew.

Originally posted by jennygadling

how about this...it's a joint decision to have sex, right? maybe the guys need to step up and think about what THEY want. if they don't want to learn to change diapers, wear a condom; take some responsibility.

No argument from me there.


Originally posted by jennygadling
how many teenagers do you know that actually think that far ahead? they live for the moment. which is why i say that kids need to be better educated.

Yes, they live for the moment --IF they can throw off their societal brainwashing and do what their DNA is screaming for them to do; take pleasure in sex.

And since they DO live for the moment, that is why their already having some sort of reversible sterilization procedure in place--to prevent an unwanted preganancy-- would be a good thing

Originally posted by jennygadling
they need to be reminded of the benefits of waiting, but they need to be taught how to be responsible just in case they choose not to wait.

I can think of exactly one "benefit" from waiting; avioiding the possibility of getting pregnant. Which is why i favor government funding of some sort of reversible sterilization.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I can think of exactly one "benefit" from waiting; avioiding the possibility of getting pregnant.
How about preventing the spread of disease there, Chachi??? Did that ever enter the equation, or is it just wishful thinking as well?

Originally posted by Freethinker
Which is why i favor government funding of some sort of reversible sterilization.
Ahhhh, bigger government - a whim of the classic liberal.

Originally posted by Freethinker

I can think of exactly one "benefit" from waiting; avioiding the possibility of getting pregnant.

But earlier you wrote: "Just because it ""might"" end in pregnancy is a preposterous reason to abstain from sex."



Consistency - the mark of a champion

Originally posted by Freethinker----
"Which is why i favor government funding of some sort of reversible sterilization."

Originally posted by The Praetorian

Ahhhh, bigger government - a whim of the classic liberal.


Actually, government funding of elective sterilization for the masses would likely lead to SMALLER government, in that many of those "burdens on society" that the right worries about so incessantly would be avoided.

Of course, that would be a progressive solution, and is no doubt far too rational to be understood by a Neanederthal Rightwinger. Might in some way offend their precious fucking "morality".

The rock-ribbed Rightwingnuts in this country would seemingly prefer that every instance of coitus result in a pregnancy; another 'lil sunbeam fer Jeezus, the way gawd intended.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Originally posted by Freethinker----
Actually, government funding of elective sterilization...

Of course, that would be a progressive solution, and is no doubt far too rational to be understood by a Neanederthal Rightwinger. Might in some way offend their precious fucking "morality".


Yeah right, and every time it's tried, the "right-wingnuts" in the ACLU have opposed it

http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=9053&c=225

Oh, so now you're purporting that rational solutions are the ones in which right-wingers have difficulty understanding. Well, let's see: why don't you purpose one, and I guess we'll find out, won't we, because communal sterilization at the taxpayers expense isn’t quite cutting it there, genius.

I'm getting slightly annoyed now. ANd believe me, this doesn't happen too often.

I have not been brainwashed! I am not a Christian fundie idiot who thinks that sex is a bad thing, so don't even talk to me like I am. There are much less risky ways to ::ahem:: enjoy yourself, alone or with others (preferably with others ;) ), so why should I have sex and risk basically ruining my life? I'm not at all saying that I'm never going to have sex, but is it wrong to want to lose my virginity to a guy who I actually have feelings for and not the first random guy who approaches me, just to do it? I don't see how even you could argue with that Freethinker!

Good for you, DF, but rest assured, the unabated hedonist, FT, will find a way to argue with your logic.

::doesn't know what hedonist means::

I like honesty. I don't think I knew what the word meant when I was 15 either. :)

Hedonism: Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good.

Basically, if it feels good, then do it no matter what the cost.

Originally posted by Brooks
Yeah right, and every time it's tried, the "right-wingnuts" in the ACLU have opposed it

http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=9053&c=225

You seem to have a bit of a reading comprehension problem.



The ACLU website states ---""The development of new methods of contraception enhances the reproductive freedom of women and men.""

The ACLU --as they clearly state on the webpage linked to-- is opposed only to the coercive use of contraceptive methods on women, and is in fact in favor of contraceptive methods and devices when ---in the way that I talked about--- they are available freely as a choice.

