as far as being on campus, I'm not sure when this "health" or "sex science" would be taught, 10th grade? younger?

So if they are working on lesson plans, they will work on lesson plans 1 more hour later. you'd be interested in working that extra 1 hour every day in your job without any increase in pay?

available to students AFTER class for extra help is not the same as having to continue to teach for an extra 1 hour every day.

Again, I've given an example of how it would or could work without disrupting the total time period. but you're interested in increasing the total hours. Most states are 180 school days a year, adding 1 hour to that, is working 4.5 extra weeks based on a 40 hour work week. You still interested in working 4.5 extra weeks without an increase in pay?

I would vote in a heartbeat to increase school levy's so teachers could have an increase in pay to stay teach an extra hour. Most people would.

There's already time blocked out for it. It's just that what's getting taught is abstinence-only! We don't need a change in schedule, just in content!

What's so hard about this?

Nothing for me. I've never said that it should be abstinence only, that's Ace.

As far as time, I don't know what's in public school curriculum. I know that they don't do a good job in educating in comparison to private school institutions.

I still am an advocate for including more about home economics than sex/health ed. (not the laundry and cooking parts) because no one is taught how to manage their money.

We keep tap dancing around the issue - To me children should abstain from sex. I have no problem with sex education, in fact you could easily come up with a curriculum that I would support. I think we both agree that abstinence is the best way to go for children. To me it is the same with many issues, another example is steroids. I have no problem with teaching children about steroids in a factual, scientific manner, however children should not use steroids unless there is a medical reason to. No school/coach/clinic/etc., should condone/encourage/turn a blind eye/wink, wink we know you are going to do it, so here is how to do it "safely"... to the use of steroids.

We agree on this.

Here's the question: Is the fact that you and I think they shouldn't have sex going to stop them from having sex? Your and my personal kids, maybe, but we're talking about educational policy here.

I have to think the answer to that question is a ringing NO. Look, if it didn't work with Bristol Palin, it doesn't work.

Given that, wouldn't you rather they know what they need to know to do what (statistically, inevitably) they're going to do as safely as possible?

Plus: they'll be grown-up some day. How early is too early to teach them how to have sex as responsibly as possible?

DON'T fall back to the "it's not safe, it's not responsible" canard--I deliberately worded it "as safely as possible."

DON'T fall back on the "We oughta be teaching them to balance a checkbook instead of how to fuck" canard, because that's entirely aside from what we're talking about.

My question is: given you're not going to be able to stop teenagers from having sex, generally speaking and granting some exceptions, wouldn't you prefer they know how best to protect themselves from the risks of it?

Condoneing/encouraging/turning a blind eye to someone handing out steroids is illegal. Teaching kids about the risks and proper preventatives of std's and pregnancy isn't.

What about referrals to "free clinics"? What about recommendations to use certain contraceptives rather than telling children to talk to parents or their personal doctor? What about children being given misinformation about "safe sex"? What about children not being taught about statutory rape? What about children not being taught the dire statistic of what happens to children born from teen mothers? What about children not being taught about the potential side effects of birth control pills? What about the fact that sexual harassment is illegal? In the minds of some liberals has long as they show a kid how to use a condom and give some free samples they think they have done their job.

I think that everyone agrees that those things should be taught, and in most cases are taught. I really don't think that liberals want to just give out free condoms and a few mornig after pills and call it a day. But what do i know I'm an independant

Yes. Adults have a major influence on the behavior of children. If we act like we don't care you get one result. If you act like you care you get another. I think we should act like we care.

I don't come to that conclusion. I am against suicide. I think adults can do things to prevent a child from committing suicide. If the child of a prominent person vocally against suicide, commits suicide, that does not mean we stop trying to stop teen suicide.

I don't get your logic here at all, or your point.

"As safely as possible"? In my view teens generally do not have the capacity to make adult decisions. I think engaging in sex is an adult decision. I don't think teens should do many things adults can do. In my view there is no "safe" way for teens to engage in sex, given our current environment. Even from a non-STD or pregnancy perspective - how is a teen to protect their privacy with a "partner" with a video camera in their phone? Teens need to abstain for sex.

I started teaching my son as soon as he started potty training, and it won't stop until "the student becomes the master". Every parent needs to have this attitude. It ain't the responsibility of the school. Perhaps what we really need is mandatory sex education for parents, in particular how to teach their children.

Okay. Fine. You've flip-flopped again, ace.

I'm done with this thread until there's somebody rational to discuss this with.

Adults influence their children, yes. But unless you want them to turn into adults who are unprepared for the world, the muzzle has to loosen up sometime. Do you really think parents should have cameras or spies watching their child's every move in order to show they care?

Having been both a parent and a child, here's my take.

My parents loved me. This I knew. I was raised in a very disciplined environment, but acted out and did things no child should be doing at a very young age. I was pregnant twice in my teen years. My parents were upper-middle class and my father wore a suit. Love simply wasn't enough. There are so many factors involved, i.e. I was a teenager who felt misunderstood and alienated much like most other teenagers. All the teens I've talked to over the years, through today, indicate very similar patterns. When we become promiscuous and sexually active at such a young age, it was because we wanted to feel loved and special and we craved positive attention. Although I don't have any meaningless stats to report, I can confidently say this sentiment is not uncommon amongst teen girls.

