Mickey Posted December 1, 2004 Author Posted December 1, 2004 Or rape, which exclusively in Africa is the biggest transmitter. Perpetuated by the myth that an infected person can be cured by having sex with a virgin. 6-month-olds are on the other end of this equation. We live in a glass house as far as telling them they're doing it wrong, tho. Keep denying that teens WILL have sex. Because no matter how much you try to push abstinance only, they will keep getting hard nipples and erect penii. This is true in every country, the percentages are basically the same no matter the parenting styles, the government programs, etc. The area where there is a difference is in teen pregnancy rates; those that give information about the use of condoms have lower rates and fewer abortions. As for those griping about paying for them to be handed out (in my school, they actually weren't foisted upon us in "here's one for you, and you..." fashion) in schools, a large portion in the schools that even do this are provided free by the companies. And in spite of all of this sex-pushing education, a slightly-left of center upbringing, and graduating from one of those big liberal brainwasher universities, I'm still the big V (OK, I'm ready for the jokes ). Imagine that! But when I do, at least I'll be informed. Do AO advocates also support not teaching the Food Pyramid? Kids are going to be eating for the rest of their lives, but I guess it's not the schools' place to show them the information about healthy diets.... 140882[/snapback] The incredibly small amount of schools that make condoms available overwhelmingly (over 90%) require some sort of parental consent. That is how the queston should be framed in political discussions: "Should schools make condoms available to teens whose parents have consented to them getting condoms?" Instead, the question is phrased in a ludicrously misleading way: "Should teachers hand out rubbers to kids in school?" Stated honestly, the issue has little or no political traction but stated in just the right way, it has unlimited mileage. My favorite is when they expand it to "They won't let God in school but they have no problem handing out rubbers to children." Among the right, that one is a guaranteed crowd pleaser, standing ovation material. The fact that it is an illusion woven of overstatement and lies dosn't matter much. That it divides the country into the moral majority on one hand and liberal elites on the other is just a bonus.
blzrul Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 Pot, meet kettle. 140973[/snapback] I wasn't the one complaining about the board, you jackass. I have very low expectations and you (in particular) never disappoint me.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 The very fact that this thread is being attacked by the usual suspects clearly shows the blind partisanship that is the prevailing attitude here. Instead of agreeing with the point of this thread - the fact that these abstinence only programs are an ineffective waste of our tax dollars, they see it as an attack on Dubya and their precious values. They then attack everything but the original point in attempt to discredit a completely valid point that is back up by numbers and facts. I know that some on the left are guilty of the same in some cases, and perhaps I'm biased, but it seems to me that this blind allegiance is ignorant, unintellegent (sic) and lazy. Hey people, think for yourselves! It's impossible for your side to be right about everything!
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 blind partisanship that is the prevailing attitude here.142853[/snapback] Physician, heal thyself.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 Physician, heal thyself. 142860[/snapback] I don't care what you think about my politics or beliefs. Many of my views fall on the left, true, but at least I have some perspective. I'm anti-Bush and quite vocal about it, but I'm a Christian and think that religion has a place in public life. I resent the fact that Republican party has hijaked religion and their so-called "values". It's a simple play to the weak and stupid, and I'm not just talking about "red states". I'm also anti-abortion and anti-big government. The problem is that, like all politicians, the current incarnation of the Republican party talks out of both sides of it's mouth. All I see is government getting more and more involved in my life, the rich getting richer and my freedoms getting taken away one by one while young Americans are giving their lives in a war that the US had no business starting in the first place. I've never considered myself a liberal before seeing this president in action. I do appreciate your worldly views on me, however.
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 I don't care what you think about my politics or beliefs. Many of my views fall on the left, true, but at least I have some perspective. I'm anti-Bush and quite vocal about it, but I'm a Christian and think that religion has a place in public life. I resent the fact that Republican party has hijaked religion and their so-called "values". It's a simple play to the weak and stupid, and I'm not just talking about "red states". I'm also anti-abortion and anti-big government. The problem is that, like all politicians, the current incarnation of the Republican party talks out of both sides of it's mouth. All I see is government getting more and more involved in my life, the rich getting richer and my freedoms getting taken away one by one while young Americans are giving their lives in a war that the US had no business starting in the first place. I've never considered myself a liberal before seeing this president in action. I do appreciate your worldly views on me, however. 142889[/snapback] I think I shan't read this, since it's length pretty well indicates that you entirely missed the point that you're one of the most blindly partisan people here. That was, after all, one of the operative words in your original statement. "Here".
