Sarah Palin: Sex Ed debate - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Halx · 10-01-2009, 08:46 AM

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

dippin · 10-01-2009, 08:48 AM

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.

Derwood · 10-01-2009, 09:04 AM

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

aceventura3 · 10-01-2009, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

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

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

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.

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

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

I don't see the irony.

Willravel · 10-01-2009, 12:36 PM

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.

Derwood · 10-01-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't see the irony.

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?

aceventura3 · 10-01-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

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.

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

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?

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:

Quote:

Statutory rape law is clear, so enforce it
Consensual sex with a young teen? There's no such thing.
Posted: Sunday, Sep. 27, 2009

The repulsive death of Tiffany Wright has shed light on another repulsive fact about our community: We don't take the statutory rape of children nearly as seriously as we should.

Tiffany, the Charlotte 15-year-old shot dead at her bus stop this month, was eight months pregnant. Social workers had told police they thought she might have been raped by her 36-year-old adoptive brother, Royce Mitchell. Police did not talk to Mitchell for seven weeks, and charged him with statutory rape only after Tiffany was dead.

The lack of a timely statutory rape prosecution in Tiffany's case was not unusual. Charlotte-Mecklenburg police have investigated 312 potential statutory rapes since 2006 (as of Aug. 31). The district attorney's office has prosecuted 49 of those, or less than 16 percent.

Police choose not to take about a third of cases to the DA, either because they consider them unfounded or because they're still investigating. Of the 65 percent of cases they do present to the DA, the vast majority are not prosecuted. Whether that's because the DA's office doesn't take the crime seriously enough or because police bring the DA insufficient evidence depends on whom you ask.

The bottom line, though, is that these statistics suggest that authorities don't view statutory rape as a crime unless the victim or the parent demand that they do. That's unacceptable.

Let's be clear: there's no such thing as consensual sex with a 14-year-old. Young teens are not capable of making rational decisions about intercourse. The law defines statutory rape as intercourse or a sexual act with a person age 13, 14 or 15 when the perpetrator is at least four years older. Period. The law says nothing about consent.

The victim or her parents not wanting to press charges is no excuse for authorities not to do so. It's similar, in some respects, to domestic violence: a man should face charges if he beats his wife, regardless of his wife's desire to press them.

Clearly, these cases are complicated. If the victim is not interested in pressing charges, police may have a hard time getting evidence. The victim might not talk, and authorities might not be able to secure DNA evidence because they might not know about the crime promptly.

Still, they could press charges more often and build a case. That also would send a signal to other potential perpetrators and show young girls that they don't have to accept being a victim.

But child advocates say a lack of evidence is only part of the problem. Some authorities, they say, consciously or not dismiss the rape of a black or Hispanic child as a cultural phenomenon - as if it's OK if the girl is a minority.

That's offensive in the extreme, and if it's happening, criminal justice leaders of this community, including Police Chief Rodney Monroe and District Attorney Peter Gilchrist need to make sure it stops.

They, and the elected officials who control their purse strings, need to identify policies and attitudes that work against keeping children safe, and change them.

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:

Quote:

Tiffany Wright stood alone in the dark, waiting for her school bus.

It was just before 6 a.m., and her foster grandmother had walked back home to get Tiffany's water bottle.

Tiffany, 15, was eight months pregnant but determined to stay on track in school. She wanted to be a lawyer. And after just a few weeks at Hawthorne High, she had impressed teachers as smart and ambitious, despite a difficult childhood.

At 5:51, Tiffany sent a text.

"Wheres the bus?"

One stop away, replied her friend, already on the bus.

At 5:55, as the bus lumbered toward Tiffany's stop, people began calling police to report gunshots.

A school bus dispatcher radioed Tiffany's bus driver: Change course - something's happening ahead.

Tiffany lay dead in the road, shot in the head, that morning, Monday, Sept. 14. Her baby girl was delivered at the hospital and lived a week, but died Sunday.

Nobody's charged in the killings, but police call Tiffany's adoptive brother, Royce Mitchell, a "person of interest."

In the months before she died, local agencies took steps aimed at stabilizing her home life and keeping her safe. But her story exposes failures in the system that was supposed to protect her.

Among the missteps:

•In February, a Mecklenburg court clerk appointed Mitchell as Tiffany's temporary guardian - even though he was a felon who served time in federal prison. He was also tried in 2006 for murder, but found not guilty. And last year, he was accused of domestic violence, though the case was dismissed.