As a parent myself, I love my children. I consider myself somewhat of a disciplinarian, but I give my girls (youngest now 15-1/2) freedoms as they earn more and more of my trust. I think I just lucked out with my oldest, who's 26), but none of them are or have been pregnant and I have confidence that my teens will not have sex until they're in college. Is it because I love them? I don't think so. It's because I've been extremely open with them and taught them to love themselves first so that they don't seek affirmations (can't think of the effing word!) from guys. Of course there's more to it, but I believe that's a key part of their education that's missing.

While I realize this may not be an easy task for many parents, allowing the schools to teach your kids about self-esteem and other related issues would be equally important. Maybe the parents could attend an orientation so they could reinforce at home what's taught at school.

I agree with ratbastid that sex ed should be handled at school. Most schools have PE or study hall or something that can be sacrificed for an hour or two a week.

I have neglected teen boys from my soapbox, but I'm sure someone has a better experience to offer as far as what they need to know about how to treat girls/women and respect themselves. Sex ed ain't only about using condoms and removing cum stains.

Where did that come from?

I am not sure how we disagree. I think children should abstain from sex.

Also, I am not clear on where some of you draw the line? Are we all talking about children who may be 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17?

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------

Perhaps it was a typo, so it would have been clearer if you had defined the perceived flip flop, rather than engaging in a tantrum?

Your post:

What you said here indicates that parents alone are responsible for the result when many parents simply aren't capable of appropriate influence.

My opinion is irrelevant. If I thought they should have sex, I sure as hell would want them armed. If I thought they shouldn't have sex, I still want them armed since we can't control their every move.

Children would fit into that category, yes. Under the age of 18, as far as I'm concerned.

Palin's position matters little at this point.

What is pleasing to me is Obama fulfilling another campaign promise and eliminating all abstinence only funding from the federal budget, after throwing $1.5 billion at such programs over the last eight years for purely ideological partisan purposes....despite no evidence of success of such programs.

I guess I can be specific since I have a 12 year old son.

I have no intention of spying on him, or even restrict his freedom to make his own decisions. He knows what I expect, he knows right from wrong, he understands that all of his actions will have consequences. Most importantly, he understands that I am in his corner no matter what. I trust him and I treat him like I trust him. He is not and will not be confused about sexuality as long as I can help him.

Palin's daughter had a baby. Palin gave her daughter unconditional love and support. Even given the charges of hypocrisy, potential political costs, etc. Palin stood with her daughter, the baby, with pride. Palin will always have my respect for that.


I disagree, I think your opinion is the most important one to your children. If they don't know your opinion they will form their own or be influenced by other sources, and some will simply weigh your opinion and come to their own conclusion, but it matters. I don't try to control my son. When we talk about issues, I talk to him, but I mostly ask open ended questions. It is interesting to me how at some point he will always ask what I think or what I would do. I tell him about mistakes I have made, why it was a mistake and what happened as a consequence.

---------- Post added at 12:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------

For the record here is "Abstinence only" cut by Obama, some I agree with some I don't, I would modify the program rather than eliminate it:

Guidance Regarding Curriculum Content

I am not clear on what obama's "Pregnancy Prevention" budget is for, do you?

Obama Budget Eliminates Funding for Abstinence-Only Sex Education - On Women (usnews.com)

I had no idea how to properly put on a condom until I was taught in the seventh grade sex ed class. It wasn't THAT long ago. At 13 I may not have known what to do yet but I knew damn sure I wanted to do... well... something and I'm glad they started to prepair me for that.

Dude, what took so long? I remember I was about 6 or 7 walking with my older brother, he saw a used condom, picked it up with a stick and told me that before you have sex with a girl get one of these and put it on (excuse the vulgarity, but it is what he said) your dick. I said why? He said so she won't have a baby and so you don't get VD. I said oh, and we kept walking. I pretty much understood what he meant.

I knew what they were but I had no idea how to properly (this being the important word) put one on.

This guy is Obama's safe schools czar:

Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job - Political News - FOXNews.com

I don't think casual attitudes regarding illegal drugs/underage drinking/statutory rape/15 year old children having casual sex with people they meet in a bathroom is o.k. He should resign.

You can't stop a kid from having sex, you can only make it safer. I saw nothing wrong.

The majority of adults have reported using marijuana, and an even greater number admits to getting drunk as a teenager. The idea that someone who did either is not fit to work in the administration is petty partisan politics, and specially hypocritical given Bush's past.

As far as sex ed goes, the "schools already have enough to do" argument is misleading at best. If it wasn't for the morality police stomping its feet, sex ed/reproductive health would naturally be part of the biology curriculum, and little time would be added in terms of instruction. What currently happens is that kids will learn about plant reproduction, animal reproduction, and then awkwardly skip humans, and then kids will learn about bacteria, infections, types of viruses, and then awkwardly skip sexual transmission.

ace, that's the most ironic post ever considering who/what you've been defending this entire thread

Yes you can stop a kid from having sex - in some parts of the nation they call it "parental supervision". My son, at 15, will not be hanging out at bus stops soliciting sex. If I ever knew of a child hanging out at bus stops soliciting sex I would notify the authorities. One thing I would not do is "empathize" with the child and laugh it off saying "hope you used a condom, ha, ha, ha". Do we live in the same universe?