The ACLU's position is one of --""Offering a "choice" between prison and forced contraception is unconstitutional. ""

Originally posted by DarkFantasy96

I have not been brainwashed! I am not a Christian fundie idiot who thinks that sex is a bad thing, so don't even talk to me like I am.

I apologize if I offended you, but my point is simply that any teenage homo sapien past the age of puberty who convinces themself that they do not WANT to have sex yet because the time is not "right" has been very much influenced and indoctrinated by societal pressures and mores.

You never said anything about it being a choice, however, you inferred, and I quote:
Which is why i favor government funding of some sort of reversible sterilization.
In response to the problem of teen pregnancy, meaning to me, that if it were a choice, it would put "reversible sterilization" in the same category with condoms, and kids already choose NOT to use them, so how is this solution any more effective then what we have currently? The short answer is it isn't UNLESS children are forced to undergo a surgery that would make it impossible to get pregnant, and that makes no sense, whatsoever. What parent in their right mind would ever allow that?

Originally posted by Freethinker
Any teenage homo sapien past the age of puberty who convinces themself that --"well gosh, I really don't want to have sex yet 'cause the time's not "right"....maybe when i'm 21 or when i get married" ----has been very much influenced and indoctrinated --*brainwashed* if you will-- by societal pressures and mores.
Or maybe they're quite intelligent and realize that the consequences of sex at this age outweigh the benefits? I won't lie to you -- if I had the chance to have sex, my hormones would kick my rational thoughts' collective asses. But it's not that way with everyone. And another thing -- I won't have sex unless the woman absolutely positively wants to: I won't try to goad her into it. My morals are stronger than either my hormones or my brain.

We do indeed have a serious problem in this country of looking at sex as "bad" and "forbidden". it is a perfectly natural instinct and its quite healthy to have sex, whther or not it is within marriage. it is nobodys right to decide for anyone else whether and how they have sex, and it is the respinsilibty of schools to educate teenagers on how to protect themselves if they do choose to have sex. its a personal choice, and anyone who takes that away from another person, whether it is a governemnt keeping means of birth control and protection from its citizens, or a school withholding information from its students, or a rapist, is the doing a terribly wrong thing.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
its quite healthy to have sex, whther or not it is within marriage.
I disagree. I think sex is a Bad (but inevitable) Thing when it comes to people who generally are not emotionally equipped to handle it properly. I don't propose anyone tell anyone else not to, but I think that, ideally, teenagers should wait. That will NEVER happen, though, and teaching abstinence to teenage horn-dogs such as myself is an exercise in futility.

Sex is not bad, as long as the participants know what they are getting into. Pun intended.

whammy and borg, you both pose good points. the only thing i want to add is that i believe PARENTS should be the ones educating their children. not preaching or scaring, but educating them. i think parents tend to put too much responsibility on others to aid in raising their children, rather than accepting their responsibilities as parents.

Originally posted by jennygadling
whammy and borg, you both pose good points. the only thing i want to add is that i believe PARENTS should be the ones educating their children. not preaching or scaring, but educating them. i think parents tend to put too much responsibility on others to aid in raising their children, rather than accepting their responsibilities as parents.
I concur. School and laws are no substitute for parenting. Many quote-unquote "parents" shunt their kids off to school and daycare and such, and try to get the government to raise their kids because they're lazy SOBs. Parents need to be parents.

absolutely.
teachers don't get paid enough just to do their jobs; and now more and more parents are demanding that they shoulder the responsibility of raising these children. it's sad.

Teachers get paid anywhere from 35 to 100k annually to work 180 days a year. They get every benefit under the sun - full medical, dental, a 401k, and most likely, any of the perks that come along with a typical union job. I personally think that's enough, but however, I do agree that their job should entail just teaching, and not parenting.

wow...where do you live?
teachers in and around the new orleans area have a starting salary of $18,000. i was a waitress and i made more than that.
and even those who do make $35-$40k, in my opinion, are grossly underpaid. in a society that pays pro athletes millions, i think we could pay our teachers decently. that shows you where our proirities lie. lets overpay those who entertain us, and give our pennies to those that are responsible for educating our future (meaning our children).