•In July, social workers told police that Mitchell, 36, might have committed statutory rape with Tiffany, but police didn't question him about it for seven weeks, and didn't charge him with the rape until after Tiffany was killed.

•This month, Mecklenburg social services failed to cut off communication between Tiffany, who was in foster care, and Mitchell, said a source close to the investigation.

On the day of Tiffany's killing, Charlotte-Mecklenburg police jailed Mitchell for statutory rape and indecent liberties with a child, naming Tiffany as the victim.

Police defend their work, saying they followed the industry's best practices - which takes time. Police didn't feel a need to rush, they say, because they believed Tiffany was secure, hidden in a foster home with no threat to her safety.

Police say it's hard to prove statutory rape: Of the 262 reports of statutory rape police received over three years, only 16 percent - 42 cases - were accepted by prosecutors.

Experts say statutory rape cases are complicated because they involve victims ages 13, 14 or 15 who often consider themselves voluntary participants in sex with someone at least six years older. So victims can be reluctant to help police.

But child advocates say in cases like Tiffany's, police should act more aggressively. An immediate arrest sends a signal to a suspect and can persuade them to stay away from victims.

"The cases may be difficult to win, but they're not difficult to charge," says Brett Loftis of Charlotte's Council for Children's Rights.

UNCC criminologist Paul Friday says: "Often, nothing is done in these kinds of cases because they're based on improper assumptions about the rationality of someone that age. But the minors are often unaware of disease, birth control and they can be exploited by someone."

Adopted by foster mother

Tiffany first entered the child welfare system as a toddler in Buffalo, N.Y., when her mother lost custody.

She was adopted at 4 by her foster mother, Alma Wright, an older woman with eight grown children, who was excited about raising another child.

One of Wright's grown sons was Royce Mitchell, a star quarterback in high school who'd gone on to play for a semi-pro team in Buffalo. But Mitchell also was indicted in 1999 as part of a drug trafficking ring and went to federal prison.

While he was in prison, authorities also charged Mitchell with an earlier murder, but a jury found him not guilty.

In 2004, Alma and Tiffany left Buffalo for North Carolina, settling near Kings Mountain. Tiffany made friends easily at school and church. She ran track at Bessemer City High School.

In 2007, Mitchell was released from prison and followed his mother to North Carolina.

But last fall, Alma Wright got sick. Friends at church helped out with Tiffany, inviting her for dinners and weekends. Tiffany spent time with Mitchell and his wife, too.

Alma Wright died Jan. 25, and Tiffany moved in with the Mitchells in Charlotte.

On Jan. 30, Royce Mitchell asked a Mecklenburg court to appoint him and his wife as Tiffany's guardians.

On his application, he wrote: "We are seeking guardianship because we were requested to do so by Mrs. Alma Wright before she died."

He wanted to transfer Tiffany to West Mecklenburg High School.

The court set a hearing for Feb. 5 and appointed a child advocate to study the situation and look after Tiffany's best interests in court.

There's no transcript of what happened in court, and the clerk who handled Tiffany's case declined to discuss his decision.

Frederick Benson, a Mecklenburg assistant clerk of superior court, appointed Mitchell the temporary guardian of Tiffany's welfare.

It's unclear if Benson, a lawyer, knew about Mitchell's criminal background. Court clerks are not required to perform background checks in guardianship cases, says Clerk of Superior Court Martha Curran. It's up to each clerk to decide what checks are necessary, and they often rely on court-appointed child advocates to advise them in such cases.

Tiffany's advocate, lawyer Martha Efird, declined to discuss her actions in the case.

It was in the weeks surrounding the Feb. 5 court hearing that Tiffany got pregnant, if hospital estimates are accurate.

But friends say Tiffany, who started at West Mecklenburg High in February, wouldn't realize for four or five months that she was pregnant.

On Feb. 27, clerk of court Benson ordered DSS to conduct a "home study" of the Mitchell household. Officials won't release their findings.

But Mitchell didn't keep custody long, according to several of Tiffany's friends in King's Mountain.

In late March, Mitchell left Tiffany at a group home called With Friends in Gastonia, according to Marlene Jefferies and Cruceta Jeffeirs, two adult family friends who watched Tiffany grow up.