---------- Post added at 08:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ----------

Bush's position was that his drug and alcohol use was inappropriate, not something he would encourage or laugh off for children.

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------

I don't see the irony.

I've had a lot of sex in my life and I've never had a legitimate scare simply because I was well educated on how to be safe when sexually active. Wrap it up, swallow a pill (not me, obviously, but the ladies), get tested before starting a new sexual relationship/fling, and just generally be responsible.

Abstinence only would likely have failed me something fierce.

you don't see the irony in your condemning some random Obama administration member for something when you've continually defended Palin (she of the illegitimate grandchild) on her "abstinence only" sex education?

Are we talking adult behavior or child behavior? I have never had a problem with consenting adults having sex any way they choose. If we are talking about a 13 year-old girl and a 17 year old boy - I think you are fooling yourself if you think, generally speaking, they would engage in safe sex. If you are talking about a gay 15 year-old boy soliciting sex in a bus station bathroom with adult males, you are fooling yourself if you think, generally speaking, he would engage in safe sex. Children should be educated, but abstain from sex. That should be our cultural expectation.

---------- Post added at 08:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 PM ----------

I have been through this already, re-read what I wrote.

And, I add that Palin is not President. She is not the Secretary of morality. She is not Secretary of Education. She is not the School safety Czar. She is not my morality leader or yours. One difference, however, is that she is willing to admit to imperfection and owns up to the consequences of her actions.

{added} This was a recent event in the Charlotte area, involving an adopted teen who was reportedly statutorily raped and then murdered:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opi...ry/970956.html

Something is wrong when you live in a society that takes the rape of children lightly.

Here is more on Tiffany's story, may she rest in peace:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/408/story/965830.html

I think you're fooling yourself if you think "parental supervision" is enough to keep a 15 year old from having sex anywhere they choose. Are you going to lock them in their room?

I said it is possible. And as a parent and as a former teenager (with teenager friends from different walks of life) I know there is a correlation between parental supervision and teen sexual activity.

Will your son, at 15, know about the mechanics of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease?

He knows at 12. But his understanding is that of a 12 year old. as a 12 year old he knows many things that would keep him out of "trouble", but as a 12 year-old he often has had to learn the "hard way". My job is to know when it is o.k. for him to learn "the hard way" and when it is not. My goal is not to fail at my job. I think "our" collective goal should be to protect "our" children.

I don't think I'd use the word "protect". I prefer "provide the best options/opportunities"

Abstinence only doesn't work, nor does it promote abstinence. Sex ed does not lead to greater sexual activity, though it does lead to lower teenage pregnancy rates. These statements are backed up by virtually every survey there is on the subject.

Therefore, equating sex ed with promotion of promiscuity is false and misleading.

By the way, what the fuck does statutory rape and the rape of that girl have to do with sex ed?

I don't have a son. :confused:

Well, you're clearly a horrible father. How can you condone underage sexual behavior like that? In a 12 year old no less? It's shocking. Somebody should call CPS on you.

/smartass (although note that you're not the only one who can play the "out-of-context" game!)

Why have you made sure he knows these ways to keep himself "out of trouble"? Because you know you can't have an eye on him at all times, and that the practical reality of ensuring his virginity until he reaches the age of majority is neither practical nor realistic.

So: your politics give you what what you talk. I'm very relieved to see your walk is more sensible. Thanks for being a good and realistic father. But what you're SAYING in this thread is pure bullshit.

(And with that, I leap back out from Tilted Politics again. Until the next time common sense is stymied, true believers!)

List a source for one of the studies and lets take a look at it.

Follow the flow of the posts, statutory rape and the ability of a child to consent and understand the consequences of sex has been a common theme. Our cultural view of children having sex is an important issue as well in terms of what we find acceptable.

I'm going to summarize a scientific study in decision-making under the effects of sexual arousal described in the book "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely. Basically, participants of this study were asked several sets of questions pertaining to sexual boundaries, ethics, and safe sex. They were asked, while unaroused, to answer the questions AS IF they were aroused. The questions were all yes/no. The next part of the study had the participants take the same questionnaire again, but this time they were actually sexually aroused while answering the questions (masturbating). The key was comparing the two results: How we THINK we'll feel while aroused and how we ACTUALLY feel while aroused.

The results? Participants VASTLY misjudged their expected answers. There are details in the study about the actual questions, but I'll sum it up: when we're aroused, our sense of ethics and responsibility goes out the window. We can doubt this now, as we sit and type with limp dicks, but our world changes when we get aroused.

How does this translate to the argument at hand? Teaching abstinence-only sex ed to a TEENAGER is futile.

Not only that, the lessons of this study can be translated to other forms of arousal such as anger, jealousy and exhilaration.

I'm curious, and this is a genuine question.

Much has been made of Mrs. Palin's beliefs in regard to matters sexual and religious. I recall in particular, an incident in which she was accused of having asked a librarian about the possibility of banning certain books. In initial reports, it was made to seem as if she'd wanted to ban the books in question. In the end, it emerged that she had no such designs in mind and, far from firing the librarian or causing her to resign, Mrs. Palin actually gave her a raise when the librarian in question categorically shot down such a book-banning scheme. Furthermore, Mrs. Palin is opposed to gay marriage, yet adamently refused to sign a ban on such when it was presented to her as Govorner, saying it was within neither her power, not that of the State of Alaska, to forbid two people from entering into a contract (which is a Constitutionally-protected Right).