Originally posted by Freethinker
You seem to have a bit of a reading comprehension problem.

The ACLU website states ---""The development of new methods of contraception enhances the reproductive freedom of women and men.""

The ACLU --as they clearly state on the webpage linked to-- is opposed only to the coercive use of contraceptive methods on women, and is in fact in favor of contraceptive methods and devices when ---in the way that I talked about--- they are available freely as a choice.

The ACLU's position is one of --""Offering a "choice" between prison and forced contraception is unconstitutional. ""

You proposed teenagers should have their tubes tied or Norplant. What if they don't want to? They don't have to? How is that different from the system we have now? Either you were talking about forced temporary sterilization, or you were proposing something that already exists.

Obvious conclusion, no? That's why the ACLU article about forced sterilization is relevant. Although, based on past history, you'll run screaming from what you implied and tells us you didn't mean it that way.


(Yes I pretty much re-stated yours, Prae)

Originally posted by jennygadling
wow...where do you live?
teachers in and around the new orleans area have a starting salary of $18,000. i was a waitress and i made more than that.
and even those who do make $35-$40k, in my opinion, are grossly underpaid. in a society that pays pro athletes millions, i think we could pay our teachers decently. that shows you where our proirities lie. lets overpay those who entertain us, and give our pennies to those that are responsible for educating our future (meaning our children).
Hell Jenny, I agree with your general assessment - especially the last sentence, but I don't know if I'd say 40k is being "grossly underpaid" to work half a year with every other bullshit holiday off when most teachers only have one degree (usually general education), but that's neither here nor there.

I live in a suburb of southwest Chicago, and yes, it is a wealthy community. As of 1995, it was the forth-richest county in the country. Our median income was about 120k per household, and 24% of our populous were of super high caliber wealth. I had two billionaires that lived less than five minutes from me (driving distance), a multitude of multi, multi millionaires, and a few "poor kids". Our public education was very good thanks to the tax base, and yes, I had several high school teachers who made 6 figure incomes. No bullshit...

wow...
maybe i should "86" the idea of becoming a corporate accountant and get my masters in education instead, heading to your area as soon as i'm done!
and you're right; i can see how, in any other circumstance, $40,000 would be decent money. i just think that, in comparison to what we pay actors and athletes, our teachers, police officers, and firefighters don't get paid squat.

Totally agreed...:)

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Totally agreed...:)
see, everyone...if we dig deep enough, we can eventually find a common ground, something that we can agree on.:D

Originally posted by jennygadling
...becoming a corporate accountant...
No, you should 86 it because it's accounting. It's part of my job, and something I've grown to loathe come the first Tuesday of every month when I reconcile the books. I'd rather be a peep show mopper than forced to do accounting on a grand scale.

thanks for the heads up, prae. you know, that seems to be the general concensus amongst everyone i've spoken to (in that field, especially).

Originally posted by Brooks
You proposed teenagers should have their tubes tied or Norplant. What if they don't want to? They don't have to? How is that different from the system we have now?

How dense can you possibly be?

The discussion had gravitated to talking about teens who have sex possibly becoming pregnant and I said i supported government funding for reversible sterilization or Norplant type devices for those teenagers that WANT them, in order to avoid the risk of becoming pregnant.

What I suggested would be a bit different from the system currently in place in that those types of contraceptive measures would be made widely and freely available and paid for by the government, just MAYBE reducing the guilt and stigma that a certain Puritanical and sanctimonious segment of contemporary American society seeks to place on teens who want to follow their natural urges and have sex.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You never said anything about it being a choice, however, you inferred, and I quote:

"Which is why i favor government funding of some sort of reversible sterilization."

In response to the problem of teen pregnancy, meaning to me, that if it were a choice, it would put "reversible sterilization" in the same category with condoms, and kids already choose NOT to use them, so how is this solution any more effective then what we have currently?

I made no assesment or claim as to the effectivess of it.

The question asked was "well, what does the 15 year old HS freshman do with a baby??"......my response that I favor government funding of some sort of reversible sterilization was predicated on that question, and implied that IF the 15 year old in question DID NOT WANT TO RISK getting pregant that she could have some sort of prior contraceptive procedure in place........and that the government having in place a program that would fund such a procedure would hopefully facilitate that CHOICE should she decide to do so.