The group home wouldn't confirm that. But the friends say the home reported to social services that Tiffany was abandoned. And she was soon back in foster care.

On March 31, Jeffeirs, a Shelby pastor, wrote a letter to Benson seeking custody of Tiffany: "My desire is to see Tiffany accomplish all the goals that she has set for herself and I believe she can do that in a stable environment with lots of guidance and love."

DSS officials in Gaston and Mecklenburg won't discuss Tiffany's case or answer questions about what steps they took to protect her.

But friends and family say Tiffany was eventually placed in the care of foster parent Susan Barber, in a townhome off Mallard Creek Road in Derita.

By July, it was clear Tiffany was pregnant, friends say.

Barber tried to shield Tiffany from talking to those she believed might be bad influences, according to Tiffany's cousin Brittany Page. But a source close to the investigation said Tiffany and Mitchell continued communicating.

Despite repeated attempts, Barber could not be reached.

As the school year approached, Tiffany prepared to change schools again, this time to Hawthorne High in Charlotte, which offers a special program for pregnant students.

Delayed investigation

On July 27, social workers reported to police that Royce Mitchell might have committed statutory rape with Tiffany.

It took eight days for a detective to look at the case, and three days more for it to be officially assigned to Teresa Johnson, a detective with CMPD's youth crime and domestic violence unit.

Another 12 days passed before Johnson interviewed Tiffany.

It's unclear when detective Johnson discovered Mitchell's background, but it wasn't enough to ramp up the investigation. Investigators say they believed Tiffany was safe in a foster home and faced no threats from Mitchell.

Police say their performance in the case followed procedure and met standards.

Police interview alleged victims immediately if the crime has occurred within the previous 72 hours, so they can gather evidence that may remain. But in cases like Tiffany's - where months had elapsed since the alleged offense - police try to arrange just one interview when children and teen victims of abuse are involved.

Police acknowledge that strategy takes time but minimizes trauma and reduces the chances that young victims might be led into inaccurate testimony by repeated questioning.

Police also let such victims decide when they want to be interviewed at the county's child-victim center called Pat's Place. There, specially trained interviewers talk to victims, while social workers, psychologists, police and others watch from another room.

Tiffany chose an Aug. 19 interview. She didn't say much during the formal interview. But later that day, Johnson won her trust and obtained enough information to move forward with the investigation.

No response from Mitchell

The next day, Aug. 20, the detective made her first call to Mitchell to ask him about the charge, she says. Johnson left a message and gave him a few days to call back.

When Mitchell didn't respond, she made calls over the next two weeks to social workers and a federal probation officer to ask Mitchell to come talk to police.

Police say they didn't immediately arrest him because they believed they could get better information if he talked voluntarily.

On Sept. 9, a federal probation official told Johnson that Mitchell was not coming in.

On Sept. 10, a team of social workers, police and other agencies held a standard follow-up meeting to discuss how to proceed in Tiffany's case.

On Friday, Sept. 11, detective Johnson phoned Mitchell's wife and left a message. She asked her to call back to discuss Tiffany, Johnson says, but didn't give details of the rape allegation.

That Monday, Tiffany was shot and killed.

As emergency vehicles rolled to the scene, Tiffany's school bus was diverted from its normal route. But the students could see flashing lights. Tiffany's friends on the bus, Cimone Black and Tamia Corpening, began to worry.

"I kept texting her phone...," Cimone said. Then she started calling, but all she got was voice mail.

The bus continued on to Hawthorne. For Tamia, the hourlong ride was excruciating.

Nobody said a word.

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

Derwood · 10-01-2009, 12:49 PM

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?

aceventura3 · 10-01-2009, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

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.

ratbastid · 10-01-2009, 01:29 PM

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

aceventura3 · 10-01-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

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.

Derwood · 10-01-2009, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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"

dippin · 10-01-2009, 02:28 PM

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?

Willravel · 10-01-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Will your son

I don't have a son.

ratbastid · 10-01-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

He knows at 12.

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!)

aceventura3 · 10-01-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

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?

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.

Halx · 10-01-2009, 03:25 PM

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.

The_Dunedan · 10-01-2009, 04:30 PM

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.

aceventura3 · 10-01-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

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

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)?

dippin · 10-01-2009, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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

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.

aceventura3 · 10-01-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

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."