Read that again: even though she opposed gay marriage on principle, she refused to outlaw it because it was not within her legal power to do so.

I have yet to see it cited (and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that Mrs. Palin wants AO taught as the legally-mandated and required type of Sex Ed. I -have- seen a lot of Mrs. Palin's personal opinions willfully and dishonestly, even after repeated debunking, presented as policy stances (gay marriage being the most obvious instance).

So: Has Mrs. Palin ever said, in her unmistakable and quite unequivocal manner, that AO is what should be mandated by law?

Yes or no, with citations, will do.

The same conclusion should be drawn from engaging in "safe sex" as well, especially with undisciplined teens. The thought that teens can properly asses the risks involved with unsafe sex, even when "educated", is asking a lot. And to be clear, I don't support abstinence with no sex education, I support promoting abstinence for children and providing them with sex education.

Also, I am curious - is there a school system in this country that has a "sex education" curriculum that you support and works (meaning there are measurable statistics showing the STD, pregnancy, and psychological, results you would be comfortable with)?

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publi...abstinence.pdf

"The main objective of Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs is to teach
abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage. The impact results from the four
selected programs show no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence. About half of all study
youth had remained abstinent at the time of the final follow-up survey, and program and
control group youth had similar rates of sexual abstinence. Moreover, the average age at
first sexual intercourse and the number of sexual partners were almost identical for program
and control youth."

Abstinence-only programs for HIV infection prevention in high-income countries

"Overall, the trials did not indicate that abstinence-only programs can reduce HIV risk as indicated by behavioral outcomes (e.g., unprotected vaginal sex) or biological outcomes (e.g., sexually transmitted infection). Instead, the programs consistently had no effect on participants' incidence of unprotected vaginal sex, frequency of vaginal sex, number of sex partners, sexual initiation, or condom use."

Patient teenagers? A comparison of the sexual beha...[Pediatrics. 2009] - PubMed Result

"Five years after the pledge, 82% of pledgers denied having ever pledged. Pledgers and matched nonpledgers did not differ in premarital sex, sexually transmitted diseases, and anal and oral sex variables."

http://courses.gov.harvard.edu/gov30.../rosenbaum.pdf

"Conclusions: Five years after taking a virginity pledge, most virginity pledgers
fail to report having pledged. Virginity pledges do not affect the incidence of
self-reported pre-marital sex or assay-determined chlamydia."


we could go on, if you want.

I read the Executive Summary of this report. I think a better conclusion from the report is that the program had no real impact one way or the other.

Also the programs and studies were limited to middle and upper middle school children. Here is a quote from the Executive Summary:

I am looking forward to reading more.

You are misleading and distorting her record. Gay marriage was and is illegal in Alaska since a 1998 amendment to to the AK constitution. So she did not veto any bans on gay marriage, and they are still in place. What happened is that, after that, legal precedent in AK said that a person is entitle to spousal benefits even without being married. As such, benefits were being given to gay couples. The legislation that Palin vetoed would have blocked same sex couples from receiving these benefits. Now, did she really think she didnt have the power to define marriage? No. She vetoed that legislation because the AK SUPREME COURT said that particular bill was unconstitutional.


Alaska Politics Blog : Palin vetoes HB 4001 | adn.com

In fact, she even signed a bill that would put forth an amendment to the AK constitution that would ban those benefits as a way of getting around the AK supreme court.

In fact, the note that accompanied her veto explicitly said that "The Governor's veto does not signal any change or modification to her disagreement with the action and order by the Alaska Supreme Court."

AP falsely suggests Palin supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees | Media Matters for America

(the original note has since been taken down from the governor's website, so you will have to settle for a media matters quote. you can take parts of it and google it to see that it is confirmed elsewhere that that is real)

So to put her veto as principled or anything of the sort is misleading. I don't think that accepting a Supreme Court decision is notable in any way.

As far as the librarian, you are also misleading when you say she was "far from firing" her.

Palin pressured Wasilla librarian: Former Gov. Sarah Palin | adn.com

Palin did send her a letter saying she would be fired, and she was only kept on because of public pressure.

As far abstinence, Alaska is one of 22 states that offers sex ed but stresses abstinence:
http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/uplo...d-Politics.pdf

And she explicitly said in an Eagle forum questionnaire that she supported abstinence only education:

Inside Opinion : Palin's responses to Eagle Forum questionnaire | adn.com

"3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

Thanks for pointing me to facts of which I was unaware. I'll have to review and, from the looks of things, may be forced to revise my opinions (at least several of them) in regards to the former Gov. Thankee. However, I must note on the matter at hand that the only element of sex education suggested on the questionairre which she explicitly denounced was "explicit" sex education. This leaves open a dangerous door, of course; who gets to define "explicit," and what will that definition be? However, I remain unsure if it's the broad-stroke denial you ascribe. I shall have to research further.

Which was precisely my point that abstinence did not lead to less sexual activity, and sex ed did not lead to greater sexual activity.


But if you are referring to what I said about pregnancy, keep reading the studies:
"The sexual behavior of virginity pledgers does not differ from that of closely matched nonpledgers, and pledgers are less likely to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease before marriage."