Gene Frenkle Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 I think I shan't read this, since it's length pretty well indicates that you entirely missed the point that you're one of the most blindly partisan people here. That was, after all, one of the operative words in your original statement. "Here". 142917[/snapback] Well why bother commenting if your not going to read it, numbnuts? I think the post that you failed to read addresses your statement sufficiently, so I shall not elaborate further. Insert generic pot/kettle-like reference "here"... (I know you are, but what am I?)
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Well why bother commenting if your not going to read it, numbnuts? I think the post that you failed to read addresses your statement sufficiently, so I shall not elaborate further. Insert generic pot/kettle-like reference "here"... (I know you are, but what am I?) 143475[/snapback] I read it...and I was right. It has nothing to do with my point...
erynthered Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 The very fact that this thread is being attacked by the usual suspects clearly shows the blind partisanship that is the prevailing attitude here. but it seems to me that this blind allegiance is ignorant, unintellegent (sic) and lazy. 142853[/snapback] Good point, I liked this one: I wasn't the one complaining about the board, you jackass. You're to smart for us Frenklman, maybe you and blzrul should exchange phone numbers?
Gene Frenkle Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 Good point, I liked this one:You're to smart for us Frenklman, maybe you and blzrul should exchange phone numbers? 143629[/snapback] This is simply a case in point. Stupidity and blind loyalty run rampant on both sides of center. It's more obvious from the righties because there are simply more of you who post here. Do what you do best and continue to pile on! I've got to admit, I'm at a loss as to the significance of the second quote you cited. I'm not even being a dick, I just don't get your point.
Terry Tate Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 ...Keep denying that teens WILL have sex...This is true in every country, the percentages are basically the same no matter the parenting styles, the government programs, etc. The area where there is a difference is in teen pregnancy rates; those that give information about the use of condoms have lower rates and fewer abortions. ...And in spite of all of this sex-pushing education, a slightly-left of center upbringing, and graduating from one of those big liberal brainwasher universities, I'm still the big V... Do AO advocates also support not teaching the Food Pyramid? Kids are going to be eating for the rest of their lives, but I guess it's not the schools' place to show them the information about healthy diets.... 140882[/snapback] I thought the discussion was preventing teen pregnancy, not AIDS or the clap. Didn't see anyone deny teens will have sex, though apparently not all of them, since you haven't. Is your personal Abstinence Only program (which I assume is working 100% as far as preventing pregnancy) as a result of a government program, or parents who raised a responsible young adult? There's a place for teaching biology in school, sex education as an extension of that - making condoms available goes beyond what is acceptable to me personally. If a parent finds the best way to teach their child is to assume they will have sex, and make condoms or birth control available, that's their business. And as a parent, it's my business - not the school's - to teach my children how to make the right decisions in their lives. My parents decided to use the Homer Simpson method of raising children in most cases ("Oh well, waddaya gonna do"). We never had the facts of life talk in my house. When I went to school, no one handed out condoms, taught us how to use them, etc. There were lessons in sex education going over the basics of human reproduction, and that was it. So I don't know what it was that made me buy condoms and just figure out how to use them, but it wasn't a government program. I'm not sure what the hell an Abstinence Only program is, but I guess it could describe the method in which I was taught. And when I left the reservation, I somehow figured it out without government intervention at any time.
Terry Tate Posted December 3, 2004 Posted December 3, 2004 "Should teachers hand out rubbers to kids in school?" 141209[/snapback] I answered no. Did you have an answer outside of the political discussion? I mean, you pointed out the big-government republican program failure, the higher pregnancy rates in states that gave their electoral votes to Bush, your displeasure with the manner in which a conservative might frame the argument at a rally, but I didn't see an answer. Just curious.
Mickey Posted December 3, 2004 Author Posted December 3, 2004 I answered no. Did you have an answer outside of the political discussion? I mean, you pointed out the big-government republican program failure, the higher pregnancy rates in states that gave their electoral votes to Bush, your displeasure with the manner in which a conservative might frame the argument at a rally, but I didn't see an answer. Just curious. 143676[/snapback] I have no problem with kids whose parents have consented having condoms available provided that they have gone through a health class with a decent sex ed component, a major part of which discusses and pushes abstinence. Again, parental consent is the issue. If there are parents who don't want their kids involved in sex ed, contraceptive availablitiy, etc, fine. For those who do, why not? Choice. I don't think this is an issue you can solve no matter what bright ideas you come up with. What you can do is limit the damage as much as possible and that entails hitting the problem from many angles from abstinence to condoms. The plain fact is however that condoms are available in only a tiny fraction of schools so talking about condoms in schools is only slightly more than a purely academic question. Besides, it isn't like condoms are not available outside of schools. As for abstinence, I don't think we need a $100 million program that achieves very little. Teachers are perfectly capable of integrating that preferrable choice into the curriculum all on their own. This program is more an opportunity for patronage than anything else. Patronage is a small price to pay for programs that work, for those that don't, it is a colossal waste.