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:

Quote:

►Targeting youth solely at young ages may not be sufficient.
As with the four programs in this study, most Title V, Section 510 abstinence education
programs were implemented in upper elementary and middle schools. In addition, most
Title V, Section 510 programs are completed before youth enter high school, when rates of sexual activity increase and many teens are either contemplating or having sex. Findings from this study provide no evidence that abstinence programs implemented in upper elementary and middle schools are effective in reducing the rate of teen sexual activity. However, the findings provide no information on the effects programs might have if they were implemented for high school youth or began at earlier ages but continued to serve youth through high school.

I am looking forward to reading more.

dippin · 10-01-2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

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.

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."

The_Dunedan · 10-01-2009, 05:35 PM

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.

dippin · 10-01-2009, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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."

aceventura3 · 10-02-2009, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

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

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

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 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:

Quote:

Pledgers and matched nonpledgers did not differ in premarital sex, sexually transmitted diseases, and anal and oral sex variables.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

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."

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.

Quote:

Authors' conclusions

Evidence does not indicate that abstinence-only interventions effectively decrease or exacerbate HIV risk among participants in high-income countries; trials suggest that the programs are ineffective, but generalizability may be limited to US youth. Should funding continue, additional resources could support rigorous evaluations with behavioral or biological outcomes. More trials comparing abstinence-only and abstinence-plus interventions are needed.

rahl · 10-02-2009, 07:36 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 10-02-2009, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

Ace, at what age do you think AO teaching should begin?

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.

Quote:

At what age do you think it would work?

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.

Quote:

You are unhappy with the finidngs in this study so you are seeking to discredit it.

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.

Quote:

But try as you might, the conclusions in this study confirm that AO fails to keep kids both informed and safe.

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.

Quote:

Virginity pledges are meaningless because teens are going to have sex.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Cimarron29414 · 10-02-2009, 08:23 AM

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."

rahl · 10-02-2009, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

All that sounds great, but the fact remains that biologically teens have a super high sex drive. No amount of telling them not to have sex has ever or will ever deter them.

---------- Post added at 12:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 PM ----------

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 don't know if you have ever met a teenager, but trying to be aggressive and cram things down their throats is what makes them rebel.

---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 PM ----------

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 can't understand how you can want to modify a completely and provably ineffectual concept. AO does not achieve it's intended goal, you can't modify failure.

---------- Post added at 12:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 PM ----------

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.

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

Cimarron29414 · 10-02-2009, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

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.

dippin · 10-02-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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".

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.

Quote:

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:

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

Quote:

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.

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.

aceventura3 · 10-05-2009, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

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.

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.

Cimarron29414 · 10-05-2009, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

It is interesting that 70% of teenage boys said they used a condom but only 56% of girls said they used a condom...

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

aceventura3 · 10-05-2009, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

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 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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

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

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.

Cimarron29414 · 10-05-2009, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

Plan9 · 10-05-2009, 09:05 AM

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

aceventura3 · 10-05-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

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

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.

Cimarron29414 · 10-05-2009, 09:47 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 10-05-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

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

I'm old skool.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

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.

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.

Cimarron29414 · 10-05-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

10-01-2009, 08:46 AM	#121 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	You can't stop a kid from having sex, you can only make it safer. I saw nothing wrong. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-01-2009, 03:25 PM	#137 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	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. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-01-2009, 05:35 PM	#143 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	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. Last edited by The_Dunedan; 10-01-2009 at 05:43 PM..

10-02-2009, 07:36 AM	#146 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	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. __________________ "Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

10-02-2009, 08:23 AM	#148 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	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." __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

10-01-2009, 08:48 AM	#122 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	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.

10-01-2009, 09:04 AM	#123 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	ace, that's the most ironic post ever considering who/what you've been defending this entire thread

10-01-2009, 12:36 PM	#125 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

10-01-2009, 12:49 PM	#128 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	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?

10-01-2009, 01:29 PM	#130 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Will your son, at 15, know about the mechanics of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease?

10-01-2009, 02:28 PM	#133 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	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?

10-01-2009, 04:30 PM	#138 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	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.

10-05-2009, 09:05 AM	#156 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	ruminates over the implications of politically-correct statement "We Are Pregnant" given the divorce rate and the amount of single parents in the US __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

10-05-2009, 09:47 AM	#158 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	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. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."