Before we can continue, a question - do you agree that the parameters upon which the study was based is inadequate? I am not suggesting that they should not have done the study, but my take on it is that more work should be done on the issue. The study actually reminds me of my 12 year-old when he puts little or no effort into something and then concludes "well it didn't work".

---------- Post added at 03:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

I think those pledges are gimmicks, and I think the quote you have taken from the study illustrates that the people taking the pledge did not take it seriously.

However, again I think the results show no real impact one way or the other:



---------- Post added at 03:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------

I think the author of this study may see potential in what my position actually is, I support promoting abstinence along with education. I also doubt any school or cumminity program can be effective without parental involvement.

Ace, at what age do you think AO teaching should begin? At what age do you think it would work? You are unhappy with the finidngs in this study so you are seeking to discredit it. But try as you might, the conclusions in this study confirm that AO fails to keep kids both informed and safe. Virginity pledges are meaningless because teens are going to have sex. It's human nature, no amount of wishing it wasn't will change that very basic and primal fact. Your son will most likely have sex by age 17, just like the vast majority of other kids.

I think it should start with parenting skills. I think we should make it a cultural expectation. I think children should grow up in a world where they don't have social pressure to engage in sex. I agree that there will be some who engage in sex, but just like we are changing our culture regarding smoking cigarettes I think we can change our culture regarding children engaging in sex. I am not normally an idealist but I think we would be better off moving in the direction of abstinence for children.

When a teenager is 15, 16, 17, that is when they are at the highest risk of sexual experimentation. This is the age when they may incur the most pressure to engage in sex. These are the ages when we need to be the most aggressive with education and the promotion of postponing sexual activity.

I specifically referred to quotes from the authors of the studies. They do not discredit their studies they simply point out the limitations. That is why I like to actually read the studies.

The studies say what they say, and they said AO programs studied had no real impact one way or the other. I accept that some could conclude that the programs are therefore ineffective, I simply would attempt to modify the programs. I accept that others would simply want to stop funding the programs, that is why this is a political issue.


I agree that there will always be teens who will engage in sex. There are always going to be teens who engage in drinking, drinking and driving, taking drugs, smoking, chewing tobacco, committing suicide, etc., that does not mean I would stop trying to prevent these things.

Maybe, maybe not - but I won't have a problem telling him that the current issue of Playboy and locking the door will work wonders taking the edge off before and after your date. I won't have a problem telling him 18 years is a long, long time to deal with a loopy baby momma. I won't have a problem telling him they ain't got a cure for AIDs. I won't have a problem telling him that if it is too easy, it won't be worth it. And, I won't have a problem telling him to be a gentlemen.

I find it interesting that the same group of people that won't let their kids see another person's nipple will sit down with them every night and watch CSI, NCIS, Law and Order, et. al - which is essentially death porn. We have drawn the craziest line in the sand with regards to "protecting our children from the evils of the world."

Telling your son it's ok to masturbate but not have sex doesn't make any sense. Masterbating is essentially fantasizing about having sex, the more you fantasize about it the more you will want it. Atleast you agree that telling your son about all the risks is a good thing, this way he will be prepared for the inevitability of having sex

I masturbate to Sarah Palin Sex Ed. videos. Abstinence turns me on.

Are you referring to the mathematica study? That one was done on request by the federal government, so I doubt they had any hidden agenda to prove the federal government wrong. And if you read the study, the reason they focused on the ages they did was because the abstinence programs they were evaluating target the kids of that age! And these kids were followed for a long time to reach those results.



I agree the pledges are gimmicks. But they are analyzed because they are used in many abstinence only programs. And the results regarding sexual activity did not differ, but the results regarding condom use did


How in the world did you get this from that particular sentence? That sentence was about an international study that pointed out that results may not be generalizable to the US, and more evaluation was needed. It said nothing about your position of promoting abstinence.

My issue with my son having sex as a child is based on his ability to comprehend the the risks. When he is maturely able to comprehend the risks I will have absolutely no problem with when and how he chooses to engage in consensual sex.

Masturbation does not turn normal health individuals into something they are not.

I don't understand why people are confused by my position (pardon the pun) on this issue. The issue isn't the sex, the issue is children being able to make informed decisions regarding sex. I simply think there are legitimate reasons children, for example, can not enter into legally binding contracts - the law recognizes that generally, children lack the maturity to enter into contract.

What I find most troubling is that 56% of all girls have a penis! Damn that abstinence only class they made me take!

I am not suggesting there is a hidden agenda. What I am suggesting is that half-assed attempts at "abstinence only" may get you half assed results, but that doesn't mean that if an appropriate level of effort was put into it that it that you would get half-assed results. I am also suggesting that it is a 12 year-old's logic at work. I live it with my son, I can't count the number of time we go through this and how many times he discovers that if he puts his full effort into something he gets the results expected. I think we can change our culture regarding our attitudes about children having sex.


I know that if my son was going to have sex and he knew to use a condom, and he encountered any frustration, at 12 he would be quick to say "screw" (pardon the pun) the condom, and have sex without it. As an adult, I would hope, he has a more mature attitude about it.

A survey on condom use, in my opinion, is more a survey on honesty. If they can set up a control for people lying I might buy into these survey results. Teenagers generally do not use condoms, and if certain groups are more honest about it - that is going to appear as if they are taking more risks.