Terry Tate Posted December 4, 2004 Posted December 4, 2004 I have no problem with kids whose parents have consented having condoms available provided that they have gone through a health class with a decent sex ed component, a major part of which discusses and pushes abstinence. Again, parental consent is the issue. If there are parents who don't want their kids involved in sex ed, contraceptive availablitiy, etc, fine. For those who do, why not? Choice. I don't think this is an issue you can solve no matter what bright ideas you come up with. What you can do is limit the damage as much as possible and that entails hitting the problem from many angles from abstinence to condoms. The plain fact is however that condoms are available in only a tiny fraction of schools so talking about condoms in schools is only slightly more than a purely academic question. Besides, it isn't like condoms are not available outside of schools. As for abstinence, I don't think we need a $100 million program that achieves very little. Teachers are perfectly capable of integrating that preferrable choice into the curriculum all on their own. This program is more an opportunity for patronage than anything else. Patronage is a small price to pay for programs that work, for those that don't, it is a colossal waste. 143999[/snapback] I sort of agree with you, but this is a multi-track discussion. I think what we're calling "sex" education should be a normal part of the curriculum - biology, health and reproduction are not moral issues to me, but knowledge that young adults need. I disagree with making contraceptives available - not actually on a "moral" stance, but as an issue of a government program usurping a parental responsibility - or I guess more accurately, a parent relinquishing their responsibility by consenting to a government program that assumes it. I agree the AO program is a waste of money (colossal being a matter of perspective when considering the budget as a whole). I don't think we need a government program for a lot of things. This is just one example. Of course, there are many examples of programs that many Americans find an acceptable role of government that I would disagree with also.
Mickey Posted December 6, 2004 Author Posted December 6, 2004 I sort of agree with you, but this is a multi-track discussion. I think what we're calling "sex" education should be a normal part of the curriculum - biology, health and reproduction are not moral issues to me, but knowledge that young adults need. I disagree with making contraceptives available - not actually on a "moral" stance, but as an issue of a government program usurping a parental responsibility - or I guess more accurately, a parent relinquishing their responsibility by consenting to a government program that assumes it. I agree the AO program is a waste of money (colossal being a matter of perspective when considering the budget as a whole). I don't think we need a government program for a lot of things. This is just one example. Of course, there are many examples of programs that many Americans find an acceptable role of government that I would disagree with also. 145670[/snapback] A child who is planning on having sex, isn't likely to go to his or her parents and tell them that. "Dad, I am going to have sex with Billy after the dance, will you buy us some condoms?" Can you imagine that conversation taking place very often? If the condoms are available at school and a parent has provided permission, ie, "if my kid should ever ask, give him/her one" I see no problem. The kid isn't going to ask the parents because they will just do what they can to prevent the encounter which is the opposite of what the kid wants. A general premission slip means that if the kid ever asks, he gets one. If the kid has to get permission each time, before he gets one, then that is the equivalent of having to go to his parents and say, "I am having sex this weekend, can I have a rubber?" What this kind of program does is bridge the communication gap between the parents and their kids. Most parents are going to prefer that their kids not have sex, but, if they do, they want them protected. If you make the kid go to the parents for a condom on a per-encounter basis, the parents are going to try and enforce their preference that the kid not have sex. To avoid that, the kid just isn't going to go to them to give them that chance. If the cost of the condom is going to mom and dad and give them a chance to stop you, most kids just are going to just bag the condom. With this kind of program that communication stand-off is avoided. The parents still have some input as they decide if their kid is condom elegible and the kids can get a condom and still essentially make the decision to have sex or not their own.
OGTEleven Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 A child who is planning on having sex, isn't likely to go to his or her parents and tell them that. "Dad, I am going to have sex with Billy after the dance, will you buy us some condoms?" Can you imagine that conversation taking place very often? If the condoms are available at school and a parent has provided permission, ie, "if my kid should ever ask, give him/her one" I see no problem. The kid isn't going to ask the parents because they will just do what they can to prevent the encounter which is the opposite of what the kid wants. A general premission slip means that if the kid ever asks, he gets one. If the kid has to get permission each time, before he gets one, then that is the equivalent of having to go to his parents and say, "I am having sex this weekend, can I have a rubber?" What this kind of program does is bridge the communication gap between the parents and their kids. Most parents are going to prefer that their kids not have sex, but, if they do, they want them protected. If you make the kid go to the parents for a condom on a per-encounter basis, the parents are going to try and enforce their preference that the kid not have sex. To avoid that, the kid just isn't going to go to them to give them that chance. If the cost of the condom is going to mom and dad and give them a chance to stop you, most kids just are going to just bag the condom. With this kind of program that communication stand-off is avoided. The parents still have some input as they decide if their kid is condom elegible and the kids can get a condom and still essentially make the decision to have sex or not their own. 148284[/snapback] It sounds like the Sgt. Schultz approach to parenting.