Originally posted by The Praetorian
The short answer is it isn't UNLESS children are forced to undergo a surgery that would make it impossible to get pregnant, and that makes no sense, whatsoever. What parent in their right mind would ever allow that?

Surely you have misunderstood the argument here.

IF the problem we are talking about here is unwanted pregnancy among teens, and IF the contraceptive procedure is reversible for that person if and when she later decides to have children, then what parent in their right mind would NOT want to have that contraceptive "insurance policy"in place?!?!?!.....especially in light of the fact that the government would pay for it?!?!?

Freethinker, I think our fundamental difference is this: in past posts, you've criticised virgins and self-respect because you think the superior person utterly gives in, whether there are feelings for the other person or not. I think there's more to be said for taking other considerations into account first. This is a difference we can't get around.

Freethinker,

Look back and see how many of your posts are full of frustration that we don't know what you meant. There are phrases like "that's not what I meant", "I made no claim...", "my response was predicated on....", "surely you have misunderstood...", "how dense can you be", "what I was suggesting...", etc.

Half of your ink is used to re-explain a position (to everyone, not just me). Statistically speaking, we can't all be that dumb. Could it possibly be the way it's written? Possibly? maybe?

He's got a point there, FT... :)

let's not forget that unplanned/unwanted pregnancy is only one of many consequences of having sex. there are diseases that these "preventive measures" will not protect against. there are emotional ramifications that can destroy a teen's self-perception. as far as sex education goes, we need to look at the big picture.

Originally posted by Brooks
Freethinker,

Look back and see how many of your posts are full of frustration that we don't know what you meant. There are phrases like "that's not what I meant",.....

Your lies and prevarication are exposed by the first example you give.

I challenge you to look back thru the hundreds of posts i have made and find one instance where I have said --**that's not what I meant"**.

When i state things [and, checking the totals, i have done so exactly ONCE in 599 posts] along the lines of --"my response was predicated upon the question (x) that you asked"--- , it was for no other reason that to try to correct your dishonest misstatement of the words I had previously written.

Originally posted by jennygadling
let's not forget that unplanned/unwanted pregnancy is only one of many consequences of having sex. there are diseases that these "preventive measures" will not protect against. there are emotional ramifications that can destroy a teen's self-perception. as far as sex education goes, we need to look at the big picture.
Absolutely, Jenny. This was one of the key points we were trying to make.

Boy, you young people have it tough.
Times have really changed since I was young years ago.
About all we had to worry about was getting a girl pregnant or catching something that penicillin would cure.
I can only speak for myself but when young I was the hornest guy in the world it seemed. Sex was on my mind quite often and would tell a girl what ever to get some. My hormones ran rampant.

At home I was taught that if sex did occur to "protect myself" wear a condom. But that I should not have sex.
That was like telling me to stop breathing. I never "caught anything" and did not father a child until my late 20's. After marriage.

You guys today face terrible decisions. To fight nature and stay safe or follow nature and take the risk. I respect the problems you face because of the possible consequences.

At work we have many part time 16,17,18 year old kids. They talk and I hear. In this partiacular setting more of the boys seem to be virgins than the girls. I do not know what this means, it is just a fact.

What ever you decide, just be careful. For ultimately it is your choice. You seem well informed. I know that the pressure of a relationship can cause things to happen in the heat of the moment. It is not bad to say no.

To the guy that says "well if you love me you will do it" I say go screw yourself. For he is not looking out for you. He is merely trying to use you- I have been there.

Hopefully you have a long life ahead of you. Time is on your side. Be patient if possible. Look after yourself, no one else will.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I can only speak for myself but when young I was the hornest guy in the world it seemed. Sex was on my mind quite often and would tell a girl what ever to get some. My hormones ran rampant.
Somehow I don't think you were the only one. :)

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
At home I was taught that if sex did occur to "protect myself" wear a condom. But that I should not have sex.
That was like telling me to stop breathing. I never "caught anything" and did not father a child until my late 20's. After marriage.
Thank you for being responsible, for I'm sure your kid appreciates it.