In his conclusion he includes the phrase "Should funding continue...", more study on the issue is recommended. He separated "abstinence only" and "abstinence- plus". Perhaps, my view is more in-line with "abstinence-plus" whatever that means. but is seems that he leaves the door open.

---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------

I have friend - when his wife got pregnant, he went around saying "we are pregnant" referring to him and his wife. I assumed he was an idiot until one day I asked my wife about it. She told me, that is the new thing now. A couple no longer says "I" ( from the woman) or "she" (from the man) is pregnant but that "we" (from both) are pregnant. I don't watch enough day time TV. But I think the "we" used a condom is the new way to say it today. But perhaps some girls didn't get the notification, that could explain the difference.

My humor is even less funny when you try to explain the my joke.

*ruminates over the implications of politically-correct statement "We Are Pregnant" given the divorce rate and the amount of single parents in the US*

What is even less funny about condom use surveys is when you actually talk to a teenager about the meaning of the results. Give a teen this scenario, how would they answer?

You have a partner and have engaged in sex 10 times. 9 of those 10 times you used a condom. Do you use a condom 90% of the time, or 0% of the time?

In my opinion condom use should be measured by partner not by the number of times you have sex. It is hard (pardon the pun) enough for adults to engage in safe sex, it is beyond my imagination how some here think children can.

I think adults forget the stupid crap they did as kids. If only there could be a "this was your life" video right before we tell our kids how easy it is to abstain from the best frickin thing that exists in a teenage boy's life.

I'm old skool.

---------- Post added at 05:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

Or, the fact that the best sex they will experience will be with a person they love, get better over time, and happen in a comfortable, yet romantic place. The best thing in a boy's life is not going to be having sex with a drunk stranger in a public toilet with your buddies giggling outside the door.

Well, shit - if my only two choices are "ten-year anniversary Sandals resort sex" and "truck-stop 'you got a perty mouth' sex" - I suppose I would...wait, huh? For the love of Pete, you don't have a snowball's chance in Sarah Palin's panties to stop a 16-year-old boy from steaming up the windows of his 2001 Honda Civic for the 14 minutes before curfew.

Oh, damn... this is the funniest politics thread in a long time.

[/COLOR]

Or, the fact that the best sex they will experience will be with a person they love, get better over time, and happen in a comfortable, yet romantic place. The best thing in a boy's life is not going to be having sex with a drunk stranger in a public toilet with your buddies giggling outside the door.[/QUOTE]

Thats an utterly subjective view on sexual pleasure. Some people have better sex on onenight stands than in committed relationships.

I would hope the girl gets a say, if the boy is that out of control.

---------- Post added at 09:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

[quote=rahl;2712510][/COLOR]


I suppose even a blind squirrel gets a ....oh, pardon the pun... but you seem to be talking about pure chance compared to finding a good partner, then getting 'em trained and conditioned just right... If sex doesn't get better with experience, the couple ain't trying. Good sex takes work. "You can do it, put yo back into it...

This seems appropriate:

...and if you don't stop being so naive, that is exactly the song your son is going to be singing as he's steaming up the windows to his 2001 Civic. You are going to "think" you got him all trained up regarding sex - and he's going to make you think he's all trained up because it's WAY easier to get away with sex when your parents think "my child is waiting for marriage". Next thing you know, you're a 47-year-old grandfather.

If you want to go that route, I sincerely wish you luck - but you better be a CIA dad because his "little Al Quaeda" is waging jihad on your training and sooner or later some little skirt at the mall is going to get blown up.

I am already 49.

What my son will know is that there is a difference between good sex, and sexual conquests. His ego won't be so (pardon the pun) small that he will have a need to sleep with every girl with a willing vagina. Ultimately the choice will be his, all I do is give him the benefit of my knowledge and experience.


The irony is that I am so opposite of what you picture. I am not going to spy on him. I am not going to restrict his freedom of choice or anything like that. There is nothing that I am even posting here that I won't share or talk to him about right this minute. I even had to joke with him about getting his own SI Swim Suit Edition, or at least he needs to let me see it first and make sure it is where grandpa can see it when he comes to visit. I teach him to respect his elders.

Well, all I can say is that I hope that works out the way you have it planned.

I don't plan my son's life. The choices he makes will be his. I think the confusion here illustrates the confusion some have with Palin's religious beliefs and how her daughter ended up as an unwed mother.

Which prooves how ineffective abstinence only is.

Here is the difference in how I think and how I think you think and it applies to sex and other issues facing children.

I talk to my son about the risks/benefits of social alcohol consumption. My expectation is that he not socially drink alcohol while he is a minor, he understands that and he understands why. I don't hide alcohol in my house. I don't pretend that adults in my house don't drink alcohol. I don't exaggerate the risks. I don't lie about what I did or did not do when I was his age. I don't pretend that he won't be under tremendous peer pressure (I talk to him about how to handle it). I don't get uncomfortable when he wants to ask a question about it or talk about it. I don't censor the movies we watch showing alcohol consumption. I am not going to spy on him and he knows it. And at the end of it all - if he calls me in a drunken stupor from some party, I am going to drop everything I am doing, go pick him up and tell him that I appreciate the fact that he called me.

From your point of view it seems that you think I failed or that I am some kind of hypocrite, etc. - from my point of view I did not fail, I did what I could, and I am happy he will have an opportunity to grow from the experience. I will remind him that we are all imperfect and subject to making poor decisions. As long as he is willing to be held accountable and is willing to grow from his decisions, I will be in his corner - unconditionally. My gut tells me he is going to be o.k. and I wish I could say the same about some of his friends. It appears the die has already been cast.