UConn James Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 What this kind of program does is bridge the communication gap between the parents and their kids. It sounds like the Sgt. Schultz approach to parenting. 148314[/snapback] "What did you learn in school today?" ----> "Nothing." "Do you want spaghetti for dinner tonight?" ----> "Whatever." Welcome to teen angst. This is not the world of Ward Cleaver. That is, for parents who don't have to work two or three jobs to pay for rent, food, clothes, etc. They get blamed for not making enough money to provide the basics, then get blamed when they're not there 24/7 to guide their children through life. Something's gotta give. The issue isn't even about giving kids condoms in school. It's that they're not being taught that using condoms, wherever they might get them, is an effective way to prevent STDs and pregnancy. The outright lies that 'Abstinance Only' programs spread are so stupid it would be laughable if it weren't what kids are learning as fact. That oral sex or simply touching someone's genitals can result in pregnancy, among others. Kids aren't stupid. And there's this little thing called the Internet where this info will be checked. Finding out you've been lied to straightfaced isn't the greatest thing in the world, don't you know. It tends to produce more of the reactions given above. I seriously don't care who gives kids the information, as long as they get the truth.
Mickey Posted December 6, 2004 Author Posted December 6, 2004 It sounds like the Sgt. Schultz approach to parenting. 148314[/snapback] Not at all. It simply recognizes a reality: somtimes, parents are the last people in the world a kid wants to talk to about a problem. There is a conflict inherent in this issue that is unavoidable: The kid wants to have a sexual encounter and the parents don't want the kid to have a sexual encounter. If every parent could just say "I forbid it" and thus it was so, then there wouldn't be a problem to discuss. The fact is, I hope I don't shock you too much here, some kids don't always listen to their parents. Sometimes, even the best, most involved, intelligent and dilligent parents have kids who don't listen to them 100% if the time. Further, some kids are able to fool their parents, not all the time but just enough to get into some risky situations. The kid wants to have sex, the parents don't want him to, however, they can't stop him forever and these days, unprotected sex can kill you. Is the answer simply concluding that parents with kids who have sex are bad parents so the heck with it or is the answer to recognize reality and do what can be done to make the whole situation a lot less risky?
Mickey Posted December 6, 2004 Author Posted December 6, 2004 It sounds like the Sgt. Schultz approach to parenting. "What did you learn in school today?" ----> "Nothing." "Do you want spaghetti for dinner tonight?" ----> "Whatever." Welcome to teen angst. This is not the world of Ward Cleaver. That is, for parents who don't have to work two or three jobs to pay for rent, food, clothes, etc. They get blamed for not making enough money to provide the basics, then get blamed when they're not there 24/7 to guide their children through life. Something's gotta give. The issue isn't even about giving kids condoms in school. It's that they're not being taught that using condoms, wherever they might get them, is an effective way to prevent STDs and pregnancy. The outright lies that 'Abstinance Only' programs spread are so stupid it would be laughable if it weren't what kids are learning as fact. That oral sex or simply touching someone's genitals can result in pregnancy, among others. Kids aren't stupid. And there's this little thing called the Internet where this info will be checked. Finding out you've been lied to straightfaced isn't the greatest thing in the world, don't you know. It tends to produce more of the reactions given above. I seriously don't care who gives kids the information, as long as they get the truth. 148355[/snapback] After being confronted with a study of the totally false information being spread in some of these programs, at tax payer expense no less, Bill Frist, Republican Majority leader in the Senate agreed that the program needs to be seriously reviewed. For example, one program tried to tell kids that they could get aids from sweat. Even Bill Frist had to admit that one was wrong. Oh well, who cares if they blow $127 million bucks each year and can't get the basic facts right? As long as someone's brother-in-law or cousin has a nice juicy salary thanks to the patronage system, all is well.
UConn James Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 After being confronted with a study of the totally false information being spread in some of these programs, at tax payer expense no less, Bill Frist, Republican Majority leader in the Senate agreed that the program needs to be seriously reviewed. For example, one program tried to tell kids that they could get aids from sweat. Even Bill Frist had to admit that one was wrong. Oh well, who cares if they blow $127 million bucks each year and can't get the basic facts right? As long as someone's brother-in-law or cousin has a nice juicy salary thanks to the patronage system, all is well. 148432[/snapback] Isn't he a doctor? Imagine the surprise when you get to med school to finally find out that everything they taught you in 9th grade sex ed was a lie.... Kind of reminds you of the days they taught kids to duck under their desks in case of a nuclear blast.
Recommended Posts