I have no doubt that you are a great father. Remember that 95% of the kids in America right now don't have a father that is as engaged with their upbringing as you are with yours. Those 95% need a 350 lb, 75-year-old, white-coated hag to unroll a condom onto a banana. It's the only hope they've got at not becoming kids raising kids. Frankly, I'd put a condom on the tray of every school lunch served in America each day.

Now, if you will excuse me, I need to visit the Titty Board for some mind bleach regarding that school nurse.

And I applaud your efforts with your son regarding teen drinking.

That said it is irrelevant to the issue of Abstinence teaching vs. sex ed. My point was that you hold sarah palin as the end all and be all of sexual teaching. And her method clearly didn't work, it reflects how AO as a whole around the country has failed.

You are wrong. At the core of the issue is teens developing the skills needed to make mature and responsible decisions. I do not accept that teens can not act responsibly when it comes to sex. Your disagreement with me make no sense - you act as if a teenage boy, for example, would stick his penis in any girl/woman without any thought and that the only hope is to make sure he has a condom. I think teenage boys can be discriminating and act responsibly if that is the expectation.

I have held my views long before I knew Palin existed. I don't see eye to eye with her on every sexual related issue. We differ big time on the question of marriage and sex based on her religious beliefs. We agree on the fact that children should abstain from sex.

And your approach to this topic is working??? Can you honestly say yes to that? I agree AO based on what has been done has had no impact, but i also think the AO attempts have been half assed. I think in part because of people like you and our School safety czar - whose sage advise to a teen soliciting sex in a bathroom with adults was to say "hope you used a condom". Hell, they should make me the School safety czar - at least I believe I can make a difference.

How would you have responded if a teen told you that? All you've managed to do is complain about that response. What would an ace-approved response have been?

[QUOTE=aceventura3;2713035]You are wrong. At the core of the issue is teens developing the skills needed to make mature and responsible decisions. I do not accept that teens can not act responsibly when it comes to sex. Your disagreement with me make no sense - you act as if a teenage boy, for example, would stick his penis in any girl/woman without any thought and that the only hope is to make sure he has a condom. I think teenage boys can be discriminating and act responsibly if that is the expectation.


Sorry but I'm not wrong. Every study done has shown that teens have sex, despite AO teachings. A teenage boy will pretty much stick his penis in anything that it will fit in. That's what teenage boy's do. It's simple biology, a males sex drive is most active during his teenage years peaking at about 19 years of age and slowly weekening over time after that. Those are the facts, no amount of hoping kids will be able to abstain, or hoping society will change will change that very basic truth....sorry

I am assuming a bit of hyperbole here - "A teenage boy will pretty much stick his penis in anything that it will fit in."

I disagree about the male sex drive peaking at 19, I don't know who was studied and how they came to that conclusion, but my sex drive did not peak when I was a teen. Perhaps the "facts" you have need a second look.

---------- Post added at 03:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:18 PM ----------

In post 127 I shared the story of Tiffany Wright, a teenage girl, who was reportedly statutorily raped and then murdered reportedly by the man who may have raped her.

In post 133 Dippin asked: "By the way, what the fuck does statutory rape and the rape of that girl have to do with sex ed"

Now you seem not to take the issue seriously.

An "Ace-approved" response would be statutory rape is a crime. The person committing that crime should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. So, as I talk to the victim of a rape crime I would seek as much information as possible in a sympathetic manner. Then I would share what I know about the law and the crime to the child. I would explain that help is available. And before the conversation ended I would let the child know that it was my obligation to report the alleged crime to the proper authorities.

Am I to understand that some among us here would handle this situation differently? If so, how and why? Is it me, or is my impression correct, that some don't take this seriously? I am truly at a loss trying to understand what I think I am picking up here. Perhaps you can help, my questions are not personal, it just seems that our cultural expectations regarding sex and our children is at an all time low.

[QUOTE=aceventura3;2713831]I am assuming a bit of hyperbole here - "A teenage boy will pretty much stick his penis in anything that it will fit in."

I disagree about the male sex drive peaking at 19, I don't know who was studied and how they came to that conclusion, but my sex drive did not peak when I was a teen. Perhaps the "facts" you have need a second look.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

Testosterone peaks in males at age 18. That is a direct corelation to sexual peak. You may be confusing sexual peak with sexual performance. Sex isn't neccesarily better at age 18 it's just when you are bilogically the most ready for sex, beginning with the onset of puberty(early teen years) peaking at (or around) 18 then slowly decreasing over time. That is a biological and medical fact. Look it up in any health journal.

I believe what dippin was trying say was "what does statutory rape have to do with this conversation about sexual education in the context of two teenagers having sex before they are 18?" And seriously, what does it?

No, I am not confusing sexual peak with sexual performance. The correlation with testosterone and sex drive is range based. If your levels are in a normal range, more or less withinin that range has little impact on "sexual peak" or sex drive compared to other factors. There is andropause for men which is similar to menopause for women, men going through this often look to testosterone therapy but to suggest that there is a direct link with peak sex drive and peak testosterone levels is misleading.

Here is some info on the topic:

Male Menopause : Andropause : Discovery Health

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------

All I can suggest is that people read and follow the flow of the posts. Often, there is more than one contextual discussion going on.

Statutory rape has nothing to do with sex between two teenagers when it is not statutory rape.

Statutory rape is a sex education issue.

Statutory rape laws exist because, we (society), do not believe children can legally consent to sex. This is directly related to judgment.

Statutory rape laws not being enforced is related to how our society values our children and our attitudes about children engaging in sex.

I think our attitudes need to change (if you have not figured that out). I think our attitudes can change, contrary to what others think, including our Safe School Czar.

[QUOTE=aceventura3;2713968]No, I am not confusing sexual peak with sexual performance. The correlation with testosterone and sex drive is range based. If your levels are in a normal range, more or less withinin that range has little impact on "sexual peak" or sex drive compared to other factors. There is andropause for men which is similar to menopause for women, men going through this often look to testosterone therapy but to suggest that there is a direct link with peak sex drive and peak testosterone levels is misleading.


Ace I don't know what else to tell you, males peak sexually at or around age 18. That is a proven biological fact. If you choose not to believe scientific facts there's nothing else to discuss.

My post and point has nothing to do with male menopause.

Are you male? Over 18?


Look at it this way: You need fuel to launch a rocket into outer space. So, there is a direct correlation between fuel and getting your rocket launched. However, if you have one gallon of fuel more than what you need to get your rocket off, into outer space, you did not need that extra gallon. If you have one gallon less than what you need to get your rocket off, into outer space, your rocket doesn't get into outer space.

But you know what they say - it ain't rocket science.

You introduced testosterone into the discussion and now you are saying you don't know how it affects men? Another sex education opportunity!

Yes I'm a male over 18.
Rockets have nothing to do with males' sexual peak, biology does. And biology says that the male sexual peak is at or around age 18......case closed. There is no room for argument here, that is a biological fact. There's no room for interpretation.

The reason it is the sexual peak is because it is peak testosterone production, that is why I introduced it. I made no reference to male menopause because it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. But I know how hard it is for you to not talk about irrelevant topics.

I am sorry to hear, sex drive wise, it is down hill for you.


You will never know how humorous it is for me to see the - what do rockets have to do with sex..., type response to my analogy. Let's just say you brought tears to my eyes, thanks.:)

How dare I question an urban legend? And, then you can find some half-baked study on the internet and then how dare I question that study? Gee, do I have some nerve, asking questions and critical thinking and all.

Perhaps if you put that in all caps, I would accept it. Or how about:

I don't agree.
I don't agree.
I don't agree.

And, that's a fact.

I will put it in plain and simple language. Generally, if you have enough testosterone to have a sex drive, you will have a sex drive. If you have more than enough testosterone other factors will have a much bigger impact on marginal changes to sex drive.

The issue of male menopause, testosterone, and sex drive are related in that...oh, never mind, this is getting boring.

Has Palin said anything of note lately?

Ace you have a singular gift for ignoring medical fact, or just plain old facts in general. It is astounding that you could possibly disagree with absolute scientificly backed evidence. But whatever, you clearly are either refusing to believe in medical fact, or you do believe it but just enjoy arguing.

I am gifted in many ways.

Occasionally I actually give stuff some real thought. For example the idea that sex drive peaks at 18 and that it is correlated to testosterone as you suggest.

I will share what I thought:

Let's say you have a 40 year old man:

Over weight
Lazy
High cholesterol
High blood pressure
Enlarged prostate
Borderline diabetic
Drinks to much alcohol
Sleeps to little
Drinks too much caffeine
Doesn't get enough fiber
Can't walk up 5 flights of stairs
Can't do 10 push ups
Works to much at a job he hates
Married to a woman he is no longer attracted to
wears underwear that is too tight
believes he will go to hell if he even looks at a woman he thinks is sexy
and believes he peaked at 18.

And you think his sex drive is not what it was when he was 18 because of his testosterone level????

There ain't no study in the world that can control for all of that and give you the "fact" based conclusion you think you came to.

Don't take my word for it, ask a knowledgeable person you trust.

The man you just described would have low testosterone levels because he is so unhealthy. Which means he has a lower sex drive.

Sex drive peaks in males at 18. There is no arguing that fact. No other way to interpret the studies done. You can ignore reality all you want, but that doesn't change the way things are.

So in your view he can get some testosterone treatments and he will be good to go?


Testosterone levels in a person can be normal or even in the high range and they can lack a sex drive. There are other factors, here is one:

Sex hormone binding globulin: origin, function and...[Ann Clin Biochem. 1990] - PubMed Result

Like I said, don't take my word for it, talk to someone knowledgeable and let's take it from there.

{added} Look at what I found on the "internet" and note how the point was qualified, referencing in my view the "other factors affecting sex drive :

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-n...-study/336380/

And then there is this from the "internet" too, Dr. Hull:

http://www.janethull.com/faqs/testos...eak-in-men.php

So, who to believe 18, 22, 30????

I'm done arguing ace. I don't even remember what the original point was. I think it was about how males are just hornier when they are going through puberty, so trying to suppress thousands of years of evolution by teaching AO is just never going to work.

........ meanwhile, the father of Sarah Palin's grandchild is going to be displaying his equipment on the pages of Playgirl. Just what civilization has been needing, public airing of Levi Johnston's Johnson: